Are forums unhealthy?

[Gob]

and if so why?

It goes without saying that all of us here have seen on-forum melt downs of members. Some, like Steve's change from an amiable man to a raving incoherent lunatic are somewhat spectacular. Others, like Quaddy's or Gwen's or Lo's are less dynamic, but none the less spectacular for all of that.

But is what we see a sign of their personal breakdown, or just a development of their "on-forum personality"?

We all come to forums to debate, argue, and sometimes even to share. Some friendships develop,m some unlikely alliances are made, some of us even end up wed due to membership! So are these meltdowns a result of over-involvement, of over investment, of obsession, or do they point to a more personal malaise?

Is the forum life a microcosm of social life in general, or is the online experience something different?

[Crackpot]

I come here for the free stuff!

[Joe Guy]

I have a theory about quad that i've stated before. He is a probably a nice guy in real life but exagerates everything and always tries to project that he is important and knows things that others don't.

IRL, friends & family just know him as a bullshitter and they accept him as he is since he's not really a bad guy.

But here at Plan B we call people on their BS and require substance to support statements.

People like quad aren't used to being challenged and after a while when they are forced to face the facts and eventually get a slight glimpse of their real selves, they refuse to accept it. They can only deny how pathetic they are for so long and then they ultimately lash out at everyone who has challenged them and have a public meltdown.

That's a simple explanation of something much more complicated.

Suffice it to say, there's a variation of the quad syndrome in everyone who melts down.

Every flaw in a bullshitter's, a drunk or OCD person etc is magnified when people like many in this group question them about things while they are living in denial of who & what they really are.

Only the strong and the not so serious survive.

[Gob]

Only the strong and the not so serious survive.

The latter has always seen me through!

[Sean]

People can (and often do) reinvent themselves online. The anonymity provided on forums allows the weak to be strong and aggressive and the under-achiever to have achievements. The uneducated can be highly educated (with a little help from google) and those who wish to can change their age, appearance or even gender with the click of a mouse.

The common factor amongst most of these types is that they don't realise how transparent their facades usually are.

[Gob]

Nor how easily the facade crumbles....

[Guinevere]

Sean is pretty much correct. Forums are not unhealthy, and I believe the opportunity to learn from and interact with people you might never otherwise meet is a terrific opportunity. Like many, I've made some wonderful friends through them. But the anonymity certainly attracts some unhealthy people, who either use forums as a place for reinvention, or for other means which is less than healthy (such as attacking and/or passive aggressive behavior).

[Lord Jim]

Are forums unhealthy?

Damn right they are!

I've gained 40 pounds since I started participating in them...

(There must be a causal relationship...)

[Sean]

Sean is pretty much correct.

Thank you Guin. That statement proves the point. Online I can appear to be correct occasionally whereas the opposite is true in RL. Just ask my missus...

[Gob]

I can confirm that

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think they is unhelfy. Dey promot bad langwidge and ever wurs grammer. I use to be abl to spik and rite better than what i do know. Also there is a very unhealthy attachment to being pedantic and posting long boring extracts to prove that fings ain't wot they used to b.

And wile we are on the subjic

Loca is sometimes cited as the correct plural for Locum. Although it is indeed correct, there is some debate over whether it is the only correct pluralisation. Most online dictionaries provide both Loca and Locums as acceptable terms.

You will notice that we use the plural Locums here at MediaCollege.com. This is for two reasons:

1.It appears to be acceptable English.
2.It is the pragmatic solution.

Whilst we are against most forms of language dumbing-down, we are also against unnecessary complication. Everyone knows and understands the word Locums. Most people don't know what Loca means. There is almost no chance of changing that situation significantly, no matter how hard the purists might want to. Like the failed Esperanto language, we believe reality wins over idealism. It's sad but inescapably true.

We don't believe it makes sense to promote Loca as "correct" because it creates confusion, offers no real benefit, and can't work anyway so it's pointless trying.

So?

Meade

[Gob]

I damn near wet myself!! Nice one Meade.

"We don't believe it makes sense to promote Loca as "correct" because it creates confusion, offers no real benefit, and can't work anyway so it's pointless trying."

[dgs49]

Not unhealthy, but can get stale without new blood.

[Andrew D]

People can (and often do) reinvent themselves online. The anonymity provided on forums allows the weak to be strong and aggressive and the under-achiever to have achievements. The uneducated can be highly educated (with a little help from google) and those who wish to can change their age, appearance or even gender with the click of a mouse.

True. The flipside, however, is that fora also tend to equalize disputants by eliminating the tactic of physical violence. The drunken moron who, if he disagreed with you in a bar, would simply hit you cannot do that online.

Not that the best reasoning always carries the day. Personalities, popularity, idiosyncrasies, etc. all play their roles (and far too much so). Still, online fora reduce the percentage of debates that are "won" by the person with the biggest biceps (or the most psychopathic disposition), and that is a good thing.