Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2004 @ 1:45pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  Well, I use about 5 email accounts daily. I wonder what that makes me ?
  
  And no I am not saying I have 5 accounts. I actively use 5 everyday.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2004 @ 2:23pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  Everyone has to fight to keep religion out of the internet.
  
  Control-S saves!
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    blairkincaide, 23 Aug 2004 @ 3:05pm

    
    

    The accessible affair...

    I think the article is pointing out how accessible an affair is, even a purely emotional one, with the current state of technology and communication. It would be difficult to argue anything contrary. While multiple email addresses may grant several alter-ego options (as do IM names, mmorpg characters, etc.), it obviously does not mean everyone who has one is engaged in something illicit. But the availability of anonymous communication as well as the perception of privacy makes online affairs a much easier option to one that is physical.
    What I can't tell is if the original post was commenting on the article itself or that it originated from the Christian Science Monitor. Anyone who follows journalism recognizes that the Monitor has always been one of the best newspapers around, probably because it does not face corporate or political pressures that exist in other papers.
    It would be sad, and misinformed, if the intent was to discredit the reporting in this paper simply because of the word "Christian".
    [disclaimer: religiously unaffiliated]

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Mike (profile), 23 Aug 2004 @ 3:14pm

      
      

      Re: The accessible affair...

      I think the focus wasn't on CSM the newspaper, (which, as you note, is quote well respected) but the fact that they made it sound as if these perfectly normal activities should be "warning signs" that something was up.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Brad Brunfelt, 24 Aug 2004 @ 8:06am

      
      

      Teh original article

      I was hardly commenting on the CSM. It is an excellent resource, and I told them so in my letter to them. It simply needed to be said about the article.
      
      The word "Christian" in their name has nothing to do with it. Though, being a theologian, I often do take Christian literalists/fundamentalists to task for psuedo science and overly broad assertions about human nature (ie all people are sinful by nature)
      
      This however has nothing to do with the monitor, which keeps its integrity intact quite well thanks to a variety of reasons, including feedback to articles which do not meet the high standards that they ususally adhere to.
      
      Brad

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        blairkincaide, 24 Aug 2004 @ 12:13pm

        
        

        Re: Teh original article

        I think RJ and I basically approach this from a similar position. Technology is used to make things easier. Even the dirty things. Mike originally posted the quote: "One of the first signs of cyber-affairs, Daniels notes, is a spouse who spends excessive time on the computer. Using multiple e-mail addresses could also serve as a warning of cyber-flirting." I think we can all agree that it's fairly silly to try and note "excessive time on the computer" as being the first sign of a cyber affair. It's such a sweeping generality that fails to recognize the other elements that contribute to an affair of any kind. And many of us who use the computer excessively all the time, but are decent people with values and conscience. But you have to note who is making the statement: Diane Daniels. And who is Diane Daniels? A "former technology expert" who used google to find some posts. Not a psychologist. Not a marriage councelor. Not even an investigator. Just someone who used a search engine to find some naughty conversations some slimeball was making behind his wife's back. As to multiple email addresses, sure they could be used for filtering messages from corespondents you don't want visible. Multiple email addresses can be used for lots of things: to remain anonymous on the surface, or to filter spam, or whatever.
        
        The topic is interesting, sort of. But in this case, the depth and reporting is lacking, as Brad notes.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  ben dover, 24 Aug 2004 @ 4:15am

  
  

  reversi

  I had six email addresses. My wife had one. I spent four or five hours a day on the internet chatting and posting. She spent an hour or two a week online. She had the affair while I was busy in cyberspace. The internet is a tool like any other and people are going to do what people are going to do. The CSM could just as easily make a case that a spouse who drives more than the other is more likely to be having an affair and find enough circumstantial data to support the conclusion.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Brad Brunfelt, 24 Aug 2004 @ 7:59am

    
    

    Driving

    Precisely my point in writing in. It seems as though they didn't do their homework, as is typical for media reports on technology.
    
    

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  RJD, 24 Aug 2004 @ 7:13am

  
  

  No Subject Given

  There are a number of reasons, good, bad, and imagined for having multiple e-mail accounts. I usually associate them with someone who's a rookie on the net or badly organized and feel they need multiple addresses as a way of differentiating their mail.
  
  There's nothing inherently evil or bad about the internet or the people who use it. Those who are 'having emotional affairs' or other such activity are simply making use of technology rather than pursuing more traditional routes (thinking friendly lunches or a drink after work where you both poor your hearts out about how bad your life is at home, etc).
  
  As with all things, the internet simply a better/quicker facilitator of activities you've normally performed or would perform.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]