Ignorant Historian

Remember, this was 4 1/2 years ago!

Monday, January 30, 2006

According to Facebook:

1.3% of Southeastern Baptist reads The Bible.

I’m thinking that number is slightly off. I hope.

Monday, February 27, 2006

I think facebook is taking over the world. Don’t get me wrong, I like facebook, and it helps me keep in contact with my friends all over. Yesterday on the news there was a story about a tragedy involving two UNC students. The pictures they had of them were off their facebook profiles (properly cited). Who would have thought that facebook would have become a reliable news source?

This weekend was so relaxing! I watched movies, read, and studied a little. I still have quite a bit of studying to do for my tests tomorrow, but I’m much more in a studious mood this morning than I was even last night. Maybe I’ll continue the semester’s work after all.

Three more days of class and then it’s spring break! It’s not as exciting without Glorieta, that’s for sure. I’ll just be staying around here, working, and catching up on school work. That works for me. The real break comes the next week when Miss Dana will be here! Yay for visitors!

A post about my move is still coming.  I had intended to post it today, but I need my real camera (which is at work) to take decent pictures…phone pictures just won’t do for my fun blue room!

I have a problem.

I’m addicted to smileys (especially of the =), ;) and =P variety).

And LOLs. (which has gotten so bad that I start to think “lol”)

I need help.

I’m pretty sure that I was able to write without them at one point.  I don’t think they ever slipped into a paper during my school days.

But today I can’t seem to write a text or a blog comment without them.

Help!

Photo by ~Prescott

This holiday weekend has been a mostly unfrusterating carnival of technological mishaps for me.  Or maybe now that it’s over, I’m forgetting the frusteration I felt Saturday afternoon.

First, my headphones that I use to watch House on my laptop (I actually prefer that because it has better sound/picture than my TV) and listen to pump-it-up music on my phone stopped working.  Okay, it was still half working: the left half.  What can I say, left is better!

Then, the biggest issue happened Saturday.  While I was cleaning my room and my laptop was supposed to be minding it’s own business, it decided to get freaky on me.  It’s only 9 months old (a mere baby…okay, child), but for whatever reason no matter how many different fixes I tried, it would not get past a certain point in the start up.  Every type of system restore I attempted wouldn’t work because there was something wrong with the disc (really? hadn’t noticed) and needed to run the Scan Disc thing.  Of course, that would require it to fully start up…

I consider myself decently handy when it comes to computer things, but this was beyond my skill set…at least my old skill set.  I ended up having to reinstall Windows on my lappy and all the rest of the programs.  I’m very thankful that I didn’t really have plans this weekend, so I had time to get it back in working order!

The last technological mishap comes from Facebook.  For whatever reason, all the updates are stuck at Saturday afternoon.  Of course, that means that it’s full of “I’m so excited for the game!” and “Boomer Sooner!”  Like rubbing salt in the wound…

Seriously though, this weekend has been relaxing, with double the alone time and doing pittly things time.  I’m very thankful for these types of weekends, especially when they fall between two very busy weeks!  I hope you had a wonderful weekend as well!

Can’t stop playing with my phone!

I’ve been waiting for today for a long time.  Today’s the day when I got to switch my phone service BACK to Verizon (for those who are keeping count, this is now my 3rd switch in 4 years).

Though I’m not much of a phone talker, it’s a bit frusterating to have to stand in one place in my apartment to have a conversation, and even then it can cut out on you.  Every time I switch providers, it’s to get better service in my apartment, and then something happens within a few months, and it’s no longer the best provider for my apartment (a cell tower is taken down, a fire happens and we have to move…).

But this switch (and quite the upgrade to a better phone), has me thinking of how much phones have improved in a relatively short amount of time.  I received my first cell phone for my 19th birthday (I actually went a whole semester of college without a cell phone…that would have been weird even a couple of years later!).  That first phone was one of these (because really, what other phone was there to have?):I thought it was so cool, with my 100 minutes/month, in Kansas/Oklahoma/Missouri/Illinois only (yeah, I don’t get why those 4 states were in a  regional plan together, either).

A couple of years later, I upgraded to a flip phone, because of course that was cool.  Then to a color flip phone, and then to a flip phone with camera.

And now, I have the enV Touch, with touch screen, flash camera, and QWERTY keyboard.  (sorry, no picture, but it’s a little difficult to take a picture of a phone when the camera’s IN the phone!) These were three things that would have seemed so crazy back in 2001 when I got that first phone.  Makes me wonder what phones will look like in another 8 years!

What futuristic features would you like to see phones have?

How about Two-Post Tuesday?  I didn’t think that the earlier one was much of a post, so here’s another one!  Don’t forget to scroll down and leave a word in the comment on that last post.

I Google–as I’m sure you all do, too–a lot.  I decided it would be interesting to keep track of everything I’ve googled for a week.  The title of this post has no meaning, other than it is what I decided this post should be called in the wee hours of the morning.  Just goes to show one should not entitle blogs in the wee hours.

Anyway, here’s what I googled last week:

On Monday:

June 20005 – Great, start the week with a typo.  Did you know the zip code 20005 is in DC?

June 2005 – Got it right this time.  I was trying to figure out what day I moved to North Carolina.

inconsiderate – Checking my spelling.

[something for work] – Yep, it comes in handy for work.

father’s day 2009 – Making sure I really did have a week before I needed to get the cards in the mail.

plural of summons – My boss asked me; I asked Google.

irregardless – Curiousity got the best of me after a comment discussion about grammar.  Looks like it actually might end up being one of those words that was born out of a mistake, but will now be okay.  Irregardless, I’ll choose not to use it’s redudancy.  (Sorry, OneMom!)

bing-a-thon – Saw people talking about it on Twitter to I had to figure out what it was.  Interesting advertising strategy. (funny, I used Google to find out about it’s competitor!)

the secret message of Jesus – I think I was making sure that the author was “Brian” not “Bryan.”

On Tuesday:

links in twitter – Trying to figure out how best to put links in Twitter.

arsenic – Haha!  I think I was talking about it in a comment on another’s blog?

[person] – Yep, I googled someone.

ronnlynn xanga – Continuing my quest to figure out when I moved to North Carolina, I had to resort to my pre-blog history.  It worked!

define: jovial – I frequently google a word to make sure I’m using it correctly.

forsake father and mother – I was actually looking for a verse as it related to Pilgrim’s Progress, but it didn’t contain these words so it made it difficult to fine.  Finally figured out that this was the passage I was thinking of.

On Wednesday:

[person] – Googled another person.  What did they do before the Internet when they wanted to find out about someone?  Ask the town gossip?

chortle – Checking the spelling.  I use some strange words in comments, don’t I?

locale – Ditto.

dill cream cheese crousant dip  – Umm, that’s not how you spell it.

dill cream cheese croissant dip  – That’s better.  Too bad I was looking for crescent not croissant.

On Thursday:

define: bungle  – Once again with the comment vocabulary!

i’m a celebrity get me out of her  – Another misspelled google, no wonder I see so many in my stats…we’re all lazy!  I had to find out what this show was about to see if it was as ridiculous as it sounded.  Yep.

On Friday:

follow friday – Once again, saw it on Twitter and had to check it out.  I guess it’s a weekly thing, but this was my first Friday on Twitter!

define: disparage – Checking spelling again.

make me want to schoop – Okay, it’s “shoop.”  Heard it on the radio this morning, and I had to figure out what year it came out, because it definitely reminded me of my childhood. 1993.  I was 10.

$5 pizza  – Trying to figure out which places offer ‘em to bring to care group that night.

pizza hut coupon code - Decided to go with Pizza Hut instead, as it’s good quality (well, for this type of pizza) and on the way. Didn’t need to do this though, because they actually give you their coupon codes on their website, which was very kind.  Gotta love ordering a pizza hours ahead of time.

define: self-absorbed – Crack this up to pre-lunch brain spasm.  I know what that means.

So what do you google?

Perhaps you’ve noticed it already (if you’re not reading this in a feed reader), but I totally jumped on the bandwagon and added Twitter.  I’m not much of a follower…if I’m a part of a trend, it’s often because I was doing it already or because the trend just happened to coincide with what I wanted to do.

It’s not like I really need another electronic distraction.  I spend my day in front of computers, I certainly don’t want to spend my nights in front of them, too.  But Twitter’s something that intrigued me.  I couldn’t figure out what the benefit was…I had blogging and Facebook, isn’t that enough?

Still, there’s been some days that I’ve wanted to blog something small that happened to me throughout the day.  These little things aren’t important after the fact (which probably means they’re not important at all), and because I usually post my blogs first thing in the day, they don’t get blogged.

So, I’m doing the tweet thing simply to allow you all the chance to see the little day-to-day things.  If you could not care less, I don’t blame ya.

If you’re a tweeter, I’d love your advice…what’s something that I as a novice should know?  Any rookie mistakes to be avoided?  And if you wish, my Twitter feed ID is ronnicaih.

This is the continuation from Friday and Saturday and concludes my paper on interactive virtual worlds. While I only address virtual worlds, there is some thoughts here that should also be considered when blogging.

Morality of Interactive Virtual Worlds: Part 3

Essential community qualities such as trust and care are hard to demonstrate in these cold online environments.[i] By feeling like he is received in a community online, the virtual world participant is less likely to seek out true community where he can receive the Gospel, biblical instruction, correction, and encouragement. In fact, “[t]he Internet is isolating because it subtly convinces people that fellowship and community can be had with only as much commitment as a click of the button.”[ii] It is simple to “connect” with another individual and even easier to disengage from them, as there is no commitment required or expected.

Once someone is in the mindset that they must have a keyboard or mouse in hand peering into the monitor in order to truly connect, they close the door to real-life relationships, stripping them of meaning. This causes “atomism”[iii] as people who seek to connect are truly pulled apart from the real community around them. Those who find it hard to connect to people in real life can cease trying, because they can now interact with others without having to truly interface with them.[iv] The community is truly virtual because it does not actually exist.

As a Christian, true biblical fellowship may possibly use electronic means from time to time, but this cannot be its primary form. A believer is responsible to connect with a local body of believers who are aware of their true selves and active in their real lives. If a Christian chooses to take part in an online virtual world, they must understand that it in no way fulfills their obligation to obey the Scripture which says not to forsake the assembling together of believers for the purpose of encouragement and accountability.[v] The believer is responsible to gather with the body of Christ in reality unless providentially hindered. It is through this physical cooperation and community of believers that is a strong witness to the unbelievers with whom they come in contact.

One true danger of all online activity is the overwhelming presence of sin. Through the Internet, temptation can truly enter the deepest recesses of one’s home in full privacy. This is certainly a problem with interactive virtual worlds. Not only are there virtual worlds devoted entirely to adult pursuits, there are many “neighborhoods” in general purpose virtual worlds where the vilest of sins occur virtually. Even the average user is expected to use their avatar to have virtual sex with others. It is hard to reconcile the biblical mandate to flee immorality with logging onto a virtual world where temptation is lurking.[vi] The temptation is such a part of the virtual world that it cannot be avoided except by avoiding the virtual world altogether.

Communication online “seems to disinhibit people.”[vii] Even believers are more likely to act unbecomingly and in sinful ways when interacting with people online than when interacting face-to-face. The mere fact that his true identity is unknown acts as a mask from behind which the virtual world user may dare to participate in activities from which he would absolutely refrain in real life. These illicit and sinful interactions are also taking place with real life people behind these avatars whose identities are also unknown, who could be someone of either sex, a relative, a fellow Christian, or even a child or teenager. If a Christian chooses to participate in an online world, they must do so spiritually equipped to withstand the onslaught of temptation, which few are likely to be.

Another issue to consider when making a decision about participating in an online community is the use of one’s time. It is hard to limit use of an online world because fully enjoying it requires one to spend lengthy time building relationships and earning credits.[viii] While it is certainly possible to be a poor steward of one’s time offline, it is hard to imagine time spent in an online world as having any true value except for entertainment. The design of online worlds seems to encourage individuals to spend hours a day on the site in order to be a truly active citizen of the virtual community, replacing whatever time would have been used in building and maintaining relationship with family, friends, coworkers, fellow church members, and even the Lord.

The amount of time required encourages one to become addicted to the game and unable to function properly in real-life responsibilities because they are tied down to virtual ones. It is easy to become addicted to this type of relational technology and make it an idol, “a false god which does not save, but becomes a slave master.”[ix] Christians must avoid making anything master of their lives except their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.[x]

While the Christian should not embrace virtual worlds simply because they are new, they should neither reject it for that reason. As a Christian considers all these areas of participating in the interactive virtual communities such as transcendence, identity, community, temptation, and time management, they will see that it is in almost all cases not wise to enter at all. With the attractive undertones of godlikeness and transcendence as well as the presence and glorification of temptation of all sorts, virtual worlds would best be avoided. While there are times when entering in a situation of known temptation could be justified in order to witness to the lost, it seems unlikely that a Christian would be able to deliver the gospel incarnationally in a means without a real presence. A game-like atmosphere is not conducive for heart-to-heart discussions of the important things in life.

Neither can a believer adequately use this form of technology to interact with other believers in a meaningful way. Instead, the Christian who desires holiness should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of participating in such an online community and more than likely determine it to be unhelpful and probably detrimental to their Christian walk.

Parents also need to be aware of the appeal of such virtual worlds to their children and teenagers and should proceed with much caution before allowing their children to participate even in child-level virtual worlds such as Neopets or even the seemingly innocent Webkinz. The church must seek to provide a viable alternative to the virtual world and provide the real means of communion with one another as well as true satisfaction in a relationship with the Creator that many who seek virtual worlds truly crave.[xi] By participating in a virtual world, the Christian sets themselves up for temptation, possible addiction, and the limiting of communion with God and others.

———————————————————————————————-

[i] Berger, “Cybergnosticism,” 342.

[ii] Griswald, “Hype,” 9.

[iii] Ward, Cities, 249.

[iv] Turkle, “Hear.”

[v] Hebrews 10:24-25.

[vi] 1 Corinthians 10:14, 1 Timothy 6:11, and 2 Timothy 2:22.

[vii] Rheingold, “Communities,” 119.

[viii] Turkle, Life, 183-184.

[ix] Adeney, “Dark Side,” 21.

[x] 1 Corinthians 6:12.

[xi] Griswald, “Hype,” 9.

This is the continuation of the paper from yesterday on virtual worlds. I will wrap it up tomorrow with a discussion of community and temptation as they relate to these interactive worlds.

Morality of Interactive Virtual Worlds: Part 2

One desire that is driving the creation and use of virtual worlds is the individual’s desire to be like God, rejecting the appropriate place of man in reference to his Creator. In the virtual world, the user can create according to his desires and be exactly who he wants to be. This allows for the complete rejection of who God has made them to be and helps him to be his own god. This is seen as the advantage that the virtual world has over the real world, one can both imitate the real and overcome it by being free of limitations.[i] The freedom perceived convinces the user that his desires of control in real life are valid and should be pursued.[ii] However, even virtual reality can only feel real when it is like real life, confirming the original creation and order of the world.[iii]

Through participating in an online virtual world, a person can feel like he is transcendent. Of course, there is no actual transcendence in virtual reality, but the perception of control over one’s world is certainly there.[iv] The user is no longer bound by the limits of time or space, but can act outside of these universal human limitations which is what gives the user a perception of the godlike ability of transcendence.[v] In the virtual world, a “ ‘disembodied presence’ is not just possible, it is even desirable.”[vi]

The Gnostic idea of removal of the soul from the fleshly dwelling is clearly manifested in a virtual world where no avatar has a true body. This ideal is a problem for the believer because Christ Himself took on flesh.[vii] The believer should not quickly reject the flesh and most certainly should not perceive the created body as an evil to escape. In virtual reality the material and the actual are completely done away with and replaced with the immaterial and the imagined. Escaping the physical body and living in the virtually resurrected fleshless body is an attractive characteristic of the virtual world, but it is only attractive in the sense that it appeals to man’s desire to be like God and not giving proper glory to God.[viii]

Another issue that must be considered when evaluating the morality of interactive virtual worlds from a Christian perspective is the idea of gender. Players in these online communities can choose whichever gender they desire, and in some worlds can choose to be gender neutral or even of another species. On the original MUD, Habitat, there were four male users to every one woman, but the gender ration of online personalities was only three male users to every one female.[ix] Clearly, gender crossing is a common feature of these online communities. The Bible tells us that God made humans male and female; it is not something one can choose.[x] However, some virtual reality players claim that by playing several characters of different personalities and genders, they can feel out who they are themselves.[xi]

This is further complicated when considering that an online community member is not merely choosing whether or not to choose their real-life gender in virtual reality, they are interacting with individuals online that may or may not be of the gender that they present themselves to be. Having romantic relationships between avatars stirs the pot even further. These sexual encounters are not only sinful, they can be perverse as well. Though some argue that one’s avatar is distinct from the individual which controls it,[xii] that individual still considers that avatar to be them in this online world. The user is vicariously doing the activities that his avatar is exhibiting.

Being able to choose one’s own identity online is usually seen as a positive. David Berger thinks that the fact that one can easily “become” somebody on the Internet should serve as a warning.[xiii] Those that are interacting with one another know nothing truly about the person behind the other’s avatar and may spend considerable time with someone that they would not in real life, for better or for worse. In virtual communities, participants can be truly blind to individual differences and cannot be guided by their real-life prejudices. Every interaction is taking place from behind “masks.”[xiv]

This makes it possible for a child or teenager to have close, though virtual, interactions with a pedophile, or a woman becoming virtually involved with a convicted rapist. This new type of community is believed to provide “the answer to the theorist’s search for a less exclusionary or repressive experience of community.”[xv] It is unlikely, however, that someone who has felt rejected by real life society for whatever reason will now feel good about being included in the community since it would be obvious the difference rests in the disguise of the characteristic prejudiced against rather than the welcoming of it.

It is this ambiguity of true identity online that makes real community unlikely and at best forced and superficial. Most users, however, do view the online virtual community as a true community, even if it is different than face-to-face interactions.[xvi] Through the virtual world, one user can impact another, therefore community is felt. Howard Rheingold believes that this is a true community because like others it “is also a collection of people who adhere to a certain (loose) social contract and who share certain (eclectic) interests.”[xvii] There is believed to be some benefit from connecting with strangers online who share your passions and ideas rather than hopelessly trying to connect with those around you with whom you cannot relate as well.[xviii]

However, the ability to choose to exit at anytime with no consequence and the possibility of presenting oneself as someone entirely different than one’s real life persona makes whatever connection made tentative and fragile. Not knowing the individual behind the avatar severely limits the possibility for any true heart-to-heart connection. By allowing members of the online community to enter and exit at will, the so-called community “erodes trust, and renders impossible the collective building of a shared history and a shared set of ideals” that are necessary in a true community.[xix]

———————————————————————————————-

[i] Cooper, “Plenitude,” 100.

[ii] Kugel, “House.”

[iii] Terry J. Wright, “Confusing the Issue” Theology 104, no. 820 (2001), 261.

[iv] Graham Ward, Cities of God (New York: Routledge, 2000), 250.

[v] Rubina Ramji, “Building Community Word by Word: Religion in the Virtual World,” in God in the Details: American Religion in Popular Culture, ed. Erick Michael Mazur and Kate McCarthy (New York: Routledge, 2001), 267.

[vi] Barry E. Bryant, “Trinity, Technology and the Meaning of Personhood,” Memphis Theological Seminary Journal 38 (2002), 13.

[vii] Berger, “Cybergnosticism,” 341-344.

[viii] Ward, Cities, 251.

[ix] Turkle, Life, 212.

[x] Genesis 1:27.

[xi] Turkle, Life, 185.

[xii] Kugel, “House.”

[xiii] Berger, “Cybergnosticism,” 342.

[xiv] Howard Rheingold, “Virtual Communities,” in The Community of the Future, ed. Frances Hesselbein, et al (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998), 117-120.

[xv] Michelle Willson, “Community in the Abstract: a Political and Ethical Dilemma?” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace, ed. David Holmes (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997), 145.

[xvi] Ramji, “Community,” 278.

[xvii] Rheingold, “Communities,” 116-118.

[xviii] Berger, “Cybergnosticism,” 341.

[xix] Daniel M. Griswald, “Beyond the Hype: the Internet and the Church” Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2003): 9.

Today I’ll be starting a short series of posts on the ethics of interactive virtual worlds. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, google “Second Life,” which is the largest interactive virtual world right now. Or, you can just read my introduction below.

This is my paper that I wrote for my Christian ethics class this semester. I have only edited slightly to make it more readable on a blog. You’ll notice my writing is a lot more formal than in the blog world, so sorry about that.

The Morality of Interactive Virtual Worlds, Part 1

Today’s technological landscape is radically different than that of the beginning of the twenty-first century only seven years ago. The rapid pace of technological advance is unlikely to slow down in this era. Technological innovations have impacted every area of American society and often happen at a faster rate than those in the church can keep up with.

While most of these advances can be seen as great benefits to entertainment and the ease of daily life, none should be fully embraced without considering the consequences. One type of popular technology that has had a growing impact on the American public is the usage of virtual worlds to connect with one another online in a format entirely unfamiliar to anyone prior to the computer age.

Any Christian should consider the moral implications of virtual worlds prior to logging on to such an online community. Such Biblical principles such as the nature of God and man, appropriate gender roles, fleeing temptation, participating in community with other believers, and being a steward of one’s time apply to the morality of the use of interactive virtual worlds.

Today’s generation often views technology simply as tools to live by, necessary to maintain a lifestyle that is in keeping with those around them. Many desire the latest piece of technology simply because it is new or because they believe that it will make life easier or more enjoyable. The use of technology is just one reflection of how the new is desired simply because of its newness, and the old is rejected as out of date and thus irrelevant.[i]

It is important to remember that different types of technology are not of equal value. Technology is not a tool that can be used for good or bad,[ii] sometimes its immoral purpose is so wrapped up in it that it cannot be used in appropriate ways. However, current society views all technology as progress, which is identified as inherently good.[iii] Just because technology could be bad and can be used for evil purposes does not mean that we should reject it wholesale. Each individual kind of technological use should be examined on its own merits. Here I will examine interactive virtual worlds and the morality of participating in one.

Virtual reality games are “computer-generated systems which use cyberspace to simulate various aspects of interactive space.”[iv] The users of virtual worlds participate by using an avatar, a representation of themselves or the character they are playing in the online community. Virtual reality is said to especially draw on the postmodern ideas such as “the desire for mastery through which the subject is the absolute point of reference for, and creator of, its own experiences,” which allows for the expression of the person’s fears.[v] Interactive virtual worlds allow users to become a part of an entirely new community made up of idealistic representations of people from all over the world.

Virtual worlds are not entirely new to the twenty-first century. Early interactive communities were known as Multi-User Dungeons or MUDs, named after the popular role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons.[vi] In 1986 Lucasfilm and Quantum Computer Services created Habitat, a large “electronic communal space” at the time entirely unheard of, having 20,000 users at its heyday.[vii] This was a system that used primitive graphics and computer connections to allow users to interact with one another with their chosen avatars.

Even in this early virtual world, natural laws such as hunger, death, and disease were being overcome virtually allowing for supposed “ideal” conditions. Even with these threats relieved, Habitat suffered from crime such as stolen virtual items, virtual rape, and even virtual murder. The prevalence of these crimes and the refusal of the programmers to intervene and to prevent the possibility of crime lead to a grassroots movement to have sheriffs that enforced new rules.[viii] As technology continued to evolve, Habitat worked itself into obsoleteness, but was followed by several more generations of virtual worlds.

Today’s virtual worlds are far more sophisticated than the early MUDs, using 3-D graphics and real voice transmission in many cases. Virtual land can be bought and built to suit any purpose and users’ virtual likeness, their avatar, can be created and dressed as the user sees fit, regardless of who they are in real life. Virtual worlds today are also more accessible and attractive to the general population because they do not require computer programming skills, fast access to the Internet is more available, and the new interfaces are visually pleasing. According to Sherry Turkle, in this day “it is easier for people without technical expertise to blend their real and virtual lives.”[ix]

The most popular online virtual community today is Second Life, which records 8.6 million accounts have been made as of August 2007 with 1.6 million of them being active in the two months prior. The number of actual users is unknown because an individual can have more than one account, but Second Life also reports that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 users online at any given time.[x] Users of Second Life and other online virtual worlds can do anything they can do in real life: work, marry, make friends, and have sexual encounters as well as things they cannot do in reality such as fly, teleport, and create or recreate their own physical appearance instantaneously.

Tomorrow I will start to talk about the issues that should be considered when determining whether or not virtual worlds are moral or not.
——————————————————————————————–
[i] Lenore Yarger, “A Choosing People: Reclaiming Control over the Technologies in Our Lives,” The Other Side 33, no. 3 (1997): 23.

[ii] Bernard T. Adeney, “The Dark Side of Technology,” Transformation 11, no. 2 (1994): 21.

[iii] David O. Berger, “Cybergnosticism: Or, Who Needs a Body Anyway?” Concordia Journal 25 (1999): 344.

[iv] Cathryn Vasseleu, “Virtual Bodies/Virtual Worlds,” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace, ed. David Holmes (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997), 46.

[v] Simon Cooper, “Plenitude and Alienation: the Subject of Virtual Reality,” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace, ed. David Holmes (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997), 93.

[vi] Sherry Turkle, Life on Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (New York: Simon and Schuster: 1995), 180.

[vii] Michael J. Ostwald, “Virtual Urban Futures,” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace, ed. David Holmes (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997), 138-141.

[viii] Ostwald, “Futures,” 138-141.

[ix] Sherry Turkle, “Can You Hear Me Now?” Forbes, May 7, 2007. Forbes Online, http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0507/176.html (accessed November 14, 2007).

[x] Seth Kugel, “A House That’s Just Unreal,” New York Times, August 9, 2007. New York Times Online, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/garden/09second.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (accessed November 14, 2007).