I remember discussing this phenomenon with you about five years ago, then again, about a year and a half ago. Yep. Know it well, man.
It's why I don't MUCK or IM anymore. If I log on, I will, invariably be set upon by anywhere from five to twelve people, all (or at least most) of whom wanting enormous chunks of my time and attention, and usually also parts of my body. If I fail to show *all* of them, simultaneously, the level of attention and quality of reply they expect, then the ones who feel slighted will whine, and stamp their feet, and attack by saying "It's personal! You just don't like me as much as you like everyone else!"
People fail to realize that just because it's *technically* possible to hold fourteen isolated, interpersonal conversations at once, doesn't mean it's *logistically* possible. And though many people would deny it, and balk at the suggestion, their answer to this often amounts to 'So blow off someone else so I can have a bigger share of you.'
Offline, these sorts of social issues are much more respected. I don't hear 'you don't go to class on Saturday or Sunday, you can hang out all day on the phone with me.' Why, then, is this expected on chats? Anyone who believes that the amount of attention taken up by chats is 'negligable' is probably trying to justify chatting at work to their boss. ;P Or at least hasn't been an object of desire online.
You have to draw lines, dude. If you don't, then others, however well-meaning they may or may not be, run your life for you. I am a person, not a service. I reserve the right to set my own availability metrics. My life is lived amongst atoms, not ASCII, and in the end, my online time, my recreation on my computer, must serve an end in my life -- my own enjoyment -- or not be worth it.
Sounds like you've got too many fanboys, or as you termed it years ago, "Rancourt Syndrome."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2005-07-18 21:46 (UTC)It's why I don't MUCK or IM anymore. If I log on, I will, invariably be set upon by anywhere from five to twelve people, all (or at least most) of whom wanting enormous chunks of my time and attention, and usually also parts of my body. If I fail to show *all* of them, simultaneously, the level of attention and quality of reply they expect, then the ones who feel slighted will whine, and stamp their feet, and attack by saying "It's personal! You just don't like me as much as you like everyone else!"
People fail to realize that just because it's *technically* possible to hold fourteen isolated, interpersonal conversations at once, doesn't mean it's *logistically* possible. And though many people would deny it, and balk at the suggestion, their answer to this often amounts to 'So blow off someone else so I can have a bigger share of you.'
Offline, these sorts of social issues are much more respected. I don't hear 'you don't go to class on Saturday or Sunday, you can hang out all day on the phone with me.' Why, then, is this expected on chats? Anyone who believes that the amount of attention taken up by chats is 'negligable' is probably trying to justify chatting at work to their boss. ;P Or at least hasn't been an object of desire online.
You have to draw lines, dude. If you don't, then others, however well-meaning they may or may not be, run your life for you. I am a person, not a service. I reserve the right to set my own availability metrics. My life is lived amongst atoms, not ASCII, and in the end, my online time, my recreation on my computer, must serve an end in my life -- my own enjoyment -- or not be worth it.
Sounds like you've got too many fanboys, or as you termed it years ago, "Rancourt Syndrome."