Guilty of lurking, oh miss megaphonetic jeneane :). I was simply waiting for a gap in the pleasantly high-octane exchange in which to bloat a sense of posting bravery. As no lacunae seem forthcoming…well, I shall ramble untethered anyway.
Tom I dunno if I can concur that the web is not one-to-one and/or, somehow – as you suggest - a privation of “real” interaction. A coupla q’s (or one, in any case): what constitutes “one-to-one” discursive exchange? I remain doubtful that ‘authentic’ interactivity can ever be truly present. That one presence, or identity or whatever, can ever engage utterly and equally with another without there being some kinda obfuscation by means of power or the sheer inadequacy of a ‘representational’ language. For mine, the web – and particularly loci such as blogging or newsgroups – while it does not ‘correct’ the problem of our endlessly thwarted conversation (in which participants struggle to point to absent truths) certainly provides a graphic map of our frustrated desire to speak ‘meaningfully’. Answers or rejoinders to questions and ideas posed in the digital space are (mechanically) deferred by email, comments <script>, guestbooks, nasty moderators or good old international datelines. When ripostes come, they can contain hyperlinks, digital footnotes, to unambiguously borrow and indicate that all speakers are engaged in a colossal economy of ideas and text. Delayed answers, deferred meaning and appropriated ideas are what I’m all about in everyday conversation, in any case :).
This notion of privileging the ‘phonocentric’ and the Real at the expense of text or ‘lesser’ forms of exchange is not one with which I am comfortable.