http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/18/21360.aspxTime magazine's declaration of "you" as the person of the year comes in an interesting context given some of the news items we looked at last week. The headlines about blog numbers peaking indicate that there is a finitude to the blogosphere and it'sen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/18/21360.aspx#21368Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:32:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:21368AVI completely agree with your remarks on web incivility. As a generally civil person, I have been at times tempted to be incivil on the web (and haven't we all) because of the anonymity, but I can't bring myself to do it. It offends my civility. Trusting that most people are also generally civil, the same would apply for them. In "real" life, I don't bother with people I don't like, and it seems I ultimately do the same online. In fact, more people I interact with only online (e.g., in a message board I moderate) have told me I'm "really nice" than people I interact with in person. The lack of ability to use tone and body language causes me to write more gently than I speak (where I probably overuse sarcasm). I suspect I'm acting according to societal norms, so that would make people a tad more civil online than otherwise. However, the blanket of anonymity causes generally incivil people to feel that they can speak without genuine rebuke, so they do. The 'net is a haven for them, but I don't think the incivility we see is necessarily reflective of the internet population as a whole.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/18/21360.aspx#21412Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:59:33 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:21412Alice Ward, San Antonio, TXIt has always seemed to me that there is, in fact, a good bit of incivility in chatrooms and bulletin boards that host discussions which are likely to provoke confrontation like politics and religion and, sadly, NASCAR. However these are also subjects which provoke animated, and frequently hostile, discussions in verbal conversations. I do believe that individuals who are generally civil when confronting a hostile message may fire off an answer which, if the person had waited a bit, might never have been sent and that this does create a bit more incivility than might be happen in other settings. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/18/21360.aspx#21425Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:44:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:21425Edna Nendel, Zurich, SwitzerlandI was once a Time magazine subscriber. I buy my daily International Herald Tribune from a kiosk. I subscribe to Washington Post online. I regularly check the news on MSNBC and CNN websites. I used to send in comments to articles that moved me. Only the Herald Tribune came back with a reply when I emailed my objection to the proposed pull-out of "Peanuts" from their comics section. Am I a Time "You"? No. Time would want me and all gullible "You"s to help increase their circulation but would they be interested to read me? No. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/18/21360.aspx#24374Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:28:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:24374Sassy D, Mesa, ArizonaI don't even read the TIME mag. Kind of egotistical of them to assume I am 'you'... on the otherhand.. isn't life usually about the need to 'feel included' or 'part of' a certain group? If anyone feels 'included' and 'special' by being a TIME "you", then more power to you! :-D HYN!