Telex
External
Link
Internal
Link
Inventory
Cache
Lurkers
This nOde
last updated May 11th, 2004 and is permanently morphing...
(4 Ix (Jaguar) / 17 Uo - 134/260 - 12.19.11.4.14)
lurk
lurk (lûrk) verb, intransitive
lurked, lurking, lurks
1.To lie in wait, as in
ambush.
2.To move furtively; sneak.
3.To exist unobserved or
unsuspected: danger lurking around every bend.
[Middle English lurken, possibly
of Scandinavian origin.]
- lurk´ingly adverb
lurker
lurker (lur'ker) noun
A person who lurks in a
newsgroup or other online conference. Compare netizen.
Lurker
Lurker, in computer communications, an Internet
computer user who observes discussions but does not participate in them.
Lurking is recommended for newcomers ("newbies") to a newsgroup, bulletin
board, or other online group until a newcomer is familiar with the rules
and etiquette of the particular group.
lurk
lurk (lurk) verb
To receive and read articles or messages
in a newsgroup or other online conference without contributing anything to the
ongoing conversation.
"Willed introversion, in fact, is
one of the classic implements of creative genius and can be employed as a deliberate
device. It drives the psychic energies into depth and activates the lost continent
of unconscious infantile and archetypal
images. The result, of course, may be a disintegration of consciousness more
or less complete (neurosis, psychosis: the plight of spellbound Daphne);
but on the other hand, if the personality is able to absorb and integrate the
new forces,
there will be experienced an almost superhuman
degree of self-conciousness and masterful control. This is the basic principle
of the Indian disciplines of yoga. It has been the way, also, of many creative
spirits in the West. It cannot be described, quite, as an answer to any specific
call. Rather, it is a deliberate, terrific refusal to respond to anything but
the deepest, highest, richest answer to the as yet unkown demand of some waiting
void within: a kind of total strike, or rejection of the offered terms of life,
as a result of which some power of transformation carries the problem to a plane
of new magnitudes, where it is suddenly and finally resolved."
- Joseph
Campbell.
- "anonymity by imposing no
image, reveals space..." - Kathy Acker
- horror short story _The Lurking Fear_
(txt)
by HP
Lovecraft
- track _Lurker Lurker (Live)_ MP3 (96k)
by Hot Snakes
- industrial ambient
release _The Crackling Of The Anonymous_ 12"x2 by Inade on Loki-Foundation
#029
I am a lurker. the word
somehow implies something sinister, dark. I prefer to see it as:
1) not butting into anyone's
business
2) awaiting an answer to a question,
patiently,
because there are plenty of people who speak who might know what the hell they
are talking about.
I also lurk in real life.
it's usually dismissed as "shyness". it can be crippling or it can be
acceptable, depending on how you look at it. it is rarely beneficial,
until you utilize it as a skill, instead of a detriment.
.
- @Om*
May 18th, 1998 5:00pm
Lurkers Of The World, Unite?
Cybermind Mailing List
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 13:07:56
-0700
From:
Subject: Re: smaller question #1
Additional small questions with regards to 'lurking':
If I read a newspaper editorial or journal article
and don't
respond with comments to the editor, how is this
different from lurking?
If I attend a performance or a lecture and don't
respond with
questions or comments for the artist or speaker,
how is different from lurking?
If I read any hard or soft copy text, watch a
film or video,
attend any artistic performance... and don't provide feedback
(other
than polite applause) and/or discuss my interpretation
of the work with my
peers, how is this different from lurking?
Don
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 07:54:31
-0700
From:
Subject: Re: smaller question #1
>> If I read a newspaper editorial or journal
article and don't
>> respond with comments to the editor, how is
this different from lurking?
Kerry writes:
> It is tempting to say there is no difference
- but then, what shall
>distinguish the "dangers of net addiction" from
our generaltechnological
>addiction?
Kerry,
Is not "net addiction" a subset of the class you
call "general technological addiction"?
The point I was trying to make here, of
course, is that
'lurking' is an odd notion that suggests a 'mailing
list' is a special
case of a social pattern in which a subscriber
has an 'obligation' to
identify themselves to the group and at least
make occasional (or
at least one?) contribution to the group in the
way of a text, question,
or comment about another post... The technology
may make this possible
but where did this 'obligation' come from? I'm
on other mailing
lists which are controlled as one-to-many broadcast
formats only, no
obligation there, although I'm provided with the
e-mail address of the
author and am invited to provide feedback. I am
always allowed to be an
'anonymous' viewer of any hard-copy publications,
art, and any artistic
perfomances, without social obligations to provide
feedback, or share my
interpretation of a work, or challenged to perform
or publish my own works.
Don
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 11:20:14
PST
From:
Subject: Re: missed 'er!
Maybe this is one of the reasons that lurkers
remain lurkers?
If you miss a day in this environment, either
the point you
wish to make has already been made by others,
or the
thread has moved on.
(Real life can have a nasty habit of getting in
the way of reading your mail.)
It is also the reason I bolted away from the IRC
experience.
It took me so long to consider an answer and type
it up, that
members kept mentioning something about 'lag'.
I blamed the satellite delay to the UK, made my
excuses and left forever.
It's hell having the reaction time of a dead slug!!
John
> Does anyone else around here suffer from Old
Mail Syndrome?
>
> This is what happens when you're housecleaning
In-Coming, and suddenly come
> across something from four days ago that really
*grabs* you, and you want to
> respond - and then you realize that the List
has moved on.
>
> (Why didn't you reply immediately?
Perhaps because you were tired and
> cranky when you checked your mail that day.
Perhaps because you were hungry
> for a particular name, and when you found it
everything else got shoved out
> of the way.....)
>
> -r.
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 15:41:35
PST
From:
Subject: Re: Lurkers !!!
I would suggest that the main difference between
a lurker and a
voyeur, is that the subject of a voyeur's attention
is unaware of his/her
observation. A lurker on an open channel
communication forum, such as this, on the
other hand, is not only known to exist, but is
encouraged to continue to lurk
and, if possible, participate in the current (or
not so current) discussions.
I personally welcome all lurkers and mail with
their presence in
mind. Lurk as long as you like and, when
you feel comfortable with the medium
and would like to offer an opinion for consideration
by *all* observers,
come into the sunshine
and share a comfy seat in the convivial atmosphere.
My only recommendation would be that you enter
with the knowledge
and acceptance that others may disagree with your
views - and say so! If you
can accept such a proposition without taking alternative
viewpoints as personal
criticisms, you need have no fear of 'dipping
in and out' of discussions as, and when,
the inclination takes you.
If you feel that you do not wish to, I for one
will think no
worse of you. Watch and enjoy!
John
----------
> Could a lurker be seen in the same light as
a vouyer !
>
> Watching for his/her own benefit , his/her own
agenda !
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 18:57:27
PST
From:
Subject: Re: smaller question #1
For my part, I lurk on other lists because I have
not been
stimulated sufficiently to feel the inclination
to comment. I may
eventually unsubscribe, but only if I think that
there is unlikely to be
anything of further interest to me. Some
lists *are* of interest to me,
yet I cannot forsee me wanting to contribute,
as I have no experience in the
particular field of discussion, only the desire
to learn from others.
As far as I am aware, I do not lurk in any other
spheres of life.
If I am drawn to something, I like to be involved,
not just an impartial
observer. Other people may be entirely satisfied
with reading and learning,
or merely enjoying the banter. Who is to
say what the limits of
free choice should be? We all know that
this forum is observed by
more people than we are directly aware of and
we accepted this when
we joined - what's the problem?
As for making shy people less shy, I'm not sure
such an insulated
institution will change anybody's level of sociability
in real life. A
phantom personality can be discarded easily, without
loss of face
within your everyday community - no one will point
you out in
this street if you make a faux pas.
John
----------
> do those of us/them who primarily lurk online
do so also in other parts of
> our/their lives? do we/they lurk in some
places and not others? why and how do we/they
> choose? why get online if what we/they
propose to do is 'just' lurk? what does this
> say about the web making shy people less shy?
what does lurking say about
> anything?
>
>
> sedgwick
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 03:27:13
-0400
From:
Subject: lurking and posting
This subject appears to have been dichotomized
by those who have
addressed it here, so: lurking vs posting. (Apologies
if I have missed any
contrary msgs)
What about so-called "back channel" or "off-list"
messaging?
Ever since I first dived into the main channel
of this list, making a wee
splash and drowning Alan's dream
for it in the process,
my mailbox has been
blessed with communications from CM lurkers -
comments, criticism (in the
original sense of the word), questions, suggestions......
There is a
human mind behind each message (I still find this
concept utterly *amazing*,
Alan!)(may I never "grow up", here in cyberspace.....)
(btw This "back channel" confidentiality
was honoured in the
breach during _L'Affaire Reed_)
Shy folks with no aptitude for undirected small-talk
(you're
lookin' at 'er :) are able to inhale deeply here
and Hold Forth on any subject
near and/or dear to their hearts. (So, also, are
un-shy folks who prefer to
hold their peace rather than waste breath and
laryngial effort on
by-others-perceived foolish verbal pursuits.....)
There are 400 minds out there ("in here"?), more-or-less
paying
attention to what I write - to what *you* write.
Most of 'em now have sophisticated
filters
on their in-coming mail, so if they've taken a dis-fancy
to y/our "tone" they're not obliged to suffer
through the sorting
there-through.
-Rose, sorting joyful possibilities very late
this night (went to
bed twice - once with book, once without, and
figured WhatTheHell and came
out here and fired up Luke one last time tonight!)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 05:43:29
-0800
From:
Subject: Re: Lurkers !!!
a lurker once posed in his private head
this list has the sound of a noisy sled
some slip and slide, some rant and they
rave
some I'll carry to my cyber-grave
I'll write soon and that is a given
if only my words would not be so hidden
John McWilliams
----------
> From: Enok Kippersund
> To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
> Subject: Re: Lurkers !!!
> Date: Sunday, January 04, 1998 1:59 PM
>
> Dont' let this debate on the lurkers lurch.
Be aware, the lurkers could get
> the idea to leave us in the lurch.
>
>
> Enok (luving lurkers, - sometimes even felt
luved by them, and sometimes
> knowing he is lumbering them, if not lulling)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:18:36
-0800
From:
Subject: Re: Lurkers !!! Addendum
John Fisher complained that, try though he might,
he hadn't seen
anyone strip here, to which I reply:
You're not looking closely enough, then, I don't
think. I see
people strip themselves bare here w/some regularity,
have been known to
peel down my own self upon occasion.
As to lurkers, well, there they are -- each w/their
own reasons
for lurking. Me, I'm glad of them, but then
I always did like an audience.
c.
------------------------------------------
"I live ... with an uncertain
future and a
past that seeps into everything I do like
water
into stone."
-- John Dufresne
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 19:41:08
-0500
From:
Subject: Re: Lurkers !!! Addendum
One of the first striking elements that I discovered
on Cybermind was the
'nakedness' of some posts and therefore the posters.
Many continually expose
themselves here for the greater good of the group,
some never seem to say
anything remotely honest, and others lurk darkly
(as discussed).
It's a nice mix.
Disembowel your computer!
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 01:57:45
-0300
From:
Subject: shy lurker
Having spanish as the mother language
makes me a little shy, because I
don¦t want to express my ideas in a way
that will be painfull for the
reader, and I don't want to explain in each post
that I speak all day long
in spanish, and then try to write about philosophical
ideas in english. I
just enjoy reading most of the posts, and probably
one day feel safe enough
to write more in this list, that I like a lot.
Is just a kind of respect.
from uruguay, at the south of south america
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:33:30
+0900
From:
Subject: Re: smaller quest #1 add nauseum
_lurking_
it is of marginal interest to me. i do it at various
times on
various lists for various reasons, and i dare
to think that this is so with
others as well.
there are some overlapping layers here which i
believe pertain to
this idea of 'list aura' which alan has mentioned
a few times and which he
says is bound up in the fact that a lot of what
makes up this so-called
list aura, or what i might more subjectively
refer to as feeling of list
'community', or group interaction patterns, has
to do with backchannel
communication.
so that, if one merely lurks and does not even
respond to some of
the posts backchannel -thereby setting up an interpersonal
link with a
participant who does not always lurk- then
one will have a slightly
different _cut_ on what constitutes this list
aura.
any research one may want to do on list interaction
patterns will
of necessity, i believe, need be based on what
goes on _onlist_,
especially if one decides that what meets the
_observer's_ eye is wholly
textual. and, in order to limit the problems of
'observer's paradox', many
researchers will find themselves facing the dilemma
of whether to participate, and
thus sully the 'purity' of the observations through
leaving a trace of
their own preferences, needs, prejudices, blah
blah, which will then need
to be factored in when they try to account for
the quality of the
responses later...tsk tsk... a layover from a
strictly objectivist
viewpoint, and therefore easily, if not dismissed,
put aside, because it seems
that any observing one may do will be filtered
through one's subjective
apparatus anyway, so what the hell and go for
it, eh?
one does have two eyes, after all, and isn't this
pissweak
metaphor useful for noting that the reason for
that bifocaldom is the elimination
of a little parallax error?
(ie, getting us out of flatland)
 |
it was suggested to me that research on list interaction
could
only be complete, hmmm, no, well-rounded, if one
could be privy to
backchannel information;
if one could ask for and receive valid data on who
had been in contact with whom and on what basis
and for how long etc etc etc.
so, actually it seems that research on list interaction
can never
be 'complete' and leave it at that - that what
we have here is an
'open system', and that variables, node-switching
places, cuts through
the data, etc, may be noted, described, taken
into account, but that one
can never have a complete description.
recent posts have prompted me to do a little weaving.
caitlin who says 'i like having an audience',
plumps for the
lurkers, but i wonder how many backchannel responses
she has received for her
posts over the years from people who would rather
not do so onlist, for whatever reason.
rose, who, on the topic of lurking, advises that
sharing our
feelings or whatever in public, i assume she meant,
is something that she
feels valuable.
i have in the past been a recipient of one of
rose's encouraging
backchannel comments, and in another post she
alludes to having
had information _shared_ with her from other participants
(i use
'participant' to distinguish those who write regularly
onlist from those
'members' who generally just watch) which have
thrown light
on, or given
clarity to her feelings or knowledge re such _people_.
is it only my intuition, or does backchannel correspondence
with
other participants on this list make rose more
comfortable about
_sharing_ personal information on a public list?
and if we extend 'backchannel correspondence'
to cover other
offlist comunication such as f2f meetings, then
i venture to say that
this list aura, and/or other feelings of familiarity
with other
participants such that posting onlist becomes
more of a _participation_ in a
subjectively-experienced group, has much relevance
to how a list
operates on this public textual level.
laurie, claims that since participating her mode
of
communication, her written contributions and their
'flavour' have changed such that
she was more willing to 'peel back the skin',
to 'expose' herself in
public list, may have relevance also in the parallel
discussion of what some
people have been calling 'voyeurism' for want
of a better word, when applied
to concepts about lurkers.
speaking for myself, on a recent trip to the usa,
i was surprised
at how much complete strangers were willing to
explain and divulge
personal details to each other in public, and
this has something to do
with cultural differences, i suppose, as in general
i do not feel at all
comfortable revealing information of an emotional
nature to any but close
friends and family.... once, i got the idea
of calling one of my pieces of conjecture
"Mailing List as Soap Opera".
and simon, responding knowledgeably that we _do_
want to 'spoil
the data' and alluding to the homing frogs
having been removed from the
outside toilet ('outhouse' as he euphemistically
called it) several times
to places further and further distant from the
house, eventually to the
water
reservoir 2 kilometres away, only to have them come back and
reinstall themselves, points to a knowledge of
his interlocutor (me) gained
firsthand - and, in a medium which took advantage
of intonation and facial
gesture....and reminds me that this response,
in itself, was made
in response to my mentioning simon by name in
a previous
post....which, in turn springs directly from long
backchannel association 'on'
another list...
ah, the pragmatics of human communication,
which, seeing as i am human
appear particularly fascinating.
L.
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:49:04
+0000
From:
Subject: Re: Argument to lurkers.
At 11:30 05/02/98 +0200, you wrote:
>MM on "lurkers"
>
>I personally like to think of non-contributing
members of the list as
>"readers" who, at various degrees, might be amused,
interested or
>entertained by what the others have to say.
>
>I do not find anything wrong in a reader who
does not wish to
>contribute and, equally, the act of reading is
a form
>of participation, in my opinion.
>
>My message to fellow list members who happen
to be in a read-only
>mode would be: Do what you like, but if you want
to say something,
>anything, you are very welcome.
>
>MM
>
I am in read only mode because email and the net
in general has
become a real chore.. most of my interactions
these days seem to be
related to stuff i HAVE to do rather than something
I want to do.. so i've lacked
the energy to respond to anything not directly
related to work. I've found
myself starting to reply and then thinking 'to
get my point accross will
take up too much energy' so i delete the thing.
Still, in lurk mode you can keep an eye on what's
going on and
still feel somewhat connected. I maintain
this account for list traffic
only, so I usually make an espresso first thing
in the morning while getting
the daily list dump... and read them quickly while
the bath is filling. It
is a bit voyerlike but what the hell... It makes
my morning interesting
..better than watching those crap morning TV shows..I
usually start off
the day with a new thought in my head.. so cheers
CM
-z
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:57:28
-0600
From:
Subject: Re: Lurkers as an audience
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Dave Weingart wrote:
> Consider the lurker on a list as the audience
at a symphony. If
> words are unread, if music is unheard, then
they do not truly exist.
>
Except as a rehearsal, perhaps? For if one truly
wants to play at
Orchestra Hall, one must practice, practice, practice.
To be
truly effective at communicating one's ideas,
does it also follow that
we all need to practice? That without practice
we cannot grow? Should
we create null points in the net for the sole
purpose of hurling our
madness, our badness, our bald irreverent truths,
our angers, our insecure
loves, our petty hatreds? If so, what do
we call that null point? How about
calling it god?
It seems to be unanswerable to mois whether the
fact that someone
listens or reads my post may somehow change
its nature. Does a listener
have an impact on the speaker? Forget about the
visible audience, with
its hisses, boos, standing ovations, voting with
its feet, etc. What about
some dissembodied voice to which it is not easy
to attach a face, a
person, a personality? How does a non-visible
audience affect such
communications??
Amused, refused, bemused and diffused,
robert
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:37:49
-0500
From:
Subject: Lurkers as an audience
Consider the lurker on a list as the audience
at a symphony. If
words are unread, if music is unheard, then they
do not truly exist.
--
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:30:03
+0200
From:
Subject: Argument to lurkers.
MM on "lurkers"
I personally like to think of non-contributing
members of the
list as "readers" who, at various degrees, might
be amused, interested or
entertained by what the others have to say.
I do not find anything wrong in a reader who does
not wish to
contribute and, equally, the act of reading is
a form
of participation, in my opinion.
My message to fellow list members who happen to
be in a read-only
mode would be: Do what you like, but if you want
to say
something, anything, you are very welcome.
MM
A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:32:08
-0500
From:
Subject: Re: Lurkers as an audience
> It seems to be unanswerable to mois whether
the fact that someone listens
> or reads my post may somehow change its
nature. Does a listener have an
Perhaps.
When you sing along with the radio, alone in your
car, you are
likely not at all selfconcious.
Now stand on a streetcorner with a radio and sing
along with it.
> personality? How does a non-visible audience
affect such communications??
You are writing, knowing that they are there.
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK, ex KB2CWF
"Can you find the
Valium?
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:03:29
+0200
From:
Subject: Re: Argument to lurkers.
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Mary Jane Isles wrote:
>One can participate in a play without being on
the stage.
>What is a play, after all, without an audience?
READING is a vital part in written communication.
Reading is
receiving. A message is worthless if unread. All
received
communication has an effect on the person receiving
that
communication.
You don't have to reply. Long live Lurkers ...
J. Lehmus
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:25:19
+0200
From:
Subject: Re: Argument to lurkers.
On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, kerry wrote:
>If its *worth reading, then isn't a degree of
reciprocity in order?
Yes, and you must read it first to determine if
it's actually worth reading.
J. Lehmus
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 16:27:09
-0600
From:
Subject: Re: Lurkers as an audience
Bill L,
> Marcus suggested another way. She wrote about
a text opening us. Allowing
> the text to enter us. Giving ourselves to the
text, and being capable
> of conceiving something new based on the interaction.
A reciprocity
> between writer and reader, from which the reader
benefits far more
> than the writer. And the writer may not have
any knowledge of the
> conception which bears fruit much later. So
what?
"I may be wrong and you may be right,
and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth"
- Karl Popper
> The argument, of course, depends on the binary
oppositions we all
> mistrust. And it depends on restictive definitions
of masculine and
> feminine. And it also comes from the world of
deadtree publishing,
> pre-net. Still, it may have *some* usefulness
here... ;)
Marcus has cast it in those terms,
but I don't agree the
argument *depends* on such oppositions. The approach
is, in fact, alive
and doing modestly well in c-space.
kerry
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:25:27
EST
From:
Subject: Re: Are you one of the lost 217?
Hi Glory,
Whew, you can really put a lurker in the hot seat!
:-) I am
responding as of this very minute,,,,,,,I just
can't take it any more!!!!!!!!!!!
I am one of the Americans, and I assure you that
I read the Cybermind letters
quite frequently, only rarely delete them, but
- actually I am usually in awe of
the intelligence that is presented here - and
am not sure I could possibly
interest anyone with my plain old prose.
:-)
Kathy - slightly embarassed at not having responded
earlier,,,,,
<<
Whatever the reason, if you are one of the
217 subscribers in
America who haven't replied, or one of the
85 subscribers outside America
who hasn't replied, then now is your chance.
>>
TelexExternal
LinkInternal
LinkInventory
Cache
