Well, today is another day and I came up with the same results. I ventured onto a Christian site and came up with a new discovery. This site allowed me to set up a page for myself in which I was to answer many questions so I would be appealing to meet for others with common interests, etc.
There is an option on this page to put a picture of yourself or not. I chose not, mainly b/c I can't. What does that mean? Not one person wanted to even think about talking to me. OK, OK, one did; once. I sent messages to a few people and in return I was replied to once. I am just guesstimating that nobody wanted to talk to a person they could not see. Why? Because they cannot trust what they don't see. I sent a few more messages to the person that replied just to see if she would talk to me, but no. Either she had a plethera of guys writing her that she did not have time for me (because she was quite pretty) or she did not trust my online identity, which I kept true to myself.
I asked everyone that I talked to to look at my web page and tell me what they thought about identity, and this girl called Julie was the only one that said she would. Of course, that was the last I heard from her. Maybe she will. maybe she won't. And if you are reading this Julie, sorry for doubting you! HA! And teach., good ole' Dr. Sells, I think that is it for me! See ya next semester!

I am supposed to write on how I think personal identity blurs the public and the private. Well, personal identity is already so misconstrued on the Internet that its blurring all sorts of stuff. And blurring the public and the private is definitely one of them. I read a journal today off of a journal ring solely devoted to read head women writers. I clicked on one in particular link which brought me to the writing of this lady who wrote personal things that were not any of my business. I felt like I was going through her purse or something and finding a journal (one you can touch) and reading it. It is very confusing to why a woman might want to put her private thoughts and wishes out for all to see. Most web pages have stuff on it that the person would never come out and say on a first meeting. Why is this? It may be that the reason we feel so uninhibited on the Internet is because we feel there is no consequences. No real personal interaction. No one that we have to look at and see their facial reaction to what we divulge so openly and quickly. I am also supposed to discuss the nature of the identities constructed on line as "authentic" or "inauthentic" and "fixed" or "fluid". In my humble opinion, there is nothing on the Internet that is authentic. Everything you see is poached. My website has a Davy Jobes page that was completely taken from one website. People construct themselves in real life and on the Internet. We to create ourselves via the Net using textual and image poaching. Even our thoughts are sometimes poached. In an article by Daniel Chandler, he describes this as Bricolage (taking someone elses stuff and making it yours):


Bricolage involves more than simply the appropriation of materials: it also involves the construction of the bricoleurs identity (Lvi-Strauss ibid.; Jenkins 1992). The values of the bricoleur are reflected in the assumptions which underlie specific inclusions, allusions, omissions, adaptations and arrangements.

To add to that, the fact that it is all fluid shows the lack of genuineness and truthfulness and the inconsistency of the way people think and believe. Tell me what is fixed these days. I say that the only thing fixed and steady is the inconsistency. I might be a tad bit narrow minded from not really surfing the Net much, but from what I have seen, it is all the same. Idea after idea, text after text, business after business all taken and squished into a pretty little presentation of someones creative project. The next thing is the way CMC(computer mediated communication) disconnects identity from bodies. Well, who is what, who is where? We envision a person from the way they type on a keyboard. Words tell us one thing, but a body would tell us a whole different story. We fall in love with a computer screen or become attached to a discussion group instead of looking someone in the eyes or feeling the warmth of a group of people that care for you. It is so weird and strange and has become a whole new method of communication which is changing the way we interact---even in person. Next, the relationship between identity and community on line is very debatable. I say that it is hard to have a community that is solid because no one knows if people are showing their true identity. So, it may very well be a community, but just a un-genuine, false, and unreal community. And lastly, the question is whether or not identity online is utopian and liberatory or hyper surveillance and imprisoning. I would say that identity online is more of a liberation because you present something other than what you would in a face-to-face situation. So this gives freedom to do whatever. My final say is this---I know that I do not know a lot of things, so all this that I wrote could all be wrong. But it might be right. Or it could be a little of both. Whatever, I am going to go listen to my Monkees album!