Worlds collide

October 19, 2004 | 36 comments
By

Seinfeld fans will remember this memorable speech by George Costanza, contemplating the impending meeting of his fiancee Susan and his friend Elaine:

George: You have no idea of the magnitude of this thing. If she is allowed to infiltrate this world then George Costanza as you know him ceases to exist. You see, right now I have Relationship George. But there is also Independent George. That’s the George you know, the George you grew up with… Movie George, Coffee Shop George, Liar George, Bawdy George.
Jerry: I love that George.
George: Me too, and he’s dying. If Relationship George walks through this door, he will kill Independent George. A George divided against itself cannot stand!

Well, there’s Internet Bryce and Real-Life Bryce, and I’m pretty sure they’re different people. Will one kill off the other if they meet? We won’t know soon, since I won’t be in New York until Thanksgiving.

As I watch plans for bloggernacle parties being made in the Six Degrees of Times and Seasons thread, I wonder what effect, if any, these gatherings will have on our little community here. Here are a few of my thoughts, some serious, some not. Feel free to make your own predictions.

  • T&S becomes divided into the Utah group and the New York group, with small fringe groups in Austin and Durham (ok, 1 person is not a group). Each group has its own in-jokes, and on-line conversations soon become indecipherable without a glossary.
  • The tone of discussions becomes much more polite as people discover they can’t really get angry at the person they liked so much in person. Unfortunately, this leads to an overall decline in the quality of the debate.
  • Sacrament meeting attendance in the New York area declines dramatically as large numbers of area bloggernackers recover from their late-night revelry.
  • In a related development, the New York Times runs a small item on a police report of suspicious cult-like religious activity in Manhattan.
  • A few long-time bloggers disappear from the bloggernacle after their spouses, who were dragged to the parties, demand that they stop hanging around with “that bunch of freaks.”
  • In 2006, Times and Seasons readers participate in an online wedding reception for two yet-to-be-determined bloggernackers.
  • Everyone has a lot of fun and says “we should do this again sometime.” The groups never meet again except in cyberspace.
  • Alternate ending: everyone has a lot of fun and says “we should do this again sometime.” A weekly gathering results, and T&S dies a slow, lingering death as commenters gradually quit spending so much time online because they’re too busy with their real-life friends.

Have fun everyone! Take some pictures for us.

Tags:

36 Responses to Worlds collide

  1. danithew on October 19, 2004 at 4:30 pm

    Next prediction: Everyone who meets in New York becomes a permanent blogger at T&S.

  2. Silus Grok on October 19, 2004 at 5:16 pm

    “In a related development, the New York Times runs a small item on a police report of suspicious cult-like religious activity in Manhattan.”

    Who would notice? It’s NYC!

  3. Keith on October 19, 2004 at 5:45 pm

    Next prediction: Utah bloggers and New York bloggers decide to heal the rift and meet in a neutral spot–a place conducive to peace. Austin is suggested but nobody really wants to go to Texas. Durham comes up but the Utah bloggers reject it because it’s too hard to find your way around in England.

    In a rush of inspiration, Kaimi suggests Hawaii. Everybody agrees and buys tickets. A good time is had by all.

    Please start planning and saving.

  4. danithew on October 19, 2004 at 5:57 pm

    Don’t forget the blogger in Canada. Or is there more than one from up there?

  5. john fowles on October 19, 2004 at 5:59 pm

    T&S becomes divided into the Utah group and the New York group, with small fringe groups in Austin and Durham (ok, 1 person is not a group). Each group has its own in-jokes, and on-line conversations soon become indecipherable without a glossary.

    Your first point seems like a slippery slope, so we can discount it automatically.

    The tone of discussions becomes much more polite as people discover they can’t really get angry at the person they liked so much in person. Unfortunately, this leads to an overall decline in the quality of the debate.

    Your second point seems more plausible but I’m not sure I agree with the conclusion. It might lead to more effort at understanding, which might lead to deeper debate and more thoughtful responses, thus ameliorating some of the superficiality or “sloganeering” that occurs.

    A few long-time bloggers disappear from the bloggernacle after their spouses, who were dragged to the parties, demand that they stop hanging around with “that bunch of freaks.�

    I’m pretty sure that in the case of my wife, the exact opposite would occur: she wouldn’t be as annoyed at my continual arguing around here b/c she will know and like (and care about) the people I am spending time with here. Maybe she would even get interested in participating too!

    In 2006, Times and Seasons readers participate in an online wedding reception for two yet-to-be-determined bloggernackers.

    This is an excellent prediction. I think it could very easily happen. I predict it as a development in the NYC group (which I must admit actually seems like the true timesandseasons group–I was surprised at how many people would be in SLC to participate here). Actually, didn’t Karen already propose to D. over at BCC?

    Both of your last two points are equally possible.

  6. john fowles on October 19, 2004 at 5:59 pm

    Sorry about the italics in that last one!

  7. Karen on October 19, 2004 at 6:59 pm

    whoa whoa whoa let’s get straight who proposed to whom. D. threatened to propose…and I threatened that if he wasn’t careful I might accept! I’m a good Mormon girl–I don’t do the proposing…. :o)

  8. john fowles on October 19, 2004 at 7:21 pm

    I knew I should have checked up on that before I mentioned it! I just remembered something between the two of you. . . .

  9. Kim Siever on October 19, 2004 at 7:45 pm

    I doubt it, danithew. I have asked around and so far everyone is oblivious to any other Canadian nackers.

    I am open to revelation though.

  10. Larry on October 19, 2004 at 7:50 pm

    Kim

    How to make one feel inconsequential.

  11. john fowles on October 19, 2004 at 8:11 pm

    I thought Steve Evans was Canadian. . . is that true?

  12. Larry on October 19, 2004 at 8:22 pm

    Kim,

    In case you thought I was saying something else “I am Canadian”. It would be fun to put that soliloquay that our famous advertiser put on that became so popular, but the source might be offensive to some.

  13. Bryce I on October 19, 2004 at 8:30 pm

    Occasional poster The Only True and Living Nathan over at Tachyon City is from Prince Edward Island.

    Plus his grandpa is Santa Claus. Really. I’ve seen pictures.

  14. Chad Too on October 19, 2004 at 9:17 pm

    Interesting you bring this up, Bryce. My will-it-ever-really-get-done thesis research is on groups of people who get to know each other online before metting face-to-face and exploring the changes in the online relationship once they meet in person and then return to the online forum. I won’t say more than that in case I decide to ask for interviews from this group!

  15. danithew on October 19, 2004 at 9:30 pm

    Whoops, how did all this talk about Canadians start? Hehe. I thought we’re supposed to be predicting here.

    I predict that someday there will be an entry for “Bloggernacle” on Wikipedia.

  16. john fowles on October 19, 2004 at 9:33 pm

    How about today, Danithew (can’t you create entries or something like that)?

  17. Bryce I on October 19, 2004 at 9:33 pm

    Chad Too–

    I actually thought of you as I wrote this post. Hopefully you’ll get some good data from the bloggernacle.

  18. danithew on October 19, 2004 at 9:36 pm

    I don’t know John. :mrgreen: I was just hoping someone would look it up.

  19. Bryce I on October 19, 2004 at 9:37 pm

    Some prediction, danithew.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloggernacle

    I predict that the Red Sox will win game 5 in the 14th inning on a broken-bat David Ortiz single :)

  20. danithew on October 19, 2004 at 9:45 pm

    Bryce,

    You know as well as anyone else how the Curse is supposed to work. Bosox fans’ hopes must be raised to a fever pitch and then be dashed brutally to the ground. That means this will go to a game 7. I’m trying to figure out though where a Game 7 would occur. Maybe I should search a little longer. For ultimate Curse effect, the Red Sox would need to lose game 7 in their own stadium.

  21. Chad Too on October 19, 2004 at 9:48 pm

    Aw. shucks. I’m honored.

    Since Bryce has “semi-outed” me, I should mention that I was on the BYU Intercollegiate College Bowl with both Bryce and Jonathan. I was varsity while they went on their missions. Thanks, guys, for giving me a chance. You should know that while you were on your missions the default answer-when-you-have-no-answer went from “Mark Spitz” to “Pia Zadora.” No wonder they shut us down.

  22. Bryce I on October 19, 2004 at 9:53 pm

    Dan–

    I was commenting on the difficulty of predicting the outcome of an event that has already taken place.

    Game 7 (if necessary) is in the Bronx, as it was last year. That seemed to work pretty well for the Curse.

  23. Ashleigh on October 19, 2004 at 9:59 pm

    I predict that those in Canada, Idaho, Texas, and Mongolia will feel left out, grow in anger, split from the one and only true bloggernacle, invest all our time and energy in creating rabid anti-nacle web-sites that expose all your (infinite) flaws and weaknesses, all the while congratulating ourselves for exposing your devilish ways and basking in our own hard-won anti-nacle purity.

  24. danithew on October 19, 2004 at 10:05 pm

    Someday, according to the Old Testament Daniel’s vision, the Bloggernacle will grow to fill the entire internet. The law will go forth from jerusalem.org and the word of the Lord from zion.com.

    :mrgreen:

  25. Ethesis (Stephen M) on October 19, 2004 at 11:36 pm

    Well, my wife’s high school held their re-union in Dallas … for a high school in Brazil.

    Dallas was a lot more central and easier to get to for the expat kids.

    So, I’d suggest Dallas too.

    BTW, now that this thread has slowed down, I’ll add the obligatory off-topic remark.

    http://chronicle.com/jobs/2004/10/2004101901c.htm

  26. Kim Siever on October 19, 2004 at 11:56 pm

    Sorry, Larry. I must have overlooked your comment during the 1500 comments this week at T&S. :)

    I am glad I am not the only Canadian. Where are you located?

  27. Kim Siever on October 20, 2004 at 12:06 am

    Steve was born in Canada. When I say Canadian nacker, I am talking about a Canadian still living in Canada. I consider Steve to be one of the NYC nacker clan.

  28. Larry on October 20, 2004 at 1:13 am

    Kim

    North of you. I’m often down to Lethbridge. We ought to start a Canadian meeting.

  29. Kim Siever on October 20, 2004 at 1:22 am

    Sounds fine to me. I am rarely to Calgary (three times in six years), so perhaps down here would be good.

  30. Larry on October 20, 2004 at 9:51 pm

    Kim,

    Terrific! I will make contact with you and set something up. I’m sure you won’t be hard to find. I’m down about 15 times a year.

  31. Kim Siever on October 20, 2004 at 10:40 pm

    Cool.

    You wouldn’t happen to have a blog, eh?

  32. Larry on October 20, 2004 at 11:44 pm

    Unfortunately, no.

  33. Kim Siever on October 29, 2004 at 5:45 pm

    Would you like to come aboard mine?

  34. Larry on October 29, 2004 at 7:01 pm

    I wish I had the depth to provide valuable discourse. It has seemed like such a wasteland up here for so long that I’m afraid I’ve morphed into a glob of matter incapable of original thought. However, if you want to experiment I would be happy to join you.

  35. Mary Siever on October 29, 2004 at 10:06 pm

    Any thoughts are fine. I am not to worried about good writing as much as I am concerned about critical and thought-provoking writing. Even then, it doesn’t always have to be that way.

    Email me your email address, and I will add you.

  36. Kim Siever on October 29, 2004 at 10:06 pm

    Whoops. That should have been me.