e-mail, snail mail
& the internet
Daniel Botkin

  Some people assume that almost all Americans have (or ought to have) e-mail. Maybe people expect me to have e-mail because of the nature of my work. My writing appears in Gates of Eden and in other publications, and there might be many people who would like to respond and/or ask me questions. Having an e-mail address would make it easier for many of these people, I know. However, that is probably the main reason I have been reluctant to get e-mail. It is hard enough finding the time to respond to all the snail mail I get.
  I do not respond to letters that are so rude and obnoxious that they do not deserve a reply, nor to letters from total strangers asking me for large sums of money or other unrealistic favors that I am not able to provide. But I do try to reply to every normal personal letter I get, even if it is just a very short note of acknowledgment. If I were to open myself up to e-mail, I am afraid I might receive more than I could respond to.
  My wife gets a magazine for conservative Christian women called Crowned With Silver. In a recent issue Marcie Hopewell writes about her experience: “I believe that the whole e-mailing system is simply a diversion that takes us away from our children and families, and causes us to have ‘virtual’ friendships rather than ‘real’ ones. It is also complicating our lives with stress and is causing us to live at a pace that no one is truly capable of keeping up with.”
  Mrs. Hopewell then describes her experience with e-mail. After getting linked up with other Christian women, she soon began receiving nearly 150 e-mails each day. As the computer took up more and more of her time and attention, her children and her home received less and less of her time and attention. She concludes her thoughts with these words: “Weighing the odds, I think the e-mail groups are a hindrance and weight to our lives. Without our knowing it, this new system causes us to become entrapped and entangled in a virtual world, not a real one. We spend hours with people who we don’t even know, and when arguments arise, they are gone forever with the click of a button, to never be heard from again.”
  I realize that not all people with e-mail get as wrapped up in it as this woman did. However, I’m afraid that is what could happen to me if I had to respond to e-mail as well as to all the snail mail and telephone calls I already get. So those who want to communicate with me will have to continue doing it the old-fashioned way. They will have to write me a real letter, put it in a real envelope with a real stamp, and take it to a real post office. Or if it cannot wait, they can phone me.
  What about the Internet? I realize the Internet can be a great way to do research. It provides quick and easy access to libraries and to countless other sources of information. However, there is one major difference between doing research on the Internet and doing research in a real library the old-fashioned way. That difference is reliability of sources. Let me explain.
  In a real library, materials are screened before being added to the library shelves. Books and periodicals in a real library usually come only from reliable, reputable publishers. Libraries do not normally carry ridiculous tabloids like the National Enquirer, Star, and Globe, for instance. The Internet is a different story. Anyone can build a website and post any information he wants, regardless of whether the information is true, exaggerated, or totally fabricated. As a result, the Internet contains some information from reliable sources and some information from sources that are no more reliable than grocery-store tabloids.
  A few years ago I wrote an article on “urban legends.” (Issue 3-3) Urban legends are far-fetched stories that are widely circulated, usually in urban areas. An urban legend is usually spread by word of mouth, and may eventually end up in print -- although the printed account never reveals the primary source, because the writer never knows where, when, or how the story originated. If a source is listed, it is not the primary source, and efforts to track down the story’s actual origin result in either a dead end or the discovery of the actual facts, which are always different from the urban legend itself. People passionately insist that the urban legend is true, but no one can produce any real evidence to substantiate the story.
  A lot of information on the Internet is like this. From time to time people send me sheets of information they have printed off someone’s website. Because the information is neatly typed up on a sharp, colorful, professional-looking website, people tend to assume the information must be true. When far-fetched stories appear on the Internet, it makes the information look more feasible than urban legends that are just passed on orally. (“They couldn’t post that information on the Internet if it weren’t true, could they?”)
  I am not suggesting that the Internet be abandoned as a research tool, nor am I saying that every source of information at a real library is 100% reliable. I am saying that people who use the Internet as a source of information need to stop being so naive and gullible. Don’t believe every far-fetched conspiracy theory you read. Check out the sources and see if the information comes from a truly reliable, reputable source or from a questionable source that offers no proof.
  When we read or hear information on the Internet (or elsewhere) that sounds rather far-fetched, we should not accept it as truth until we substantiate it by other, more reliable, sources.