We are living in a high-tech world that allows us to communicate globally with the touch of a button. Our behavior is rapidly changing as our means of communication changes is these times of technological advances. In her book E-Writing, Dianna Booher acknowledges that more people are writing in the 21^st century, then during any previous period in history (p.1). The reason for this is due to the technological advances in the written communication process.

If we follow history, we will see that people tend to use the means of communication that is the easiest and quickest to use. When Alexander Bell introduced the telephone in the 1800's it quickly became the foremost means of communication. Some people thought the telephone would never be adapted into everyday life because of the telegram, while others thought it would totally take over the telegram. Of course, neither of these became totally true, though the phone did take over as the leading means of long distance communication. The telegram still exists in today's highly technological society; it just serves a different purpose then it did before the phone.

Today the phone is not our only means of rapid long distant communication. In the nineteen-eighties a new form of communication was formed using phone lines as its source of delivery. This great new form of communication is what is known today as the internet. Just like the phone didn't have caller id when Alexander Bell introduced it, the internet wasn't as sophisticated as it is today. We have developed emails that are practically instantaneous. There is a whole new jargon due to the internet that includes not only abbreviations, but symbols and images. This whole new language is emerging due to the technological advances of written communication.

Today it is even argued as to whether emails and chats should be considered a genre of writing, or if they are their own form of communication altogether. The internet has become a monstrous conglomeration of virtual information. One of the earliest forms of this virtual experience is what is known as newsgroups. Instant messages and chat groups evolved out of newsgroups...but like the telegram, newsgroups still exist for their specific purpose. They (newsgroups) are a place to find common interest among a group of internet surfers. Each newsgroup is like a community in itself. Just as instant messages have formed their own language, newsgroups form their own identity, and thus their own language. Even though these newsgroups are divided according to topic, their identity is solely dependent on the members of the group. A newsgroup about cars could talk about nothing but cars, or they could talk about anything but cars (maybe this is how chat groups were formed).

Newsgroups are complex infrastructures of technology. To understand these newsgroups is to understand the foundations of this emerging form of communication known as "the internet." While the response rate of these earlier forms of virtual communication aren't as rapid as todays chat rooms, they give us the understanding of the thought pattern used in this form of communication. Maybe with this understanding we will be able to answer the question as to whether virtual communication is merely a genre of written communication, or if it is an entirely new form of communication.

In an attempt to understand this backbone of the internet, and hopefully begin to formulate an answer to my questions of communication, I investigated a newsgroup for two months. I choose google's newsgroup rec.outdoors.camping for a couple of reasons: the most obvious is that it's something I'm interested in. I just began camping and figured that combining research with personal interest would make sure that I would be able to follow the group for two months. Viewing other newsgroups has made me realize how risky of an assumption I took believing that because its name inferred to camping doesn't ensure that's what will be discussed. Just as can happen when talking to friends, people can either stay on the topic chosen, or they can stray far from it. Luckily for me, rec.outdoors.camping is pretty good at staying on topic, which makes me believe this newsgroup adheres to the norms or writing, rather then those of verbal communication. In written communication it is almost taboo to stray too far from the original intent of the created document. For example, when someone writes a letter to their grandmother, they will most likely talk about the things that have been happening around them. As one writes this letter to their grandmother, it is almost a certainty that the person won't begin to talk about politics. In a reflective essay, a person isn't likely to start stating facts supporting the ability of one car to outperform another car. In writing we have been taught to stay on task; if we stray from the original task, it shouldn't be so far that it isn't easily brought back to the front of the conversation.

In verbal communication we take a lot more risks. It isn't uncommon to start a class on grammar and end in talking about the war in Iraq. It is actually, probably, more common to stray from the original topic (at least is some measurable amount) then it is to stay on topic during an entire conversation. The written conversation in rec.outdoors.camping could lead to the group straying from the topic, but this doesn't appear to be the norm for this group. The nonspoken rules of membership seem to keep the group conversing about camping, which is to my benefit since I wanted to learn about camping. Thus far, my plan to learn about a hobby and conduct research for my english class appears to be a success.

The second reason for joining rec.outdoors.camping is because the group is rather intimate compared to some of the newsgroups out there. Some days there are a dozen messages posted on the newsgroup, others there are only a couple. During the time I observed the group, there were never over twenty messages posted on any given day. The low number of postings may be due to the nature of the newsgroup.

Before I continue, I feel that I should explain this idea of posting in more detail. Sure, in our technology savvy society, many readers probably already understand what is meant by posting; this is for those of you whom are either to advance to understand newsgroups, or too archaic in their understanding may need a more formal analysis in this matter. Newsgroups (and other forms of communication) can be described in the SMCR model. Postings are the form of communicating in newsgroups. Just like sending an email or letter to a person, postings are the Channel in which the Receiver gets the Message. The Sender (person doing the writing) can post a message in one of two ways: they can create a new message, or they can respond to a message already posted. If a person responds to a message, they are adding to a thread of messages. No matter when a message is posted, it is attached to its particular thread.

If you post a message to a question a year later, your message will be displayed on the current days posting, and the subsequent messages will connected to it. This tactic allows viewers the ability to read all the messages related to a certain posting without scrolling to the date the related messages were posted. This style of communication, whether it be a writing style or genre, is helpful in the rec.outdoors.camping newsgroup. Larger, more popular groups, might get instant responses to their questions.

In rec.outdoors.camping it is feasible that a response could days or even weeks. Without reference to the corresponding messages, the meaning of the current message could easily become confusing. Take the following message for example, "Where do you find these place, I just moved out here from California and don't know where anything is" (GSHATTERHAND, 3-24-03). It is pretty obvious that GSHATTERHAND has just moved to a new place; what we don't know is where and what he wants to find there. By scrolling through the thread of message I find out that GSHATTERHAND has moved to Ohio and is looking for a rafting site that was being discussed in this thread of messages.

Relying on threads of messages is one aspect of newsgroups that make them different from other forms of writing. In traditional letter writing a person usually references the question they are answering, or the source being questioned. You would never get a letter from your grandmother and read half-way through it the sentence "what did you mean by that," without any reference as to what the "that" is. Those sort of references do happen in newsgroups though. It is almost as the person is standing next to you discussing the matter at hand.

When I am reading the discussions on rec.outdoors.camping, I feel as if I'm listening to a conversation more then reading one. The people writing the messages seem to think that the person is actually sitting there listening to them. If you read conversations closely enough, you can even imagine the writer giving mannerisms while writing. For example when GSHATTERHAND writes about a website with information about campsites, "The site mentions '350 campsites' so I don't know if you can just camp where you want anymore but you sure could at one time"(03-24-03), he writes it just like a person would tell someone verbally. I have classified this style of writing as reality writing. This real-time writing can be better explained by reading a conversation that takes place between Peter and Gary as they both try to answer a question posted by Josh. Josh asks the question, "Hey anyone out there ever been to glacier. I am thinking about planning a trip and was wondering if anyone has any suggestions" (2-23-2003). His question is simple enough, but the response he gets from Peter in Gary demonstrate how two friends would answer this question if they had some disagreement on the answer and were prodding the other into a comical debate.

Gary begins the conversation with a reasonable answer to Josh's question. Peter decides that Gary gives too much confidence in his answer to his knowing what will happen in a cold climate and rebuttals with the following statement, "Winter does pretty much whatever Mother Nature decides. We have NO vote"(2-23-03).

When I first read Peter's commit to Gary's heartfelt suggestions on surviving the glaciers, I thought it a bit crude. I thought that Peter was just a member with nothing better to say, then Gary responded to Peter's snide remark. "Absolutely true," writes Peter. "However," he rebuttals, "those of us capable can observe and make conclusions. Fortune favors the well prepared"(2-23-03). I thought this was the beginning of a war between these two campers.

It seemed that they were arguing more about who had the better logic, then about who had the right answer to Josh's question. This whole conversation may seem confusing because I had stated that the members in this group don't go off topic, and it appears that these two do. In reality these two aren't really going off topic. They are still talking about camping, just in a more conversational manner then would be done in a paper like this one. As I write this paper, I am not expecting to get a response back from anyone (except a grade from my professor). Because I am not responding, or reaching out for information from others, I don't use written mannerisms in my paper like Gary and Peter do. As I read the rest of their messages to each other, I noticed that they had to know each other before this conversation took place. They each know how the other would react to what they wrote. Peter responded to Gary's rebuttal with, "Perhaps, with a note of caution, 'Fortune steps less frequently on the well-prepare"(2-24-03).

Peter had pushed Gary into a playful argument with him that ended with them both meeting somewhere in the middle. These two didn't use any slang language that others couldn't understand. Instead these two were writing on the notion that the other would understand the tone of voice taken in their writing. There have been other disputes on the site where someone might have meant to be playfully arguing with another, but it was taken wrong. One such case is when Phil, a store owner, tried to advertise some camping equipment that nobody had really asked about. Scott Swanson took on the advertiser, telling him that rec.outdoors.camping was not a place for advertising. He said that is was alright to let someone know that you sold an item that was being asked about, but to just advertise about something that no one was interested in was wrong. Phil tried to dismiss the argument by saying that there was a question about a similar item. Scott decided to take the whole advertising world on at this point to, in his word, "let them know that newsgroups are not a place for advertising. It is disrespectful to the group as a whole when you blatantly advertise for the sake of sales"(2-24-03).

Phil had probably thought that Scott would be more understanding if he coyly supported his advertising campaign as being conversation that enticed members to talk about camping. His playful use of words didn't set well with his audience of one. These two obviously didn't know each other. They weren't able to use visual mannerisms to guide them in their conversation. If Scott had been talking to Phil face-to face, the outcome of the conversation might have been different. That is what makes participating in newsgroups such as rec.outdoors.camping so interesting. The group serves two functions. The first is that the group lets others find out about camping. In this group the camping conversations can be broken down into three different areas: the first would be classified as where to go. In this section people ask questions about different camping spots. Others respond with their experiences in the spots that were asked about. The second, I like to call "how to get things done." In this type of message people ask camping guide questions. For example John Davies poses the question of whether two people can put mummy bags together, and if so, how much can be accomplished while in them. People answered John's question with their own experiences with mummy bags, and some people even told John the best kind of mummy bags to get. This leads us to the third topic of camping, equipment. Equipment covers a wide range of discussion. Sometimes, like Phil, people just try to advertise. Most of the time though people ask about the best kind of equipment to get. Some people, who are beginners like me, ask what equipment they should take in different situations. There are all kinds of answers to each of these topics, and some of them involve heated debates among the members. In the end though, the person asking the question usually gets a pretty good answer. So this group is a good place to be if one wants to learn about camping.

The group also provides a place for like minded people to get together and begin to know one another. I wouldn't say for sure on my limited contact with the group, but I am willing to be that Peter and Gary probably didn't know one another before joining this group. The group is a place where they are able to get to know what each other likes about camping, and where they stand on certain issues pertaining to camping. The newsgroup rec.outdoors.camping is a community where people can share their stories, and get away from the rest of the world for a while.