I answered one question already.  If that did not do the trick, you
better get ahold of me before I good to bed in minutes.
Ray

---

Request for Question Clarification by xemion-ga on 24 May 2002 22:16 PDT

say what?  what's this about... 

---

Clarification of Question by callmeray-ga on 24 May 2002 23:25 PDT

Forget it, just another Canadian testing the well-oiled American
capitalist society for its leniency!
Ray 

While it's possible that somewhere, in some way, you've likely
answered a question or two. I don't know what sort of trick that has
done.

This question seems to be for your amusement. Such a thing is common
on the Internet. The unique characteristics of the Internet make
people behave in different ways. Internet Psychology is the study of
this.

http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Social/Internet_Psychology/

You are likely more willing to amuse yourself in this way because of
what's known as "The Online Disinhibition Effect". Since we don't know
you, can't see you, and so on, you aren't inhibited from the things
that would inhibit you normally in real life.

"On the positive side, the disinhibition indicates an attempt to
understand and explore oneself, to work through problems and find new
ways of being."

"Sometimes people share very personal things about themselves. They
reveal secret emotions, fears, wishes. Or they show unusual acts of
kindness and generosity."

"Of course, the online disinhibition effect is not the only factor
that determines how much people open up or act out in cyberspace. The
strength of underlying feelings, needs, and drive level has a big
influence on how people behave. Personalities also vary greatly in the
strength of defense mechanisms and tendencies towards inhibition or
expression. People with histrionic styles tend to be very open and
emotional. Compulsive people are more restrained. The online
disinhibition effect will interact with these personality variables,
in some cases resulting in a small deviation from the person's
baseline (offline) behavior, while in other cases causing dramatic
changes."

These are some interesting quotes from this site:
http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html

"histrionic - attention-seeking and seductive in flavor, dramatic,
emotional, vain; themes involving dependency"

This is from this address:
http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/psyav.html

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with having fun
online. It's a very unique place to explore ourselves and others (and,
perhaps, "the well-oiled American capitalist society"). The problem is
when that becomes too expensive.

--
Sam Kennedy

---

Request for Answer Clarification by callmeray-ga on 29 May 2002 21:19 PDT

It would seem I believed I was making a comment, not asking an
advanced searcher for an answer.  But I am new at this advanced search
beta technology, and it is fascinating.  So, I will abide by whatever
decision you wish to make in this matter.  It was a rather expensive
answer, but it won't be a mistake that is repeated.  

---

Clarification of Answer by samrolken-ga on 29 May 2002 22:06 PDT

You submitted a request for clarification. I fail to see what you need
clarified. Please clarify your clarification.  

Since samrolken-ga was given such a low rating, and may suffer
becauuse of it, I will offer to change my rating.  In fact, the answer
was of such quality, that I will give him the top rating, if that is
allowed.  In return, would samrolken-ga be willing to accept a lower
payment, of his choosing?  And given the fact this was a
misunderstanding in my part, apologize abjectly for rating him so
lowly.  When in fact, the answer given is quite creative and useful.

If this really is a genuine error by the questioner it is to be hoped
that the answerer will not insist on his pound of flesh...

callmeray would have to request a refund; samrolken can only provide
him at best the following information:
---
Refunds may be requested at:
https://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=refundrequest

Your question ID is 17947.
---
I do not believe that if samrolken had passed up on this question,
someone else would not have taken it; hence I cannot truly blame him
for grabbing the $75, and providing a rather decent answer considering
the question was poorly worded and easily misunderstandable.

It should be noted that if he requests a refund, samrolken still gets
paid, though he suffers from the negative feedback, and this is at
least part of why Google! charges their 25% on each question.