Is a site such as ‘Big Think’ capable of dialogue?

  I am finding the word ‘interactive’ a bit curious if not misrepresenting. I see very little interacting on the internet but a lot of reacting.  Fortunately the so called practice of ‘slamming’ is at a minimum. Yet there is a tiresome amount of chiding; more expressive of impatience than ideas. Most responses mere reactions to trigger words and not responses at all.  I confess to falling prey to this self same sin. I pick up on a phrase and think ‘now here is the way I feel about 'that.’ But alas, I fail to respond to the other persons ‘that’. I respond to my own mental associations and give vent to my spleen. (Why does that organ have to be the big one?)  I plead here for more interacting, more dialogue.

    When computers first entered my home, it was only me and the machine. That first stage had me engaged in solitary play entertaining myself. Then came the internet and the next stage was, to borrow a phrase from developmental psychology, ‘parallel play’. This stage, appropriate to the 2 to 3 year old, is where I find the internet today. We are all playing in the same sandbox but each of us in our own imaginary world. This need not be taken as a negative. Often a child who has gone on to the cooperative stage will use parallel play as a ploy to ease their self into a new group. Those of us still in the ‘parallel play’ stage, that is you and I, can be comforted to know that the internet will pass through all the stages of natural growth. In the mean time, I hope to ‘interact’ more with you and do less ‘reacting’. Here is my question my imaginary friends: Which of us will be the last one out of the sandbox? Or will the nature of the beast force us to remain emotionally stunted?