Eeros, thanks for provoking a great discussion! I for one have never doubted the spatiality of cyberspace - so I guess I'd fit in to Eero's 20% (although I am firmly from the 'web era'). In my own research with web designers I've found a distinct production of spatiality within websites - whether they be 'trivialised' spaces with specific uses or sites of interaction, employing large scale landscapes (such as the MUDs etc which Frank mentioned). I wholeheartedly agree with your rejection of the utopian idealism which Barlow espoused but even at a practical level spatiality is employed, and reworked within the web (particularly). Think of the routes which allow users to explore hypertext - taking pathways from page to page following both their own judgement and pre-disposed routes of passage which are embedded by the page's designer. Similarly, think of how you *get* to a webpage - a URL in the address bar? A search engine? A link? - all these redefine the spatiality of the website and the ways in which you interact with it. Sites must draw their spatial boundaries by putting disclaimers like "We are not responsible for the content of external internet sites", and most commonly brand themselves with distinct colour schemes, layouts and style sheets (not to mention the issue of domain names). I would never seek to suggest that cyberspaces are the same as what you term 'real' space (although offline metaphors are of course employed - and broken - just as Jonathan's paper suggests) - but that doesn't negate their spatiality. Just as Walter Benjamin noted how the electric street lights were at first fashioned in the form of older gas ones, cyberspatiality is increasingly beginning to reject the bounds of offline spaces. This spatiality is inherently linked with the offline; again, so-called 'cyberbole' says "the is no matter here" (Barlow) or "we leave our bodies behind" (Rheingold) but more recent work has showed us otherwise, the online *is* affected by the offline. On the flip side, the offline is becoming increasingly affected by the online. Yes, this is uneven (and isn't everything?) but it is happening, through URLs on advertising, mobile devices and so on. Just as Frank said, there are cyberspaces just as there are 'real' spaces (although, social constructionism has a fair amount to say about that term!) - how do you group 'real' spaces together? Rooms into a home? Homes into a street? Streets into a city etc - the same applies for cyberspace's) - text and images become pages, pages become a site, sites become a web. Don't forget that even the 127 character ASCII subset (from which all pages are ultimately coded) is inherently located within the socio-spatial networks that created it. One final thing, I've gone on a bit long and perhaps I should confess that I have a geography background here, you sent your post to an international list, on Australian time, and I picked it up here on a wet Welsh morning - the temporality of the space(s) in which this (asynchronous) conversation takes place is surely a distinct illustration of it's (cyborgic) spatiality? In engaging with space and place, we *do* look at media(ted) spaces such as Television, letters, or phone space - they have changed society, even though you may not regard them as 'real'. But then, perhaps it would be easier to think in terms of Simulacra and Simulation. :) Paul ---------------------- Paul Bevan Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences University of Wales Aberystwyth Ceredigion Wales SY23 3DB Tel. +44 (0)1970 622653 Fax. +44 (0)1970 622659 eml: ppb98@aber.ac.uk