Dear Colleagues, I am resistant to the continued use of the term "space" and spatial metaphors when writing about the Internet and related technologies. In fact, part of my ongoing research practice is to address this issue. I believe that the employment of such terms as "space" and "cyberspace" in popular and academic writings about the computer and Internet technologies makes it seem like representations are a kind of material environment. This writing repeats and even enhances design strategies that describe synchronous settings as "rooms," Internet maps that produce unnecessary and fictive geographies, and programming that makes users' progression through sites seem like bodily movement. Such visceral renderings discourage critical interventions into Internet representations because sites seem tangible. The conflation of space-producing discourses with user investment in particular sites and identities threatens to make stereotypes "real." The represented bodies of Internet settings are "fleshed out" because there seems to be an environment that can support varied bodily processes. Computer representations can also justify the perpetuation of physical but certainly not necessary or natural conditions by mirroring material circumstances. I believe that such spatial vernaculars are having a significant effect on our cultural situations. I also continue to ponder other ways that we can write about and experience technologies. I would be interested in continuing such a dialog. All my best, Michele