Although each Asynchronous On-Line Discussion space is to some degree unique, certain themes or patterns tend to occur in almost any space of sufficient “size” (number of participants/level of activity) and sufficient conflict.  One of these themes can occur when a poster replies to a message that was itself a direct response to another poster - that is, when a poster replies to a message ostensibly “directed” at someone else.  The theme that occurs in these exchanges is “I wasn’t talking to you,” the implication being that the poster is “butting into” a one-on-one exchange.  Both the admonition itself, and the usual following reminder that anything posted to the group is available for comment by any participant, invite considerations of audience as simultaneously singular (the “one” to whom a post is directly addressed) and plural (the larger group of participants and lurkers who have access to the text).

In a post to the mailing list Politics, Robin indicates one of the complications of audience in AOD groups: the ambiguity of address. Robin refers to “the joke about ‘you,’” indicating that “the you” in her post “is directed at no one in particular,” rather than being a “personal attack” as taken by the previous poster.  While the “you” of any second-person writing can often be ambiguous, referring either to a specific person or to an amorphous collective, in AOD discourse, this confusion becomes foregrounded. Does the “you” of a reply refer only to the poster of the previous message in the chain of response?  Does it refer to anyone who might be reading?  Only the active participants?

Willard and Brown identify the dichotomy of the “one and the many” (40) throughout the rhetorical tradition as a distinction between a singular addressee at whom a speech (or writing) is ostensibly aimed and the larger audience who will hear/read it.  In classical times, this dichotomy was often one of authority versus influence: that is, a speech would be aimed at a contest judge or a “juror/politician” (48) but could not neglect the reaction of the larger audience (being the crowd at a festival or the specific audience for a political or judicial speech).  The reaction of the crowd could, after all, influence the decision of the judge/juror/politician.  Later, theorists of scientific rhetoric would identify the “one” as the learned scientist, while the “many” were either other scientists or students who might read the treatise.  The concept of the one and the many could conceivably be applied to many situations in which an utterance is ostensibly aimed at one person, but seeks in addition to influence others: political debates, open letters, speeches in televised congressional sessions.

This dichotomy also becomes salient when considering audience in AOD groups.  Most utterances in an AOD thread are ostensibly directed at one person: the person who wrote the post one is replying to.  A significant majority of posts in AOD groups are replies to previous threads: as Benson points out, “the hardware, software, and culture of Usenet strongly reinforce the pattern of response in the newsgroups” (367), an observation which may be extended to other AOD spaces as well. Random samplings of the three AOD spaces in this study revealed that over 90% of posts in all three groups were in fact responses to others.  Posters often directly address the previous poster, formatting the post much like a letter (or perhaps more accurately, an email).

However, while the writer is thus very in mind of a reader in the form of  the “one,” he or she may forget the “many” (other participants, lurkers), leading to surprise and even irritation when someone other than “the one” replies.  Protests of “I wasn’t talking to you,” and the resulting discussions, point to the complications of an overtly dialogic discursive space.  Posts from Politics demonstrate this confusion.

The thread in question was a continuation of an earlier thread on “Rachel Carson, Bill Clinton, and DDT.”  In response to a post by James, Laura had posted a link to an article on the subject, the accuracy of which she and James proceeded to debate.  In response to one of one of Laura's response to James , Patrick had posted , “I'm not really interested in the inflammatory language they use in their campaign against it.”

A new subject line was begun when Patrick pasted an article that “refuted” an earlier post.  Robin replied with “so, you dismissed Laura for not giving you what you wanted .”  In the course of the debate, Robin pointed out that Laura was overtly addressing James, with the seeming intention of discrediting Patrick by accusing him of rude behavior - “butting in” where he had not been invited.  Patrick responded with “LOL!   This is a public list, [Robin].  If you don't want folks 'butting' into your comments, then send a private e-mail,” and even went so far as to point out that “butting in” was exactly what Robin was doing by responding to his post, which was ostensibly directed at Laura.

The complications of the one and the many are a result not only of the technology, but of the space that that technology creates as well.  On the one hand, Robin’s rebuke to Patrick makes a certain amount of sense.  Patrick’s reply of “I'm not really interested in the inflammatory language they use in their campaign against [DDT],” would in a chronological ordering of posts be situated directly “below”  Laura’s post.  Thus, the “you” in her “I assume you read the article and would thus have found:” (block quote deleted), would seem to be James, to whom she was replying.  Not only does the “hardware, software, and culture” of asynchronous on-line discussion groups encourage replying (Benson ), but it paradoxically encourages the illusion of a singular audience, a one-on-one conversation.  Headers on mailing list and Usenet  posts generally identify the person who posted the message being replied; indeed, some programs, rather than placing a name in the reply header, will indicate that in the previous message, “You wrote…,” thus reinforcing the construction of a one-on-one conversation.  This construction, entirely appropriate in email, is at odds with the multiple participants of an AOD thread.  The software of about.com forums also lends itself to this illusion: replies are headed specifically “to” the respondee “from” the respondent.  Participants have the option of changing that heading either to another poster or to “all.”  However, the default option encourages the illusions of one-on-one conversation.

Yet this illusion is at odds with the nature of AOD space, which is not only overtly dialogic, but multilogic as well.  Here is where metaphors for AOD space such as Leonhirth, Mindich, and Straumanis’s metaphor of the bonfire, or indeed, any conversation metaphor) begins to break down.  Leonhirth, et al propose a bonfire as a metaphor for mailing lists, comparing the multiple threads to the small-group conversations that take place around a bonfire.  However, this metaphor assumes a certain containment of conversation: while a person may move from group to group at a bonfire, he or she cannot be in two conversations simultaneously.  A bonfire would allow for a back and forth between Laura and James - or, in Willard and Brown’s terms, address of the “one” (Laura or James respectively) that accounts for the “many” (other participants), and even allow others to join the existing back and forth.  Their joining, however, would change the one-on-one to many-on-many.  The technology of AOD spaces, however, allows for any individual within the “many” to respond at any point, not disrupting the exchange between Laura and James (which continued unabated by Patrick’s post), but merely beginning a new one.