Cyberspace intimidation entails not only the aforementioned technology and cyberphobes, but also what I term "cybermasters"--those who successfully harness that technology. An extreme case of cybermaster intimidation is the accusation leveled at Microsoft by Digital Research and Novell over Microsoft's alleged intimidatory tactics used in manipulating beta versions of Windows 3.1, according to a 1993 InfoWorld piece (Livingston 24). But I limit my discussion to the more ordinary relationships between cybermasters and cyberphobes that exhibit three types of intimidation: top-down, peer-to-peer, and bottom-up. Top-down intimidation occurs when a cyberphobic intimidatee fears pressure by a power figure, someone in authority (e.g., employer/employee, teacher/student). Employer-mandated computer literacy such as mastering the latest DOS and Windows version or accessing the newest DIALOG database releases exemplify the quandary intimidatees face: what happens when you spend years mastering MAC's and the office converts to a DOS-based system? Or when your professor conveys her thoughts on your research topic by E-mail, and you aren't able to download it?

Peer-to-peer intimidation transpires in a peer relationship in which one is computer-literate and the other is not (e.g., cybermaster student/cyberphobic student, computer-literate professor/technophobic colleague). Power relationships may not be at stake in these instances, but the intimidated student and professor are clearly disadvantaged by their technologically-adept peers: for example, what happens when you can no longer communicate within your discourse community, or when you are left in the dust by cyberspace-travelled colleagues who have ready access to research and communication--not to mention first crack at job markets--that you don't?

Finally, bottom-up intimidation involves students or employees who are more familiar with cyberspace than their professors or employers, respectively. This underling competence results in authority figures being technologically eclipsed by their subordinates, thus affecting the ethos of those in authority and upsetting the power relationship. Imagine the effect on the credibility of a professor whose graduate student offers to forward an article from an electronic journal, but who doesn't know how to download or access it. Or the effect on the authority of a Teaching Assistant whose First Year students complain that their friends receive comments on papers-in-progress via campus E-mail, but who is unable to offer assistance other than on hard copy. Or the effect on power relations concerning a department head who is unable to "overhear" critical information exchanged between subordinates on inter-office E-mail. The ethos of these authority figures is compromised--not only in the eyes of subordinates, but also in the eyes of others.