Thanks for posting this Don. I have a few observations for future thought: 1) One-to-Many: I would not agree that web forms are a type of "dialogue." Rather, they are a barrier to be passed in order for one to get permission to actually communicate with someone at the organization. This immediately puts an org. in a power-superior position that can affect the tone/quality of the resulting interaction. 2) Many-to-One: Let's remember that it is not "an organization attemp[ing] to monitor" but rather a person who is more or less -- depending on org. rules -- able to enter into conversation at the site of the "many." This person has the special quality of having a vested interest (which they should, therefore, disclose to the "many") in the org. they represent. In this case, teh power superior position is more likely to be with the group. Sometimes that group will be open to listening, sometimes not. Esp. in the latter case, it will be importantly for the org. person to identify an influential member of the group to persuade, to bring over to a positive image of the org. (or at least the person as a rep. of the org.) and then share their opinion with the group. This is a time-intensive situation and therefore expensive. 3) The one-to-many-to-many adds another layer, which could be either a barrier or a conduit (or both). These infomediaries are indeed people/orgs that should be communicated with.