Suffice it to recall the conditions of our surfing along in the Internet or participating in a virtual community: first, there is the gap between the »subject of enunciation« (the anonymous X who does it, who speaks) and the »subject of the enunciated / of the statement« (the symbolic identity that I assume in cyberspace, and which can and in a sense always is »invented« - the signifier which marks my identity in cyberspace is never directly »myself«); the same goes for the other side, for my partner(s) in cyberspace communication - here, the undecidability is radical, I can never be sure who they are, are they »really« the way they describe themselves, is there a »real« person at all behind a screen-persona, is the screen-persona a mask for a multiplicity of persons, does the same »real« person possess and manipulate more screen-personas, or am I simply dealing with a digitalized entity which does not stand for any »real« person? It thus seems that cyberspace materializes directly the so-called »scheme L« elaborated by Lacan in the early fifties in order to account for the structure of communication: within cyberspace, two screen-personae are interacting along the imaginary axis, myself (a) and its mirror-partner (a'), while, beneath it and traversing it, there is the symbolic axis of the relationship between myself as the subject of the enunciation (S) and the Other which forever remains an enigma beyond the »wall of language,« his/her »Che vuoi?« (s/he is sending me this message, but what is behind it? what does he want to achieve by it?) forever unanswered.