Arguments against Virtual Church

I love to follow and analyze the various arguments that go on in the Blogosphere about the various new methods that are being used under the banner of "church"    I have commented myself on The Meeting House and things that I see around me, but one person I have loved reading is Bob Hyatt.    If all the latest trends are smoke, he has his infrared glasses on to see through it all.

He has a great post responding to this article In Defence of Virtual Church

Virtual Church is STILL a Bad Idea
I recommend reading the whole article, but here are a few highlights:

What do we call a church that not only fails to engage in, but makes a practical impossibility, the idea of church discipline? How will discipline happen in Second Life/Internet/Sim Church, where anonymity reigns and screen names and identities are changed with a couple clicks?
What do we call a church that not only fails to engage in, but makes a practical impossibility, the equipping ministry of the church? What about discipleship and leadership formation? How does one become an elder in a virtual church? What do we call churches without biblical eldership?
Can true community be mediated by a screen, or is it forged in the times at table, bearing one another’s burdens, serving the poor and one another together, at weddings and funerals, births and deaths … all the stuff that happens when I turn the screen off.