In the interest of complete disclosure, I am posting here my complete interactions with Dr. Ed Lamoureux. Make of it what you will, but at least no one involved can be further misrepresented.

Most importantly, I again thank all the other SLED and non-SLED folks who commented on the list, on my blog, and back-channel.

Beware, this is long!

It began innocently enough with my post providing some advice to Second Life (SL) Believers based on my observations of a large number of SL Bloggers and Second Life Educators Mailing List (SLED) posts. Note that I refer specifically to SLED only one time, noting that it is a busy list with a lot of noise and a lot less signal and a note that the SLED Wiki could use some improvement.

A SLED user kindly noted my blog post to the SLED list, unfortunately higlighting that single (“a”) criticism of SLED.

In the meantime, many good responses had come in to the original post while– almost simultaneously– I clarified my note about the SLED list on Daniel Livingstone’s blog.

I saw Dr. Ed’s initial response in the list archives and responded as part of a second lengthy response on my blog, pointing out that my decision not to post a CV was a conscious one, giving general info about my background, and inviting anyone to Google and see my work, warts and all. After all, I post using my real name and regularly link back to classes and my place of employment– it’s not as if I am hiding! At any rate, the response was fairly lengthy and included some questions and what seemed to me to be confusion about Elluminate and my own orientation towards new technology and SL as a distance ed platform.

Again, someone on the SLED list noted that I had posted a response. I still haven’t posted to the list. Dr. Ed is apparently unhappy with my use of my regular forum– my blog. I assume that this is because he thinks my post is about SLED, when it is in fact to/about the much larger group of Second Life educators in the real world.

I was still unclear about the reason for the antagonism, so I posted with a (I think) clearly tongue-in-cheek subject line of “Chris Lott” vs “Ed Lamoureux” Steel Cage Deathmatch… using scare quotes for Ed’s name, as he had referred to me, and trying to explain that my audience really wasn’t SLED, but the many people I knew who read my blog and had expressed interest at conferences and speaking engagements. I do have to admit to a bit of snarkiness in calling Ed’s approach “insular” but it seems odd to me that I should be beholden to double-post to a much smaller group when I am making my comments available to everyone in the first place!

Well, Ed didn’t like that and decided to take it offlist and insult me privately (again characterizing what I “apparently” said, which I did not):

chris,
this isn’t a problem

I can just ignore you.

I don’t mean that personally. but I don’t have time to monitor every blogger on sl. there are a few that check once in awhile, but you aren’t among that group.

honestly though….

if you want to criticize or engage the people on the SLED list… and apparently your post did so, I assume that you should speak with them. directly. Rather than behind their backs, to others, on a blog that few on this list read.

that just doesn’t seem at all fair, to me, despite your wish to communicate with other publics as well. It strikes me as somewhat rude, just as is speaking about others behind their backs in the off line world.

Last time I checked, select, copy, new message, paste is 4 keystrokes.

Doesn’t sound like much work for someone who is not “insular” such as yourself.

Yes, I am exasperated at this point, but I really don’t see any need for fighting over things that I never said and one comment which is relatively trivial compared to the other content regarding which many are now engaged. I felt like I was extending an olive branch:

Ed:

I am glad that you stopped putting my name in scare quotes.

You are under a misperception that my post (any of them, actually) was about SLED or critical of SLED. It was not. I noted, while discussing SL and education that there was a list for SL educators, that it was high volume and- -characteristic of high volume lists I’ve belonged to– had a lot of noise. Other than that, my posting was not about SLED nor directed specifically to them. I hope for my conversation to reach a lot of people I know who are not part of the SLED group already.

So, I was not rude nor was I talking behind people’s backs. I *did* point to list responses where appropriate, which seems entirely fair.

As I said, I may double-post here and others may summarize. It would seem, in today’s highly networked environment that picking up some relevant RSS feeds wouldn’t be a problem for a list denizen either. Mailing lists have that kind of chicken and egg problem when it comes to reaching much of their potential audience. I could just as easily ask that you doubly post your interesting work… it is, after all, just a few keystrokes and would reach many interested people

This seems so trivial. You sound quite antagonistic and I’m not sure why, maybe because of your skewed view of my words based on list reflection rather than the posts themselves. It would be nice not to continue on that footing if possible.

At this point, Dr. Ed goes off the rails… and tries to rewrite intellectual property laws and the tenets of Fair Use at the same time (ironic, since I hate most aspects of our current system of copyright). Watch out, this one is loooong:

> I am glad that you stopped putting my name in scare quotes.

i did that because I do not know who you are.

I cannot find a link on your blog to a vita/resume/identifier. Without that knowledge, I have no idea to whom I am writing. Note that the bottom of your email continues that trend. You could be troll, you could be CIA, the press, 12 years of age, or a particle physicist working at MIT. I don’t take bloggers who hide their identities seriously. I don’t take users having to plod through column after column of undigested links in order to find out who’s at the bottom of it to be good web design.

> You are under a misperception that my post (any of them, actually) was
> about SLED or critical of SLED. It was not. I noted, while discussing
> SL and education that there was a list for SL educators, that it was
> high volume and- -characteristic of high volume lists I’ve belonged
> to– had a lot of noise. Other than that, my posting was not about
> SLED nor directed specifically to them. I hope for my conversation to
> reach a lot of people I know who are not part of the SLED group
> already.

these seem pretty specific references to me:

“and thousands of messages on the busy Second Life Educators listserv (pretty high volume, a lot of noise, not too much signal),” . . .

“Second Life Educators, in particular, really need to start pointing to something that is actually happening and relevant to support their claims of Second Life as an effective teaching platform.”

I don’t think you can substantiate the claim that you weren’t writing about the SLEDer. Further, I think this “challenge” is really unfair. It says “hey, you guys need to provide evidence or hold down the noise.” Chris…. why doesn’t that work both ways? How about: Chris, if you have evidence that substantiates the claim that SL ISN’T effective, provide it!”

We’re kinda busy in here… trying to teach in a new place in a new way. Some of us are up to our kiesters in work (that we DO NOT HAVE TO DO AS PART OF OUR JOBS) as a result. I, for one, don’t have time to do much assessment right now; I’m busy trying to do teaching in a new way. I’m 53 years old. I really don’t need to be doing this. I could just sulk off into the corner and teach using a marker pen. But here I am, throwing with both hands. I don’t really need bloggers snipping at my heals… claiming that I’m “insulated” cause I don’t read their little blogs.

> So, I was not rude nor was I talking behind people’s backs. I *did*
> point to list responses where appropriate, which seems entirely fair.

Might seem fair to you. Doesn’t to me. Cause you didn’t publish it on the list about which you were talking.

> As I said, I may double-post here and others may summarize. It would
> seem, in today’s highly networked environment that picking up some
> relevant RSS feeds wouldn’t be a problem for a list denizen either.

you assume far too much about how and why someone might use RSS. You also assume too much about what people might find as relevant.

> Mailing lists have that kind of chicken and egg problem when it comes
> to reaching much of their potential audience. I could just as easily
> ask that you doubly post your interesting work… it is, after all,
> just a few keystrokes and would reach many interested people

Let’s see. I have a publicly accessible website, both about my interest in SL, all the articles published about it, the course syllabus, all with links back to my academic materials, including my vita and personal activities. I list all of that information at the bottom of each email I send. I’ve written a number of posts for the NMC Observer under both my real and SL name. I greet every new poster to the SLED with a list of SL links, and my identifiers. I’ve written a number of posts there about my work.

What else would you have me do?

> This seems so trivial. You sound quite antagonistic and I’m not sure
> why, maybe because of your skewed view of my words based on list
> reflection rather than the posts themselves. It would be nice not to
> continue on that footing if possible.

Excuse me. I read your post, in full, this morning. What causes you to believe that I have a skewed view of your words based on the list? SLED hasn’t said anything of note about your post… except to note it was there to read. I read it. I responded to it. Once again, you assume to know far more than you actually do about what’s happened.

I believe that the parts that were directed to the SLED should have been posted there. You don’t agree. No problem.

But allow me to share this with you Chris Lott. Before I came to multimedia, I spent a very long career teaching rhetorical theory. I find in your posts, both to me and to the list about my comments, very subtle and “smart” strategies which try to discredit my negative comments about your post and strategies. In other words, you aren’t fooling me, man. I doubt you are taking in others either, but I cannot speak for them. When I see a line of bull, I usually “call it.” Which is what I’ve wasted far too much time doing today.

I’m done with this thread, both here and on list.

Happy blogging. There, you can often go unchallenged and that seems to be what you like best.

But do me a favor, and this is a specific request which I consider to be legally binding: keep me and my course and my comments off your blog. Those materials are my intellectual property, and that of my students, and you are NOT welcome to use them. You are hereby so notified; I’ll keep a copy of this. If any of my stuff shows up on your blogs, I’ll take action against you. You do not have my permission to use any of it. Not now. Not later.

Clear?

This was just too much… not only insanely unreasonable, but very different from the face he was showing the SLED list. So I posted his email to the list with this comment:

A note, Ed: referring to “Second Life educators” is NOT the same as a reference to this listserv. Read more carefully. You might think that the two groups are the same, but they are not.

My request for evidence about effectiveness is to the larger group and has NOTHING to do with signal/noise on this list. I made only two passing references to this listserv. All other comments came as direct response to people from this list and their questions. I was not “talking behind anyone’s back”. Because you thought so, I assumed you must have a skewed view of my posts by only seeing them as reflected in SLED comments. It seems very clearly so when I thanked you specifically for your effort and indicated I was looking forward to your further research, which I understand take time.

As I said in some of the very articles you linked to, I purposefully don’t link to a CV– I have plenty of work out there and I use my real name and link often to my workplace– there is no assumed name or hiding going on. I further clarified my work and education at your behest. I’m of the feeling that if CVs matter that much to a person their opinion likely doesn’t matter all that much to me… it’s an outdated concept of intellectual currency.

Further, I will– should I desire– link to any of your content that I wish to whenever I wish to as long as it is publicly available. That’s the way the web works. You are welcome to take whatever “action” you see fit if and when I do so.

I’ve enjoyed the challenges, confirmations, and continued thoughts from other list members *and* bloggers. You might think I was tyring to “discredit” you when I was, in fact, trying to show you that I think you are misreading both my words and wrongly assuming my motives. If I am trying to discredit you, then I can only believe this message to me to be bullying and a case of one trying to have their cake and eat it too by showing different faces to different groups.

I’ll be quite happy not to hear from you anymore– but if you continue to respond I will, at my discretion, do the same! I’m not sure why you remain so antagonistic, but since you want disclosure, here is some for everyone. They can make up their own minds about my legitimacy and the quality of my questions and my responses to you.

I think Dr. Ed is realizing at least the more than dubious legality of
his ultimatum. His list post:

No Mr. Lott.
That is not the way the web works.

The way intellectual property works in the United States is that the material belongs to them that made it. Any further use of it, by others, is allowed only by permission of the author.

I have formally notified you that you DO NOT HAVE THAT PERMISSION from me. In a court of law, that “notice” is binding and allows me to not only seek cease and desist judgments from courts, but also to sue you for damages for violating my specifically stated declaration of my copyright.

Further, I took my communication with you off list on purpose. You have now injected the rest of the list in this, which gives me a large number of witnesses to my denial for you to use my copyright protected materials.

You have a right to link to anything on the web you want. But if I find that you’ve made more than passing fair use of my stuff, I’ll sue you into the middle of next week.

Go away and leave me alone.

And my reply:

> The way intellectual property works in the United States is that the
> material belongs to them that made it.
> Any further use of it, by others, is allowed only by permission of the
> author.

It’s called Fair Use and you can’t take that right away even if you wish to do so. I will reference, link to, synopsize, and quote from your materials whenever and wherever I wish.

> Further, I took my communication with you off list on purpose. You have now
> injected the rest of the list in this, which gives me a large number of
> witnesses to my denial for you to use my copyright protected materials.

I put it on list precisely to have witnesses to your continued, willful misreading and intellectual dishonesty.

> You have a right to link to anything on the web you want. But if I find that
> you’ve made more than passing fair use of my stuff, I’ll sue you into the
> middle of next week.
>
> Go away and leave me alone.

I’m not going anywhere and will respond to whatever list posts appear to need it. Hopefully no more, as I imagine the whole list is already tiring of it.

I actually do remain interested in burying the hatchet with the good Dr., since I can only suspect that his hackles were up for many reasons other than my posts… many others, including SLED members seemed OK with helping me continue my thinking about SL. My thanks to them… and to Ed for the good parts