Comments on: “Chris Lott” vs “Ed Lamoureux” Steel Cage Deathmatch… http://chrislott.org/story/chris-lott-vs-ed-lamoureux-steel-cage-deathmatch/ Musings on education, techology, and life.. Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:19:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Ruminate » Blog Archive » Ethics and Aggregation (Part 2) http://chrislott.org/story/chris-lott-vs-ed-lamoureux-steel-cage-deathmatch/comment-page-1/#comment-138246 Ruminate » Blog Archive » Ethics and Aggregation (Part 2) Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:26:55 +0000 http://www.chrislott.org/2007/01/15/chris-lott-vs-ed-lamoureux-steel-cage-deathmatch/#comment-138246 [...] my shame I have also, in a moment of extreme frustration, used the protections of Fair Use as a cudgel to attack someone I felt was being unfair to me, threatening to continue using fair excerpts of [...] [...] my shame I have also, in a moment of extreme frustration, used the protections of Fair Use as a cudgel to attack someone I felt was being unfair to me, threatening to continue using fair excerpts of [...]

]]> By: beau http://chrislott.org/story/chris-lott-vs-ed-lamoureux-steel-cage-deathmatch/comment-page-1/#comment-39581 beau Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:13:19 +0000 http://www.chrislott.org/2007/01/15/chris-lott-vs-ed-lamoureux-steel-cage-deathmatch/#comment-39581 Okay, now this calls for a legitimate discussion of "getting off on the wrong foot" and general difficulties of cross-context communication. The medium is not the message, but it sure as heck *is* context for the message. You rightly identified Lamoureux's experience as insular, as listservs tend to be. Your own is much less linear, much more hip and informal. So the linear old-school formalist sees the whole exchange from one view, the holistic web 2.0 functionalist sees it from his. I can sympathize with both. I fear the former is hopelessly outdated and will be unable to compete in the market place of ideas in short order. But I'm not without sympathy. I recall even in my own experiences the teeth-on-edge feeling I often get from seeing smileys in posts or emails---I can only abide them at all when I can force them into ascii instead of graphicals. I can just imagine that the combination of breezy tone, identification as a "blogger", the occasional use of a smiley only increased the feeling of being impertinently addressed in Lemoureux's eyes. And, here's the hard part, in this situation I would think the hip web 2.0 guy is the one with the superior power of observation and perceptual/communicational flexibility. If there was hope for this relationship it was in you, not in the cortically ossified "I was a grad student when Space Invaders came out" Dr. Ed. Truth is, you're hip, you're with it, and you've got to go easy on the dinosaurs, they're more fragile than they look, especially their egos. However, one would certainly like to think a researcher doing applied work in something as "hip and web 2.0" as SL would have some of that perceptual/communicational flexibility. I am tempted to take the presence of Posner's and Lemoureux's as the primary data on the value of the medium. It certainly doesn't seem to put one in the best company (and that's the "FurryMUCK 2.0" claims notwithstanding.) B^) Okay, now this calls for a legitimate discussion of “getting off on the wrong foot” and general difficulties of cross-context communication. The medium is not the message, but it sure as heck *is* context for the message. You rightly identified Lamoureux’s experience as insular, as listservs tend to be. Your own is much less linear, much more hip and informal. So the linear old-school formalist sees the whole exchange from one view, the holistic web 2.0 functionalist sees it from his. I can sympathize with both. I fear the former is hopelessly outdated and will be unable to compete in the market place of ideas in short order. But I’m not without sympathy. I recall even in my own experiences the teeth-on-edge feeling I often get from seeing smileys in posts or emails—I can only abide them at all when I can force them into ascii instead of graphicals. I can just imagine that the combination of breezy tone, identification as a “blogger”, the occasional use of a smiley only increased the feeling of being impertinently addressed in Lemoureux’s eyes.

And, here’s the hard part, in this situation I would think the hip web 2.0 guy is the one with the superior power of observation and perceptual/communicational flexibility. If there was hope for this relationship it was in you, not in the cortically ossified “I was a grad student when Space Invaders came out” Dr. Ed. Truth is, you’re hip, you’re with it, and you’ve got to go easy on the dinosaurs, they’re more fragile than they look, especially their egos.

However, one would certainly like to think a researcher doing applied work in something as “hip and web 2.0″ as SL would have some of that perceptual/communicational flexibility. I am tempted to take the presence of Posner’s and Lemoureux’s as the primary data on the value of the medium. It certainly doesn’t seem to put one in the best company (and that’s the “FurryMUCK 2.0″ claims notwithstanding.)

B^)

]]> By: beau http://chrislott.org/story/chris-lott-vs-ed-lamoureux-steel-cage-deathmatch/comment-page-1/#comment-39573 beau Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:51:50 +0000 http://www.chrislott.org/2007/01/15/chris-lott-vs-ed-lamoureux-steel-cage-deathmatch/#comment-39573 I think the tag "ad nauseum" is apt. I got as far as Ed's request for your vita. Sheesh, what a pompous prick. And how, like, pre-tcp/ip of him. Now I have to go back and read the rest of the exchange; just can't resist a train-wreck. But dudes like that give academia a lousy name. I think the tag “ad nauseum” is apt. I got as far as Ed’s request for your vita. Sheesh, what a pompous prick. And how, like, pre-tcp/ip of him. Now I have to go back and read the rest of the exchange; just can’t resist a train-wreck. But dudes like that give academia a lousy name.

]]>