All, This newcomer to Air-l confesses to bewilderment as to the agenda of this discussion, and its motives. And baffled by such theses as these: << I did say that there are terms that have been reified, turned into tropes and subsequently cited. I gave an example of "cyberspace". I offer additional an additional term such as "virtual group or community" which carries the implication of "almost like" a group or community. In context they are presented as if they have been explicitly defined. No proof of "virtuality" has been offered and yet it has been cited as support for other assertions. >> It seems to me that the meaning(s) of the locution "virtual community" is as clear and as coherent as older terms, e.g. "science." Terms like "science" and "virtual community" are not "explicitly defined" in a way that lends them precision, and prevents arguments about their methods and boundaries: Latour's science is not Kuhn's is not Feyerbend's. For example: is there really a "scientific method" that is clearly defined and universally accepted? "Virtual community" is clear enough, it seems to me, at least as clear and as fuzzy as the term "community" itself, which has been "defined" hundreds of times without ending the many different ways in which the term is used. And I imagine most of us would agree that a "virtual community" is made up of people who are not physically co-present. I find the statement that "virtuality" has not been "proved" impossible to grasp. The central thesis of "virtual community" is that new communication technologies make it possible for people who do not share the same space and time, who are not seen or heard "in the flesh," to engage in the kinds of interactions that characterize the communities of proximity. What other proof of "virtuality," and its ability to create commonality and communal conversation do we need beyond the evidence of this discussion? There is something going on here which is mystifying. To me, at least. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tilden Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:31 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; brehak1@swarthmore.edu Subject: Re: [Air-l] Reification was Definitions Bob, I will respond to all of your questions, but it will be a few days. I will not respond as you seem to wish to a mis-representation of what I actually wrote. At no time did I use "poor scholarship" in my writing nor did I say "not empirically grounded" Any implication you may have drawn is your own. I did say that there are terms that have been reified, turned into tropes and subsequently cited. I gave an example of "cyberspace". I offer additional an additional term such as "virtual group or community" which carries the implication of "almost like" a group or community. In context they are presented as if they have been explicitly defined. No proof of "virtuality" has been offered and yet it has been cited as support for other assertions. The term "ties" is another. I presume that this speaks to an internal psychological state but has not been operationalized. There are hundreds of sites to this paper. I have no problem with using them as long as they can be operationized to the context. I will not cite particular papers so as to not appear to be rendering an ad homenim attack. Respectfully, Sam Bob Rehak <brehak1@swarthmore.edu> wrote: Dear Sam, Your reply appears to address only one of Dr. Eskow's queries, to wit: "Who are these leaders, and what is the nature of their objections? Why are they anonymous?" Here are his remaining questions, redacted and numbered for your convenience: 1. Why this need to find precise boundaries for a word that encompasses many realms of meaning, that includes technology and the people that use it and the uses they make of it--and much more? 2. What are the reasons you have for this belief [i.e. "I have reason to believe that lack of objectification has created a situation in which incomplete and imperfect understanding of the many of these tropes and definitions has created the manufacturing of trolls when none exist"]? 3. Can you give us one or two examples of poor scholarship associated with AOIR--scholarship that is not "empirically grounded"? We respectfully await your answers. (I'm particularly interested in your response to #3.) Best wishes, -- Bob Rehak Visiting Assistant Professor Film and Media Studies Swarthmore College Associate Editor Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/