On 31/03/2007, at 3:13 AM, air-l-request@listserv.aoir.org wrote:
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:40:35 -0500 From: "Kevin Guidry" <krguidry@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Air-l] questioning authority To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Message-ID: <3d273fe80703291540g15db32a2p553926681039271@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 3/29/07, Margie Borschke <margieborschke@iinet.net.au> wrote:
Further, since the Internet is ultimately a 'pop' medium....
"Considerably" a pop medium I could understand and almost agree with. But "ultimately" a pop medium? Interesting. I feel as if I'm missing a piece of the puzzle.
The ultimately was unnecessary. But I don't think I can go for considerably. I think I should have written "It is a pop (as in popular) medium". To say it is a popular medium doesn't in anyway dictate the sorts of activities that happen there. I see no problem with both the serious and silly being communicated via the same medium. The Internet is neutral with regards to content. But if one is interested in studying the culture that occurs on and around the Internet, I think dismissing one of the commercial magazines that has made a home for itself there would be a mistake. It's part of the organism. Wired's choices about style are sure to be relevant to many people. And, if I put my copy hat on, I actually disagree with their copy choice and stick with an upper case 'I' because Internet is a proper name in my books. Chicago Manual of Style is backing me up but it still remains a question of style and while many try to assert their authority when it comes to style conventions, really there is none. (Bruce Lee's style of no style being the notable exception.) MB