Hey Christian: I understand that his information is not necessarily new, it is simply insightful. Re-read my post. When I am not working in the academic and research side of communications, I work with the real interesting/troubled folks (some are newsmakers, some are decision makers) in the worlds of media/politics/academia. The individual in question is no more abnormal than most of these folks. While I may not choose to act as he does, I believe that the people on the board will make a decision about him and that will be the end of that. I troubled by the sheer hostility overall that has recently taken hold on this board on both sides. Please do not discount one of my prior text without considering it in its full context. I am not looking for a silk purse; I am simply astute enough to separate parts of the message from the messenger who is obviously getting the desired effect of anger and its working. I suggest that you folks settle it offline. What I am commenting on is the mix of these worlds from the very beginning of communications technology and how it does not get the full exposure that it deserves. This is why I took my research in another direction than most and concentrated on applied practitioners who are implementing emerging technologies with traditional technologies to see how the technology has truly become an extension of our minds (McLuhan, 1967) and the entire concept of the global village. I also would beg to differ with you only on a nuance of this area of study. I would suggest that while the research has been there only partially because no one truly knew that some of these new technologies would blossom. The nature of my job, not unlike many of yours, is to employ these technologies in an ethical and responsible manner on a daily basis to world; however, I am convinced that the technologies are moving faster than laws, lawmakers, academia and copyright holders can keep pace. Further, I maintain that despite the existence of the research these technologies have not been fully embraced by the Academy as a whole until now when the Academy is being dragged kicking and screaming in too many cases. If the Academy is worried about commercial interests having too much control, they are more than a half century too late; however, the Academy as a whole can start taking stances like Stanford is doing with its doctors to limit the power of the drug companies and offering iTunesU. If the object of the Academy is inspire and promote the free flow of ideas and ultimately learning, we as members must set our personal preferences aside at times to promote ideas to the people. When we in the US live in a society where only half of the people vote, most can be easily fooled by deceptive corporate ads, and most people trying to become educated will be in debt before their lives truly begins, we all have a problem in the Academy. Why? Because it is our job to continue Diogenes quest of searching for the truth. We have created whole classes of people who have not been taught critical thinking at a higher level and it shows when our leaders in business, government and academia can tell us almost anything and get away with it. I see things in the theoretical and applied worlds and I am suggesting that without the back and forth transfer of theoretical and applied concepts the academy will continue to produce drones, not free thinkers and that is extremely dangerous in the world that we live. We have to adapt and overcome the present system of education and transform it into a more collaborative and individualistically system where students can share information, work together and also obtain individual enrichment through the incorporation of media technologies and techniques. Hey let's get back to the research and sharing. I have met some truly brilliant people through this organization and I value what I have learned and shared over time. We have real issue to examine and solve. Let's work together! -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Christian Nelson Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:21 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] list behavior Another aspect of list behavior I find interesting is some folks' tendency to respond to a troll. Why do it? Despite Cornwell's truly abysmal behavior on the list, some folks insist on looking for a silk purse in his messages, and responding as if he were just another internet scholar, and thereby legitimize his presence and previous behavior. I've seen this before. I find it bizarre. Can anyone explain? Has anyone seen or done any research on this? (BTW, to the list member who find's Cornwell's stuff on education and technology so groundbreaking and insightful: Its not. It may be new to you, but that ground has been broken for some time and is being tilled by lots of other folks.) _______________________________________________ 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/