I find it a bit troubling. I'm not sure exactly why, but I do have a few reflections. Although I conceptually understand why Lachlan was booted, I don't feel comfortable with the decision. Maybe it appeared to swift, which, I know, is probably just my vantage point as a list member. (I've heard tell that Lachlan was warned off-list to settle down. And, he was openly admonished for making sexist statements and personal attacks, and for posting off-list e-mails. Nasty deeds, to be sure.) Maybe I would have felt better if he was warned publicly - on-list - so that it was obvious what might happen. There was no public debate about whether he should be yanked or not. The rule was "handed down". Now, I know this may sound like an attack on the powers above: it is not. All I'm saying is that now I know that there is power above. But that's not really the problematic part for me. Rather, I find it odd that Lachlan gets removed from the list for inflammatory postings and personal attacks, and yet there are no apparent repercussions for trashing him publicly, i.e. he's a *troll* and a *witch*. Is that fair? As scholars of social phenomenon, shouldn't we be a tad more aware of the social construction of online reality and our contribution to, and institutionalization of, deviance. Is Lachlan so awful that he deserves to becomes AOIR's subaltern Other? My e-mail is not meant to defend Lachlan (what would be the point of that, right?). I'm merely curious about what our meta-discourse is, and how we are governing it. -Robert Tynes

As we think about the actions of online communities, it is always good to keep a few things in mind. First, lists are run by institutions and they can be held responsible for the actions of list members (harassment and such). So while we can hold up the ideal of free speech, list owners are the ones often taking the legal risks and should be allowed latitude to act to protect the list and themselves. Second, I often find it strange that we hold up free speech but we are all held to codes of conduct (sometimes written and sometimes unspoken) when teaching and speaking in public-we don't harass or insult our students or audience members but act in ways to develop a community. Three, "troll" is a well established term like "flame" in online communities and has a long history. Perhaps to say Brown is a troll is somewhat improper, but to say he exhibits the traditional qualities of a troll would be dead on. Four, while free speech is important, we all know - and often groan - that we work under many limits when doing experiments on human subjects. Brown's announced enterprise to experiment on the list violates the very base of academic freedom--we do have a right to not to be subjects of research. As Stanley Fish says (something like), there is no such thing as free speech and it is a damn good thing. So it goes. An interesting and important topic for our work. Dean Rehberger Associate Director of Matrix Associate Professor Michigan State University 310 Auditorium East Lansing, MI 48824-1120 rehberger@mail.matrix.msu.edu matrix.msu.edu/rehberger wk: (517) 355-9300 fax: (517) 355-8363 hm: (517) 347-7372

In the spirit of learning and benefiting from one's experiences (and I should say, I agree with the decision of the list managers to unsub Lachlan since his intent was clearly to disrupt rather than interact/communicate), I think it might be useful to think a little about what one can learn from the experience with Lachlan and particularly how the list as a collectivity could benefit from that experience. Lachlan for me at first was a breath of fresh air (AoIR) in that he wrote in a conversational style, he addressed subjects/ideas and people directly, and he broadened the range of subject areas in what I would consider a useful way--all of these moving the list out of the rather narrow confines of the graduate seminar room into the more hurly burly environment of the Net (or at least what the Net used to be in the days when Usenet rather than the Shopping Cart was the dominant mode of Internet based interactivity). In addition at first he seemed interested in pursuing the discussion around one or another of these subjects/ideas beyond the simple accumulation of printed references or URLs into an actual engagement around issues of some interest and even significance. My interest in the Internet is that it has been, is and gives the appearance of being a profoundly transformative technology. Determining the nature of that transformation, its boundaries, its impacts and its limitations is for me a very significant task, both in its own right but also and perhaps most importantly because this can help us as teachers and as citizens influence and guide this development in socially meaningful and useful ways. To be useful in those areas, as "Internet Researchers" we must I think, be open to the broadest range of ideas (and not rush too soon to closure around what is meaningful or valuable) and we must be willing and able to use the full capacity of the Net to sustain and enable meaningful interactions across wide distances both physical and social. Mike Gurstein Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. (Visiting) Professor: School of Management New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ