Log in

No account? Create an account
Lindsey Kuper [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Lindsey Kuper

[ website | composition.al ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

I never metadiscourse I didn't like. [Aug. 2nd, 2005|10:27 pm]
Lindsey Kuper

Okay, Mr. Stone, that stings a little. You rightly point out that the long-term advantage of blogging is that we can interact independently of Plans. But how would a person familiar with blogging who arrived at Hacking Gadflies independently of Plans react? My reaction would probably be something like, "Who's Evan Case and where'd he write that?" If I got there from somewhere other than here, and I read enough, I might even wonder if "rockstarling" knows that Lindsey chick. Um, who's included in that "we", again? 'Cause, y'know, I try to meet you on your own terms and instead I get demoted to rockstarling-quote-unquote. I guess that when I write in my journal instead of my plan, I'm not Lindsey Kuper. (Or even "Lindsay".)

I'm not writing here instead of on Plans just to make a point. I'm doing it because this is currently the only way I can think of to have a balanced conversation with you -- meaning one in which each of the participants determines how much of their own participation should be public. An entirely Plans-contained conversation would have at least been balanced within the members-only scope of Plans. Now you recommend that the readers of your public blog comment via Plans or email, and you control how much of that becomes public -- so what we get is a public, unbalanced conversation. I don't understand how that's better.


[User Picture]From: cerulicante
2005-08-03 05:44 am (UTC)
I don't know what to think about this, but I DO know that I'd agree with you before I'd agree with Stone.

His mistake is thinking that he's important enough to start Net-wide trends all by his sweet self...like a guy who wears his jockstrap outside his uniform for 15 years, KNOWING, JUST KNOWING it'll catch on and he'll be a trendsetter!
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2005-08-03 12:05 pm (UTC)

The trend towards external blogs (John David Stone)

More and more potential Plans users -- I'm thinking mainly of incoming students, but I also see this trend among alums -- are using other blogging systems. Some use both, but put their most substantial and interesting writing on their public blog and save Plans for in-jokes and quick exchanges. Others resist the idea of using Plans because they don't want to maintain two sites and don't immediately perceive the advantages of Plans.

I didn't invent these trends and am not trying to shape or reinforce them -- I'm just trying to figure out how to respond to them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cerulicante
2005-08-03 03:43 pm (UTC)

Re: The trend towards external blogs (John David Stone)

I went to a public school where the floors had mats to protect them from dragging knuckles, so I am not aware of what a Plan is or how it could be any better than a blarrgh,* but isn't just putting a link on each thing saying "this is where I talk about my boyfriend in AOL Speak and this is where the shop talk is" good enough?

I, too, will have multiple blarrghs under the same roof, but they'll be marked as such and a simple link will take people wherever they care to go to read whatver they care to read.

*Blog is a word for the cretinous. Blarrgh is much better.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2005-08-04 03:48 am (UTC)

Re: The trend towards external blogs (John David Stone)

It's hard to explain about Plans. Logging in as a guest will give you some idea of what's going on, although it looks like only a handful of the 2500-plus users have enabled guest access to their plans at the moment, so perhaps not a very good idea.

I feel obliged to point out that NCSU had its own Plans system for a while, thanks to terror_firma. So, if you'd picked your other state school...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cerulicante
2005-08-04 04:38 am (UTC)

Re: The trend towards external blogs (John David Stone)

My other state schools that were non-black and accredited were:

College of Charleston
Coastal Carolina
East Bumblestump University
The Eastern Central College of Technical University

A couple of those are made up because I can't remember all the colleges in SC.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2005-08-04 04:17 pm (UTC)

Re: The trend towards external blogs (John David Stone)

Yeah, what Will said.

Ack! Bryan, I forgot you're from South Carolina, home of the Cocks.

*slinks away*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cerulicante
2005-08-04 04:48 am (UTC)

Re: The trend towards external blogs (John David Stone)

I saw a couple of Plans.

It seems to just be blogging with a cruder interface. Most blogs are like online diaries and Plans seems no different. If you give people free license to write whatever they want and make it readable to the entire world, 90% of people will instantly write about their personal circle of influence or opinion and, as such, automatically segregate themselves into spheres of interest, with little cross-chatter among far points in the total world. It's odd how people push so hard for dissemination of information, yet cannot overcome the basic human need to self-segregate into discrete units of interest. It's kind of like how my old high school kept trying to get the kids to mingle at lunch, but after 5 minutes, one side of the cafeteria was black, the other was white and the inferior asian and miscellaneous brown races would be on the fringe. Whether the information presented is accessible via one page, 56 separate sites or by friction-powered penile modem implant, I believe it's going to be impossible to get the true data pervasiveness and concrete organization that computer people dream about.

The old adage about the analog mind comes to...well, mind.

That's what I don't understand about the entire issue. Is it an effort to quantitatively map behavior patterns or is it just something that sparks the interest or is there some sort of problem to figure out or is it critical that all people restrict themselves to one clearinghouse for personal info dissemination.

I don't know. I'm just a simple and bellicose biochemist. A raging marmoset in a gingerbread dollhouse. A chimp at a chalkboard during a physics lecture. I don't understand Internet things so well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sonetka
2005-08-03 07:48 am (UTC)
Wow, my respect for Stone just went down another substantial notch. Not that he gives a toss about me either way, so it's easier for me to say that :). Still ... arrogant, much?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2005-08-03 11:54 am (UTC)

My apologies (John David Stone)

I'm sorry -- I'm still experimenting with the conventions of blogging and didn't realize that I had violated one. You posted under an alias, and I mistakenly inferred that you would prefer that alias. Now I know better. I apologize for the mistake and promise not to repeat the offense.

With the return of guest access to Plans, it is no longer a closed, members-only system -- and it never was, in my case, because I maintained a public mirror of my Plan. I don't feel this to be asymmetrical, because I knew that other members of Plans also copied freely from Plans -- others' as well as their own -- into their public blogs, and vice versa. But I can see that some Plans users might feel differently. Would it help if I asked for permission to quote?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2005-08-04 12:49 pm (UTC)

Re: My apologies (John David Stone)

Thanks. I'm trying to find time to respond to everything.

With the return of guest access to Plans, it is no longer a closed, members-only system

Tricky...are we talking about "closed" in the disconnected-component (or something...Lord, my math is rusty), either-it-is-or-it-ain't mathematical sense, or "closed" in the social sense? My opinion is that it's still rather closed in the social sense, since (1) individual users can decide whether or not their plans are guest-readable, (2) by default they're not guest-readable, and (3) since most users haven't enabled guest access yet.

But the reason I brought it up is that your recent tendency of not linking to the original when you quote a plan seems to me like an acknowledgment of the closed nature of Plans, which doesn't jibe with the openness that you advocate for Plans.

I knew that other members of Plans also copied freely from Plans -- others' as well as their own -- into their public blogs, and vice versa. But I can see that some Plans users might feel differently. Would it help if I asked for permission to quote?

I honestly hadn't even thought about the issue of permission. I could be wrong, but I would think that a user who planloves you now is implicitly agreeing to the possibility of being quoted in your blog, unless they ask you to respond in some other way. My frustration was with you not providing a link to the original. It's preventing the quotations from being read in their original context, not to mention violating the transclusion principle.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2005-08-03 01:08 pm (UTC)

Quotation marks

Since writing the preceding comment, it's registered on me that what you particularly disliked was the use of quotation marks. Again, I apologize -- they weren't intended to be arch or sarcastic. It's just a convention that I use to indicate (redundantly, in this case) the use of a pseudonym. You'll see me using the same convention in the authors list on the Reading page (http://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~stone/weblog/reading/).

I've now revised my posts to eliminate the offending references and corrected my careless misspelling of your first name. I'll be more careful from now on.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2005-08-05 02:20 am (UTC)

Balanced delimiters

Yep, I had noticed that convention before, except I had assumed that you were using it only in cases when you didn't know the real name to use. Honestly, I think we're damned either way whenever we have to cite someone who's going by an online pseudonym. The quotation marks do seem kind of pretentious to me, but leaving them out would just look goofy -- which is why I'd think you'd want to avoid the problem by using real names if at all possible. =)

Still, I don't think "rockstarling" would have bothered me as much if you hadn't been using my real name in the entry just prior. 'Cause, see, part of my frustration with the way you quoted people's plans was that the people's names were then just floating out there, unconnected to anything. As I said before, I interpreted that as your acknowledgement of the exclusivity of Plans. And then (I'm officially giving myself the Overthought Award), that led me to conclude that if I didn't like it, then it was my responsibility to give you something public to link to -- so that's what I did. I didn't expect you to go back and edit old entries or anything, but I guess I did expect you to use my real name in subsequent entries, so that there would be some kind of cross-reference for each of your posts that quoted me. So when you didn't, it added insult to injury.

I'm pretty particular about my name being the same everywhere it appears online, because it's often all there is to hold together a lot of identities. I put my real name on just about everything, including this journal, but I should be making it more obvious.

And, I'm sorry -- I didn't have to be such a prick about my misspelled first name, and none of this "name" business is worth making as big of a fuss as I'm making about it, anyway. But when it comes to this sort of thing, I suppose I hold you to a higher standard than, oh, anyone.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)