I concur. Phil can be the Neil Diamond to my Barbara Streisand.
Diane
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Cc: <philchappell@mac.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Unidentified subject!
> Phil-- Why don't you and Diane do a duet? Most any way of beginning
> the process of
> distributed collective self-maintenance of the discussions seems like
> a healthy move to me.
> mike
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 06:38:42 +0700, phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th
> <phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th> wrote:
> > If Diane is interested, I'm happy to let her take the lead on this one;
> > otherwise, after I recover from an important presentation on Tuesday and
a
> > flight back from Sydney to Bangkok, I'm happy to be the (yuletide)
shepherd;-)
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > Is that an offer to shepard the Peirce discussion, Diane?
> > As you know, no prior experience in the topic is required,, just a
> > crooked stick and
> > a good humor.
> > mike
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:13:16 -0500, Bramble House <info@bramblehouse.net>
wrote:
> > > What is interesting, about this idea of 'shepherding discussions,'
> > > is what can happen when dissension effects a discussion.
> > >
> > > Huh.
> > > Cool. And I'm impressed with the way y'all are dealing with it.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Cheers.
> > > Meh.
> > > diane
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Cc: <philchappell@mac.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:53 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Shepherding discussions
> > >
> > > > One good delay deserves another, Phil.
> > > > We have closed the polls on the article form MCA for discussion . I
> > > > will be the one on
> > > > Peirce. It is supposed to be made available by Erlbaum next week.
Might
> > > you lead
> > > > this discussion in order to start us of on distribued stewardship? I
> > > > think that the volunteer shepards will appear only by example.
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of other articles and issues that people want to
read.
> > > > Helene W has
> > > > gotten us to Yrjo's "Values, Rubbish and Work Place" paper as one
> > > > example,. Perhaps someone else (Helene) will lead that discussion?
> > > >
> > > > Meantime, we enter finals week and I am completing a multiu-week
> > > > discussion with
> > > > colleagues and students in Santiago about culture and development.
We
> > > > finish next
> > > > Thursday.
> > > >
> > > > So much to learn, so few volunteers to help! :-)
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:20:53 +0700, phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th
> > > > <phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th> wrote:
> > > > > Mike and Bill,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just got back to email mode after drifting around for a
couple of
> > > weeks,
> > > > > computer-free (thanks in part to a bad Apple). Mike, I think your
> > > suggestion of
> > > > > having thread-shepherds is great, given, as you say, the success
on the
> > > CHAT
> > > > > course all those months back. The shepherd could ensure disussions
stay
> > > on
> > > > > track and shepherd straying topics to new threads, hopefully
without
> > > leaving
> > > > > any belly-up (I've never seen a sheep belly-up). The interventions
like
> > > > > Michael's into Bill's thread are naturally important but might be
better
> > > in
> > > > > another, parallel pen.
> > > > >
> > > > > For many, I think, discussions zoom along at such a rapid pace and
take
> > > > > unexpected left or right turns that to join in is almost like
jumping
> > > onto the
> > > > > race track while all the cars are looming in on you. For instance,
I've
> > > just
> > > > > spent a half-hour or so looking at old discussions of "history" in
CHAT,
> > > and
> > > > > found it quite difficult to find any substantial discourse on this
hoary
> > > old
> > > > > issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > My two-bob's worth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil Chappell
> > > > >
> > > > > ______________________________________________________
> > > > > Mike wrote a couple of weeks ago:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Bill-- Apropos of phil's analysis I did not read far enough
> > > > > down the note.
> > > > >
> > > > > What changes in xmca culture might mitigate the obvious problems
> > > > > without being likely to cause new problems. For example, I, too,
> > > > > thought the issue of cultural historical analysis
> > > > > important for my reasons, probably different that Phil's or
Michael's,
> > > > > but personally pressing, but could think of no way to overlap my
> > > > > interests and other competing one's to do any follow up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any change at all that creating something like a
volunteer
> > > > > committee to shepard along different discussions acknoweldged as
> > > > > important might work? Anyone who really cares to see a particular
> > > > > thread pursued could work on that thread which might or might not
> > > > > propsper, but at least would not die a sudden death for no sponsor
> > > > > willing to put in, say, a week or so, seeing if it gathered
attention,
> > > > > and different people could
> > > > > simultaneously participate and lurk as their proclivities led them
to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having the reminder of Eva's work appear and reappear, even as we
miss
> > > > > her online presence, is one gift of the discourse.
> > > > > mike
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using Inet-Webmail.
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST