tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post6933091864479336021..comments2023-05-13T02:24:42.139-07:00Comments on Stones In the Field: 2008 Kalamazoo PaperMachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01846076773328384778noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-32946375539997928442008-07-07T06:36:00.000-07:002008-07-07T06:36:00.000-07:00I missed this on my latest Miscellany. If I neglec...I missed this on my latest Miscellany. If I neglect to link to it on my next one, feel free to smack me over the head with a board until I remember.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I've got two new Hawaiian shirts thanks to you!Dr. Richard Scott Nokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-78193214171021647532008-07-04T00:06:00.000-07:002008-07-04T00:06:00.000-07:00As always, loving your posts. Hating to sound like...As always, loving your posts. Hating to sound like a suck-up. (When do we get to graduate to "curmudgeon?" I'll never win that one, I'll bet. Not in another forty years.<BR/><BR/>Blogging was for self-important loosers (intentional misspelling, that), I'd always thought. Until I got one of my own. <BR/><BR/>Now I know it's for that sort of people. *wink*<BR/><BR/>And amazing to see what roles and pigeonholes we put our own selves into when blogging. <BR/><BR/>I tend to blog family stuff. I don't know why--maybe someday I'll feel like I can say something semi-important about what I think instead of hiding behind pictures of kids playing on the back lawn and detailing semi-perfect suburbia. <BR/><BR/>Oh. That's right. That's what "secret" blogs are for! Oh, and hi, Rich! Nice to see you, there. Heh.<BR/><BR/>What?<BR/><BR/>Grinning like a loon, yet?Shwebbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02832607825194644346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-57969177816371994292008-06-20T09:35:00.000-07:002008-06-20T09:35:00.000-07:00I think, with respect that the article glosses ove...I think, with respect that the article glosses over major problems, like the Digital Dark age, in favor of a rose-tinted image of the internet. I further would suggest that although she brings up Medievalism a number of times, what she fails to consider is that medievalism only exists because we have the documents, works, papers, texts from that time period intact and accessible.<BR/><BR/> In 500 years, can there be Internetists? not with the digital dark age as a problem.<BR/><BR/>You can see the digital dark age in action, I realized, if you go back to the American Gods archives of Neil Gaiman's blog and look at how degraded it's become. Further, go to the Internet WayBack Machine and consider the state of some of the web-sites there. And then, compare it to documents from the 14th century. From the Roman Empire. From Greece.<BR/><BR/>The imbalance makes this a golden age of <I>spoken communication</I> (via the internet) but a dangerous age of <I>written communication </I> especially if the emphasis is turned on the internet.<BR/><BR/>Which is not to say that the internet should be abandoned or discarded as a method of written communication. Just that there are problems and price tags that have be keenly attended to.<BR/><BR/>*braces self for stones thrown; respectfully bows out of the room & runs for it*Peter Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17450924500401351569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-83401444505617468632008-06-10T11:07:00.000-07:002008-06-10T11:07:00.000-07:00Interesting paper, Mac--thanks for putting it up. ...Interesting paper, Mac--thanks for putting it up. Blogging reminds me of 18th-century pamphleteering operating in an immensely compressed time frame.Chris Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17695037671506768070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-64891096832743842008-06-04T19:02:00.000-07:002008-06-04T19:02:00.000-07:00It's nice to see the text here, too! Possibly the...It's nice to see the text here, too! Possibly the first Kazoo paper to be published online, as well.Another Damned Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05231085915472400163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-79119831335974666862008-05-19T15:06:00.000-07:002008-05-19T15:06:00.000-07:00I've typed with one hand. I found that I produced...I've typed with one hand. I found that I produced half of what I would've produced with two hands. I also found that my brain kept repeating "WTF are you doing"?richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14908158041515003616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-18539970971265927722008-05-10T21:17:00.000-07:002008-05-10T21:17:00.000-07:00Immensely ponderable. Good paper, Mac. Thanks for ...Immensely ponderable. Good paper, Mac. Thanks for sharing it.ohdawnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01995493308490806364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7260692.post-35105479348054978032008-05-10T21:12:00.000-07:002008-05-10T21:12:00.000-07:00Wow, how cool: I got mentioned in a paper presente...Wow, how cool: I got mentioned in a paper presented at Kalamazoo! Thank you.<BR/><BR/>I liked the point you raised about pondering the computer's effect on text. This is something I first witnessed being discussed in 1988, at a writers' workshop: with the advent of wordprocessing, the notion of discrete drafts becomes more or less meaningless.<BR/><BR/>One day I'd love to see someone do some research on how writing with one hand, i.e., creating a manuscript, uses slightly different brain paths then using two hands, i.e., creating a computer document. In other words, how the words produced now are not the same words that would have been written twenty years ago, even if all other circumstances were the same.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks again. I hope you're having a great conference.Nicola Griffithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401940329164370169noreply@blogger.com