I can see where I was unclear about his reply being unnecessary. I meant that an apology was unnecessary. I tried not to be too careless as I dashed off a reply but that line could’ve been more clear.

The ‘friends’ comment was a lighthearted quip about how we choose to go about things and the consequences of that. It was a throwaway line.

I understand your intentions re: comments about styles.

I’m not sure whether to respond on Dean’s page or your page, but since we are conversing here, I will continue here.

I have only been blogging since this past summer, but I thought the point of blogging was to converse and participate “in the conversation.” So, when I stated that I felt that Dean had the right to voice his opinion, I was a little confused because you seemed to contradict yourself when first you stated that:

a) I still think that Dean’s reply was unnecessary. He engaged in the debate.

and

d) No one – at any point – suggested that Dean or anyone else didn’t have the right to give their opinion. That’s why I encouraged discussion and dissent without editing or deleting any comments. It was a good debate and we’re all thinking more because of it.”

I think that we can all agree that debate can be good, if done in a constructive manner. I have judged many a debate contest in my day and it is always done with mutual respect.

I, myself, use twitter as a social network, but never saw any of the referenced twitter posts. Therefore, I am not sure what you were referring to when you stated:

“b) You, Dean, Graham and others probably have more friends than I do.”

Finally, your last comment was “c) If the post had the tone of a lecture, it’s because I felt that’s what was needed. Because some likely didn’t want to hear it doesn’t mean it was unnecessary.”

Certainly, that was your right to present in lecture-style. I never stated the I didn’t want to hear it or that it was unnecessary. I simply suggested and still believe that if you would have presented it with a more gracious tone, the message would have been better received.

After all, the point of a debate is to persuade one’s audience. When people are met with sarcasm, they are sometimes put off, rather than convinced of the message. I hope you see that my intentions are not to offend but to encourage thoughtful consideration to softening your tone next time.

Decided to tackle this face to face….sort of.

Play Video Comment

In case this video won’t play/work or you don’t want to watch me blabber for 90 seconds, I’ll summarize.

I’m not trying to sound disingenious but really do have to apologize for using a word in what I thought was a private space (temporary lapse in judgment). I wouldn’t call you that to your face so I had no right saying it. That’s just my policy. I think too many cowardly hide behind their blog and say all sorts of things they’d never say in public. I won’t do that so I broke whatever standards I’ve set for myself.

As far as the content of your comment…wow! If that’s what you come up with in only a few minutes, I can see why you said you didn’t take hours crafting a response to Graham as I suggested….another apology and also thanks for your many insights here. Good stuff and while I’m not sure I agree, you’ve once again pushed my thinking. Thanks.

a) I still think that Dean’s reply was unnecessary. He engaged in the debate.

b) You, Dean, Graham and others probably have more friends than I do.

c) If the post had the tone of a lecture, it’s because I felt that’s what was needed. Because some likely didn’t want to hear it doesn’t mean it was unnecessary.

d) No one – at any point – suggested that Dean or anyone else didn’t have the right to give their opinion. That’s why I encouraged discussion and dissent without editing or deleting any comments. It was a good debate and we’re all thinking more because of it.

I’ve only got a minute, so I’ve got to be quick with the reply.

There’s no need to apologize. Your Twitter convo. wasn’t offensive at all – I just found the general Twittering ironic, amusing and [a very small bit of] sad commentary about how we use technology.

Here’s why:

1. For all the advocacy about accountability and authenticity in technology, a group of gossipers were exposed by the stuff they evangelize incessantly. That is funny to me. At the risk of sounding US-centric [THE HORROR!], they got Spitzered.

You didn’t, but a few of your colleagues did – I’ll get to that. But it’s a mix of hubris and a misunderstanding of the technologies’ implications.

2. Twitter was used here by your colleagues in lieu of discussing something directly with the primary source – in this case, me and Graham. That is a problem.

I created a post on my website that allowed for discussion of the topic. I didn’t reply on Graham’s blog because I felt that we were discussing different things and I always avoid hijacking threads/posts. I do not delete any comments, so what you see on my site is the full, unfettered debate.

You have nothing to apologize about. You engaged in the debate, the discussion, the conversation. That is what responsible people do. It’s also effective for everyone – as we’ve attested before, we all had a better understanding of the issue as the conversation progressed.

“OMG OMG he iz sewww mean n lyke r00d” comments with one another on Twitter do not lead to understanding. They are useless and several of your colleagues stopped there. It is infinitely less valuable than getting into a discussion with a primary player – me or Graham [there were no relevant comments on his blog post].

It is incredibly important that ed-tech’ers realize how often they use media like Twitter *in lieu of* conversation with a primary source or, at the least, a secondary source. Hey, go for tertiary sources who just know a ton. All three options are more valuable than discussing something with Twitterfriends.

I know that sometimes our Twitterfriends, especially those with high-profile networks, ARE those sources. That’s acceptable. I’m talking about when they aren’t.

It’s probably time that more people admitted what you did here – that Twitter is an excellent social network, security blanket, source of fun, and beneficial echo-chamber. Some argue that placing limits on technology hinder our “pushing its boundaries,” but it’s important to note that better-defining the purpose of technology can also keep us from using it inefficiently – or, again, in lieu of something better.

3. I don’t use Tweetscan. It works if you want to search for popular keywords or something like “NECC” that is likely to appear *one way and one way only*. It does not work for any term that could be abbreviated differently, shortened, etc. For example, if I were to have Tweetscanned “tabor,” I wouldn’t have come up with sujokat’s comment that referred to me as “mr T.” Identifying and following networks manually is far more effective.

And the ed-tech community is incredibly predictable. What you don’t expose when you’re helping us all to see the light can be inferred from when you’re telling us all that we’re too dumb to see the light [generalization, present company excluded].

I Googled a few names + twitter, followed some tweets and explored the networks and comments. In about 5 minutes, I’d found several people who were discussing the post in a way that generally couldn’t be read by others, archived, etc.

There was also a difference in tone – and in content, with some that I chose not to highlight – between the website comments [responsible, committed to debate] and the Twitters [ughhhhghghghgh]. Mismatches in tone between what’s public and what’s private are a good topic to think more about.

For what it’s worth, in addition to doing graduate/professional school admissions consulting, I also have a contract with a search engine. I’m fairly good at research and following things.

On another subject entirely, I’m intrigued by the options for audio and video commenting that are now on your blog. This warrants further exploration, even if I’m likely to discover that it won’t work on edublogs.org