Gentlemen (I nearly wrote boys and now I have), forgive me for intruding
into your parallel universe, but could we try to get this back on track. Of
course I understand that a lot of the most profound ideas about disability
were hashed out at the B/bar (pun intended). But if I could just refer to
the original question - again - cos there is a serious point in there
somewhere ....
I think David's comment about different contexts is not actually so very far
off the Mark, and Han seems to agree because he talks about this thread
being a "discussion". Most of us know that email communication has its own
rules and these include hitting the send button snappily. In writing
something using data from discussion lists, I guess it's important to
highlight this. But herein lies the point. If this is a discussion list,
what we see (mostly) is the collective development of threads. Therefore, if
you take one comment out of this discussion, you AUTOMATICALLY extract it
from the context and attribute it to an individual, whilst denying the
collective's involvement in the development of the thread over time.
But this is also a problem with asking the participants in a discussion for
permission to quote because they usually consider such permissions in a
real-time, individual context i.e. 'what does it mean for me if I give
permission?' And often they want to change what they've said BECAUSE they've
pressed the send button snappily. However, their changed comment might look
very silly when placed back in the context of the original discussion when
no-one else wants to change what they've said. Since, as a researcher, I'm
interested in the discussion itself - well, as a deaf person its the nearest
I can get to a pub conversation isn't it (!) - this is a real methodological
and ethical problem for me.
Mairian
> From: Han Tacoma <[log in to unmask]>
> Organization: JAZ Information Brokerage
> Reply-To: Han Tacoma <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:11:47 -0500
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Internet "research", Copyright and WIPOFF
>
> Miles,
>
> This seems so out of character compared to your other posts to the
> list and the impressive and distinguished body of work you have published.
>
> Por cierto, tu capacidad de expresión en Castellano es excelente!
>
> If I didn't know better, I would think you are "trolling." and the last
> thing I would like to see is "YHBT. YHL. HAND."
>
>> Han, Han, pu-lease! This is a pub debate. Trying to introduce verifiable
>> data is like cheating with an encyclopedia under the table during a Pub
>> Quiz.
>
> If this is indeed a pub debate, your post may be the result of one to many.
>
> [...snip reference to Doonesbury...]
>
>> Y'gotta read between the lines, roll with the punchlines, hear the music
> in
>> the trees, monitor the parallel universes...
>
> I try, Wu-Wei.
>
> Did you cover that during your "Refurbishing religious texts on
> disability for modern sensitivities: an old game continues" at CIRRIE?
>
>
>> bye, dynasty-man
>
> Are you implying a relationship to Han Kao-tsu (Liu Pang) as in founder
> of the Han dynasty?
>
> Cheers!
> --
> Han Tacoma
>
> ~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|