I put a zero instead of a one and ruined history

This blog finds us discussing the saving of digital born histories as well as adding to the existing record via the digital.  First our good old friends Dan and Roy.  The reading was rather straight forward and not bogged down with techno-speak – which is refreshing.  Although certain portions made me feel that a person attempting to begin digital collections needs to be Don Draper -smoking, drinking, and pondering how to lure in the unexpecting.  This is where the interplay comes in.  To get the collection you need to offer something in return for the contributor.  Now this can be difficult but I now understand why large events, usually violent/horrific, draw the largest numbers, from scratch, because it allows them to feel a part of something bigger than themselves; a community of [          ].  Therefore smaller subjects need to appeal to a cult following such as Macintosh/Apple.  But these sites can also be ways to grieve, or release pent-up emotions; a mild form of therapy.

Now another one of our readings came from Dan, which was largely lifted from Chapter 6.   However there are a couple of points I would like to make about this reading.  In saving all of these sites for 9/11 there is bound to be a bell curve of experiences.  Does someone go through all of these and filter out those that are too similar as to make any difference, or is it a hoarders mentality where it MAY be useful?  Also the IM as a way to collect oral history is kind of a stretch but email will remain the major digital means.  Besides transcribing programs are about at the point where they can convert audio to written with relatively high accuracy.  Plus with email its kept as a record in different spots, I’m not too sure if IM is the same. Do IM programs save onto servers?  It’s interesting as well to see some of these people in the field, such as the article posted by Dr. Prescott the other day, openly admit that the best preservation for digital materials is not the digital realm.  This is why enthusiasts are important to historians of the digital.  Just think about the people who are interested in old Apple’s or video games -they make their own replacement parts in some cases.  And I enthusiastically disagree with Dan at the end when he says we need ways to capture digital born media before it is erased or altered. Two words: Big Brother.

The next two articles, the AHA statement and Laura Stark’s article, go together under the topic of Institutional Review Boards, or IRBs.  The AHA statement is much more cordial than one I would make but that’s probably for the best.  The basic discussion is are IRBs becoming too protective, to the point where it interferes with historians’ work.  Any one with a science background will tell you that when dealing with human subjects the are fully informed, sign consent waivers, and are reimbursed for their participation.  What more is there to discuss?  Reliving traumatic experiences, or legal issues?  The subjects willingly participate no one stick bamboo slivers under their fingernails to get them to talk.  Also Ms. Stark points out that some IRBs exclude the lead investigator from these discussions.  Which makes perfect sense; exclude the person that knows the most about the proposal.  It is also interesting that in this discussion on ethics that the Stanford Experiment has been left out.  And it was done in 1971, after the 1966 policy was enacted.  I end here because ethics could take the whole of the internet.

Any bets on how hot the room will be?

Some comments on this week’s readings (and apologies for the tardiness, it takes a long time to unlock ones car with a wire hanger).

The Chun et al. article read like stereo instructions.  While the article does an amazing job discussing the technologies that museums can use it never mentions the fiscal issue except in saying that some of the technology is free via the Web.  Some museums are not online, those that are may not have digital collections accessible via the internet.  Therefore to join up they need to do that.  Then they need to create search programs and if they would like tagging ones, like that at the CMA, then they need to sort through that and decide what terms best apply.  My museums cannot make a decision in a day without 30 people having their two cents added.  Time is money. Make the visitor stop being lazy and drive on down and check it out.  They might learn something.  Also tagging based on folksonomy can lead to research becoming more difficult because of all the crap that would come up just because it’s tagged (go to Google images and see the wacky stuff that gets brought up).  My question is that in this article it seems that authors want to put more power into the hands of the visitor – Why? Then their history and understanding of it infiltrates the field and while the Ivory Tower is no good, either is devaluing our professions.  Their limited understanding-based tags lead to the muddling mentioned earlier.  Finally what is a Museum 2.0?

Now its Peter Samis’ turn.  We have very different understandings of what interpretation is.  Interpretation is not always based on visitor wants.  Rather it is dictated to what the powers THINK the visitor wants and should learn.  Also while ipad, and its smaller sibling the iphone, are great devices to be used in a museum on the fly, and educated guide can not only provide a clear explanation but one is more likely to remember the event because it has been prolonged. Repeatition works the same way. ( And on a personal note, I find those that constantly use audio/cell tours are on the path to anti-social behavior.)  I do like Pete because he says that the guide is the best option.  And what will stimulate the economy more, people making an income and pouring it back into the market or a cold piece of machinery that allows the Cats to get fatter?  Also this article is mostly about art museums and I don’t know about the rest of the world but art is the most subjective thing out there.  No audio or even live guide can tell you to experience art.  Plaques serve the purpose of saying the basic information that anyone needs.  However the whole Learning Lounge thing sounds like a riot…I’d knock over a kid to get there first.  The most interesting part of this article is where Samis tells us that at SFMOMA the physical (not analog, Pete) beat out the digital.  Go Reality!

ForMatt’s article there are a few things I’s like to address.  First the Trust aspect is key.  The museums need to be able to know they can rely on those that contribute via these online avenues.  Which if Chris Hansen has taught us anything, you cannot trust anyone on the internet.  Well not anyone, but it comes with this inherent lesson to view the web with a skeptics eye.  Also toward the end of the article Matt talks about a survey of individuals’ wants for a museum website.  Top responses were interaction with experts – feel important, educated, and connected those high in their fields/society, hence why celeb twitters are popular.  And “fun facts.” To me this shows that not many people want to participate in or with the museum but rather FEEL as if they are.

Just go to museums people. Is it really that hard?

Time to dress like the Gordon Fisherman

So hope this finds everyone well after spring break and our recent deluge.  There was much to read this week but by the end some of the repetition was working (dpi, OCR, etc.).  The reading from our old pals Dan and Roy set the blueprint for the rest of the readings; mainly how to digitize, pros/cons, costs, methods, and all that includes.  There was one portion however I did not expect to be a reoccurring theme.  Nearly every reading discussed or implied the importance of DIY.  Dan and Roy say the most important components are the control given to the person/institution doing the scanning as well as familiarizing oneself with the new technology.  The speech by Mike Jensen covers this when he tells the librarians and publishers that the “knowledge universe” is their realm – not that of amateurs like Google and Yahoo.  I rather enjoy the DIY spirit (which fits appropriately with the Dead Kennedys) not only because of the lessons it teaches a person(aka self-reliance) but it also makes one more prepared for changes in their field, though I do understand that some things take a professional (even though Ask This Old House makes it seem so easy).

While on the subject of Mike’s speech…I like the fact that this was recorded saved my eyes a bit.  His corn metaphor was interesting but that can be flipped to the digital, because if we rely on these documents in just a digital form and not the “analog” (which is ridiculous attachment to books, etc.) than a single virus – like corn rust – wipe it out.  It seems that he is very willing to engage the idea of print going the way of the dinosaurs. Mike also talks about the book being replaced as the culmination of a professional academic degree and being replaced by larger hypertext projects that sprawl the web.  I believe this should count towards ones professional work but the book is the standard.  In HIST 501 Warshaur said to be concise and not long-winded. This is what I understand to be a good historian; taking complex ideas and histories and making them clear and to the point.  But Warshauer could be wrong.

Next Besser.  This was one of the best articles we have read because it  acknowledges how awesome libraries are and portrays them as indispensible.  Besser shows how libraries can expand and grow to fit the new needs of the public while still performing their usual services. 

Library Man.  No not a superhero, just an academic blogger.  The key aspect to this piece is the code of conduct discussion.  There should be a code of conduct for some sites on the web but how can one impose such rules on something that is so egalitarian.  The internet is the Wild West and the outlaws like how it is running.  But Codes of ethics or conduct convey a level of professionalism and by adhering to these codes, and punishing the evil doers, institutions show they can be trusted.

Burritt Newsletter.  I’m on Steve’s side; his analogies make perfect sense, and it’s not because I like the Sox.  The point is that professionals are trained to make our researching much easier; a task I am more than willing to allow them to do.  I do support the DIY spirit, but when dealing with massive collections of knowledge some narrowing can help, now and days we have people and computers to help and it’s my opinion that man-not-asking-for-directions syndrome has spread to most people in that they prefer non-human interaction.(How many times have you gone into a store shopping for something particular and when the person says “can I help you?” you say “no”?)

The two case studies I looked into were the NUCMC and National Archives.  The former is a great tool, but next to the NA it seems a bit outdated.  The NUCMC also confused me at first, there was a lot happening on that main page.  The National Archives suffers from a similar issue, though it is a super-fantastic service.  The clutter on the main page though makes it look unattractive and kind of unprofessional

Finally the issue of altering digital images.  Foremost – give this guy his own show.  On a more serious note though the issue of digital image altering for historians will be an issue, but only if we let it.  Any new image that comes out historians must look at it with a skeptical eye.  Granted it may be hard to do with the naked eye, but that’s why there are people like Farid.  Unless the historian is well versed in image analysis, the field needs to be willing to work with others outside of the discipline.  This is an issue that has been brought up in the past in discussing partnered projects for historians and I believe increasingly this should be a non-issue; admit you have no clue and seek help.

P.S.

I would like to thank Pandora.  If you use this, create a station using The Meters and if you don’t want to bop then you might want to check your pulse.

Insert Clever Title

The ACLS wants everyone to stop the fussin’ and a fuedin’ and hop on the bandwagon to Technotown (all untz, all the time).  Their article though was apparently not meant for anyone at the low-end of the totem…no where do they mention the importance of the student embracing these changes and advancements.  This report is aimed at the big cheese’s  that control either money or…money.  It doesn’t grow on trees but sure makes the world go round.  And when dealing with funding issues one must put aside certain beliefs and compromise but I however do not see agencies fulling embracing what the ACLS thinks is necessary.  However I do find the model and necessities, especially those in section 3, logical and needed.

Lisa’s articles was her account of how the technology that has developed for scholars helped her to organize and better her writings.  This is nice guideline to individuals but one quote bothered me.  She says that using this technology will help her leverage the digital for new arguments.  That line made me think that perhaps the reason some scholars are reaching into the digital realm and hailing as all important is because the field may be cashed.  Has it all been done?  How many books can come out about Lincoln, the Civil War, Hitler or WW 2 before historians are flogging a dead horse?  I ask this of everyone.  Do we want new research/archive methods because we are desperately grasping for new info to keep our profession viable?

Our man Dan with the plan  brings us more techno-advantages.  Basically Dan has come up with ways for external computers to help the one’s in our head.  These are both  great tools for obvious reasons. Even someone as skeptical of technology as myself will admit that these are great tools.  Though in his search of the Bush presidents: why not use dates?  Once again though, love the H-Bot and I agree that there need to be more APIs like this one.  I disagree with the quantity making up for quality argument though. One word: Toyota.

Next up, our boy Roy.  I found myself agreeing with Roy quite a bit in this article, or at least some of the examples.  Archiving digital correspondence of government officials is paramount.  These people are paid by us and should be held accountable for all of their words and actions.  One point raised in the article was the more recent preservation of written works in a digital format.  The technology is ever-changing so archiving projects that may take 5 years are outdated by the end of the process.  Also a good point is made about the corruptibility of this information in digital format.  Do we really want a single,defective bit putting years of work in the crapper?  Granted there are emulator’s but those can also fail or be corrupted. the issue of forgeries is important as well-physical records can be easier to ID as fake than one where the digital information and coding can be changed.   Then this brings in the security question.  The same things that can impact physical records can impact digital ones, but not vice versa.   The shelf space argument-digitals take up less of it.  True but that argument is sauce.  Look around Hartford, or any town really, and look at all the empty buildings just taking up space that could be filled with knowledge, correctly preserved, as well as some of the buildings that may have historical significance.  (Anyone from Southington or that area can attest to the vacant Pratt buildings)

The Long Tail article is…interesting.  Netflix is awesome. Pandora is awesome.  But these are the money arguments for digitization.  These technologies were developed to get the buyer (in the case of Amazon and Rhapsody) to consume more.  Granted its great that a person could be exposed to Two-tone ska, but how many No Doubt fans would’ve liked them before Tragic Kingdom? or even venture out of their musical comfort zone? (if I see or hear one more “I like all kinds of music except country” or rap or whatever I seriously fear my insides will be outside)  And the reasons why a large margin of their profits come from outside their top-whatever lists is because people who like music know they can find those rare albums, not because the meta data algorithms link mumbo-jumbo.

The final article had an argument that got me bogged down in the philosophical  issue of has our technology outpaced our humanity.  This Bush gentlemen talks about how important thinking (the second kind) is…and he pushed through nuclear weapons. (someone give this guy a freaking medal)  And I am all about freeing up time for deeper contemplation, and if digital mediums will help, awesome.  But if I need to learn all the new technologies, and their ins and outs, isnt’ that robbing me of reflective thinking time?  Also this lack of leisure time I contribute to America and the Puritan work ethic…we go on vacation or have a break, others go on holiday.

Wiki Wiki Wah…Get it?

So this weeks readings dealt with the Wikipedia, the harbinger of epistemic egalitarianism.  All of the articles basically addressed the same issue: wikipedia as a delivery device for historical knowledge but also its evils, such as anyone editing these sites (which according to some has been roped up sufficiently).  The first article written by are man Roy is a nice little background and implication piece for the Wikipedia, which by the end you can tell he likes it.  And who doesn’t?  Endless knowledge, being able to win bets and rubb it in your friends face all night? Sign me up.  It’s when people begin to take it as a source for their own scholarly (meant generally as school work, I’d hope pros aren’t using it)  work that things get worrysome.  To me it fosters a bad work ethic. Who remembers, or possibly was, that plunker that copied all the wikipedia sites in a small font to fit on a 3×5 card?  SLACKER!

Next-Patrick Leary.  I agree with Pat, and the little human interest piece at the beginning really made it apparent how easy the Web has made things.  No longer do historians need to travel and bust their humps rumaging through stacks of papers or looking in old, abandoned desks or chests for that hidden jewel.  Now all we need to is cast out a couple lines into the sea of the Web with juicy lures on them and wait for a bite…think water-hole, straw in mouth, twine tied to your toes.  I like convenience but I thought historians go and find the answers, not wait for them to come to them.  When writing a biography wouldn’t one of the first things you would do is contact the decendants

Roy and Dan-I hate Scantron too!  When I read this it seemed that they were implying that cellphones-with their web connectablity-would render multiple-choice obsolete.  Also this article is Dan and Roy praising the knowledge on the Web and saying “Hey it’s not that bad, and accurate to boot.”  And I don’t recall any mention of cheating either. Then we came to H-Bot…I like this concept but saying that it did better than an average student makes me weep for humanity.  Also this calculator thing has gotten beyond not knowing times tables.  I’m hoping everyone of my age group remembers the TI-83 Graphing Calculator… it does more than just compute simple mathmatics, it does all your math thinking for you with formulas and programs then graphs it in awesome 8-bit quality (then all the games).  Plus it cost $100 when I was in high school, will the lower class students suffer or be at a disadvantage  because they can’t drop X dollars for a Cliolator?

New Yorker-This article was an in-depth study of the history of the Wikipedia, one of its founders Jimbo Wales, and much of the same things that are discussed repeatedly in the other articles. (good v. bad, peer editing, future, dispensing free knowledge)  My favorite line is Wales saying knowledge can cure the worlds ills and he’s Enlightenment minded…when those ideas and knowledge of them spread during the Enlightenment we got…anyone?…that’s right Revolution through most of Western culture.  Plus many of the world’s ills are caused and piloted by educated men and women.  Politicians go to some of the best schools but frak things up pretty well.  And if Essjay is so respected why won’t he ID himself, or herself?  All I want is a wiki to explain some of these New Yorker cartoons.

Sanger-Helped create the Wikipedia, left over frustration of too much crap, starts Citizendium.  Sanger provides the best defense of these type of sites by his reliability argument.  Beater cars aren’t the best but can be reliable, same with the Wikipedia.  Don’t like however his slight against degrees, where he says expertise should be judge on merit not degrees and how many great programmers dont have CS degrees…yea let’s see how much he likes some goon carving him open during surgery because said goon watches re-runs of ER and is the world Operation champion ten years running.  Granted history is different, but not when you get into the finer details and why something is important.

Cohen- Of course Google and Yahoo want the Wikipedia, makes their searches better and further reaching and it also brings them hits so I believe it is a fair trade.  But Dan needs to stop using this free beer, free speech thing.  It just makes me thirsty and think how some people shouldn’t be allowed to speak.

Boggs-Interesting concept Jeremy but why not teach them to use the library and all books then put up a Wiki entry and monitor it.  You can still teach them the concepts you want and actually prepare them for college, where this web-site usage doesn’t cut it (there are exceptions, we all know ’em, and the Wikipedia isn’t one).  I know kids use the technology and are familiar with it but they shouldn’t be catered to…cater to a kid too much and you get the kid from League of Their Own where all you want to do is peg him in the face with a mitt.

Week 3 made my eyes bleed

Lots of reading (print and digital) and poking around with delicious, google, find forward, case studies gave rise to the title of this weeks edition.

1.  The Digital History book by Cohen was a nice little primer on the history of strictly historical-digital relationships, as well as a “Hey folks this is what is out there.”  It was easy to read but covered most of the things that have been discussed in class so far, such as uses for the digital realm that history can take advantage of.  I did enjoy the portion where the amount of money that can be made off of the digitizing/archiving sites, however one line rang rather sour-the fact that ProQuest and Thomson are in a fight to “own the past.”  To me this clashes with many of the altruistic aims most academics hold when it comes to history and its marriage to the digital.

2. “Promise of Digital History, or, edited emails by professionals talking about how great their field is and how everyone should hop on board and embrace them or be left in the dust.”  Cohen actually says that that it it ”perilous to ignore the new techniques.”(I wanted to hand write a book after reading that)  This article was long but did provide some highlights.  The most important aspect to me was the discussion of how these new technologies will lead to more collaboration and cooperation between scholars.  I would rather enjoy working with someone that shares historical  interests AND knows how to create and manipulate the digital realm.  I mean when it comes down to whether I’d like to learn more about my specialization or learn the ins and outs of a new technology that I’m apprehensive about at best…I’ll take the former.   I also agree, and this may seem surprising, that graduate and undergraduates in History do take courses similar to ours.  I’m not looking to be a Black Belt with the digital skills, however having a basic knowledge will make myself, and all historians, more rounded and more in touch with aspects of their fields that they can use.  One thing missing from this article though is a dissenting view.  All of the people interviewed are involved in Digital History programs, so of course the article glows like Chernobyl with positives and this is what should be done.  And they all agree.

3.”Pasts and Futures.” Ayers addresses, like much of the readings so far, the past and future of history and digital tech./realms.  The point about back issues of journals online I agree with. As well as the opening up of professional conversation between scholars.  This last one though has been happening for quite some time, its just took some effort (!) in the past. (Remember writing letters? and stamps?)  I also liked Ayers’ discussion of how scholars should embrace complex, interwoven stories-which to me read write about history.  The feeling I received from this portion went sour when he talked about how television had programmed people to be able to follow story lines that boggle the mind in complexity and breadth (aka LOST, Heroes, 24, etc.).  Does he believe that a book in print cannot be complex?  That the narrative must take a digital form of links to documents, videos, images, etc. to be complex and interwoven?  The reason I like history is the complex, interwoven nature of things.  Making the connection on ones own between seemingly different topics is a great reward.  Can we get that satisfaction by having clicking thinking for us.  Give a man a fish, or give him a rod?

4.”Google Books: whats  not to like?”…Everything!  or so it seems from Townsends article.  Aside from being able to get rare books, GB is full of faults.  The scans are either shotty, not in order, or repeated.  Also much of the metadata is erroneous, or at least as it pertained to what Townsend was looking up.  Basically GB suffers from poor quality control which extends from the want to make money.

5.  Poe article.  The argument here is that historians must jump into the digital realm to save good history and spread it to the masses so they stop learning bas history.  This operates under the assumption that once the good stuff is put out, that the public will take hold of it.  Poe suggests getting involved in Wikipedia, to reach those that are filling their head with lies by reading bad Wiki info.  Then he suggests Citizendium-a Wikipedia for professionals…Won’t they care more about the professional site and not the hack-tastic, error vomiting Wikipedia?  Also he mentions, like everyone else, that scholars start blogging or publishing online or participate in online historical communities or social network or… actually the list of things he suggests is exhausting.  Granted some of these things are useful…social networking is probably the largest benefit because as Poe points out all the other online writing and publishing doesn’t count didley squat toward promotion/tenure.  Which begs the question, and this is aimed at you Dr. Prescott, how probable is it that a college or university would consider online, non-peer reviewed publishing?

6.  The use of Delicious-don’t get it, or perhaps it’s just not practical for me.  What ever happened to adding things to your favorites?  Delicious, Flickr, Technorati-3 sites that can be done away with cause you can do it from your browser.  Google searches using Boolean logic, negation terms, etc. are key to time saving, I’m convinced that if more people used this they would find search engines turning up more proper results.  Also Find Forward was a bit confusing at first but with tinkering and exposure could prove to be useful once my topic is not so broad.

My eyes have fallen out of their sockets.

Hamlet on Holodeck

First things first.  While reading this book all I could think of was the song “I Love My Computer,” by Bad Religion.  Also I don’t dislike technology; just wary.

Janet Murray lays out, in three parts, how the explosion of technology in the last thirty years, mostly the growth of cyber space, will impact future narratives.  Laying out the book in three, very related, almost redundant at times, sections allows for someone (me) to power through a part of the book and put it all together in one cohesive picture before moving on.  The first part fills in the development of these new narratives in a new medium and how they impact us.  The best examples she uses during this are the “Back to the Future” ride, with its techno-immersion fun, Akira Kurasowa films (whoe impact can be seen in hundreds of films, from spaghetti westerns to Tarantino movies), and the video game she play on vacation.

This last example is great because it shows the positives and the negatives of these narrative technologies.  Positive because it really grabs your attention but negative because it REALLY grabs you, brings you in.  The most peaceful people can become Charles Bronson in Death Wish if you put a plastic gun, video screen, and an army of the undead, aliens, terrorists, etc., etc., in front of them. And she keeps pumping in the quarters too. Which brings me to a point she does not address in the book-the addictive capabilities of these new mediums.  People flock to whereever the latest, greatest techno-wonder can be found and we are not far from Alhambra (thank you Jim Cameron).  Video and cyber narratives have become digital forms of crack and heroin for some people.  This does connect to the point that Murray makes about allowing just the right amount of participation, but what the consumer wants is more participation, more involvemnt in the story that plays out on the screen. (Look at the Wii) On the TV,  ”Lost” has allowed the audience to participate in its many Wki and dummy sites.  The Dharma Initiative, Oceanic Airlines,  Hanso Foundation all have or had websites.  Now that I think about “Lost” is perfect for this book.  There are many websites of fans, the faux ones mentioned above, the many podcasts-it shows the movement of narrative into cyber space. 

  I’m dissappointed that Murray’s love of the technologies may have excluded the very real danger of humanity “plugging in”.  I mean who needs fresh air, or a nice hike in the mountains when I can slap on a head set, stand in my living room, and stroll the Adirondacks via my Wii? I don’t need to go out when I have WOW or XBOX Live, I can kill baddies  AND talk to my friends.  Who needs real friends and real interactions?

Next the book is outdated. Simply put this is the kind of book that allows for revisions for as long as Murray is kickin around.  The movement of technology is ever so rapid and this book should keep up…I’ve been on the “Back to the Future Ride”…when i was 9.

I feel I have bashed this book too much.  I didn’t hate the book.  It was very easy to read and much of the techno jargon that is thrown in is clearly explained and much of the evidence and anecdotes Murray has are humorous and entertaining.  I actually think this book would be a great first read if you were introducing someone to the development and expansion of non-print story-telling. 

Overall the book is a respectable-clap.  not as lame as a golf-clap, but not quite an ovation.

Reaction to Cohen

This article was almost exactly what I expected it to be-a person that is enthralled with an idea and believes that all others should follow their lead.  I do understand that blogs, and the Internet in general, lend themselves greatly to quick and wide explosion of ideas, thoughts, or feelings.  Technology in general has done that  for centuries.  Cohen may be forgetting though that not everyone is keen on being so involved in these new technologies.  I wish he had simply said this isn’t for everybody, but if it sounds interesting, then hey here are some positives to academic blogs.   One point Cohen makes and I do agree with, academics should be more involved in the internet.  If only to overtake and eradicate the stupifying number of blogs- ones that argue the endless list of escrament like who shot first, Han or Greedo or how great (or not) the bags on “Jersey Shore” are-like the Hunta Virus.  This moves to another valid point made by Cohen, that obsession is a fine line that one must teeter on, between expert and psychopathic obsession, between a person that likes cat to the crazt cat lady at the end of the block.

I also found that this article showed many of the points that Murray brings up in her book.  Cohens use of links to people, events, or blogs that he mentions shows the participatory and encyclopedic capabilities of the Web as well as how exstensive of a web the Internet is.

The article is a golf-clap.  Outside of the altruistic purposes that Cohen indicates at the end, I feel like he is trying to convince many people of something they don’t want or need to be convinced of.  I feel that most people at this point have made up their minds and are not looking to be converted to being members of the “blogosphere”.  After all, the three scariest words in the English language?  Come Join Us.

For biographical purposes:  Born in Indiana (Ft. Wayne),  educated in Connecticut (Southington HS, CCSU), work at museums (HBSC and WDS), tutor, brewer, patriot.

After I opened this account and began to explore I came to the realization that this class will help me move into the 21st century…a decade late.   Thank the maker that this site is extremely easy to navigate. Also who knew an inanimate object could greet me with down-home colloquialisms  like ‘Howdy’, or  even allow me to go “Turbo”.

Test Post

Testing…testing…one, two.