Reflecting on the past week's discussions on this forum, I have found it at times frustrating, enlightening, and, in some of the lengthy commentary, repetitive (same tired old dichotomous views emerging). But Steve and others have also served to stir my own thinking, perhaps more than any other debate thus far on ITForum.
I have been refreshed by the intellectual capacities shown in Steve's responses to a myriad of comments, diverse in their critiques. Moreover, I thought that, in particular, Ian Hart and Tom Reeves have pursued a number of insightful approaches to enliven well-worked perspectives in the debate. But perhaps more than anything, I have been taken by the nature of the language used by various academics to position themselves. Yes, I'm aware that this is all good clean fun; but the language used often suggests otherwise--language marked by polarizations, provocation, and antagonistic remarks. It seems that many of the comments have been about personalities, about reputations, about defending rather than about exploring intellectual ideas or building bridges to shared understandings.
I guess, on reflection, I see nothing amiss in this (isn't this what true academia is all about); indeed, a study of the language used in this forum over the past week might make a fascinating study for a research student, adding to our understanding of this medium's (listserv) influence on asynchronous forums.
Finally, I find it interesting that an idea, view or suggestion that is accompanied by two or more journal references, should be presented as evidence of weighty substance--is there an academic law to this effect?