|
BrettJohnsonSecondPaper 11 - 26 Jan 2010 - Main.StephenClarke
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
REVISED. READY FOR REVIEW | | |
-- BrettJohnson - 24 Jan 2010 | |
>
> | This paper’s introductory paragraph is misleading and should probably be cut out. The relevant dichotomy is not the Wyoming of yester-year v. the Internet wired world of today. It is the world before and after the Internet. Moreover, it is simply misleading to speak in terms of “long-term relationships.” This paper has nothing to say about relationships with friends, family, or business associates. This paper is about sexual relationships, which are merely one type of relationship that may or may not be “long term.”
The basic thesis of this paper, which is never clearly stated, appears to be (1) that the Internet permits individuals to cheaply (and successfully) search far and wide for a desirable sexual partner at a low cost and (2) that this will cause people to have shorter-term sexual relationships. Neither part of this two-part thesis seems to be well supported by any empirical evidence. Has the Internet had an effect on divorce rates? Marriage durations? Providing empirical answers to these questions or any number of others might help improve this paper.
Furthermore, the effect of the Internet on sexual relationships may be different among teens, college age persons, and adults. It may be different for different races or classes. The point is that this paper provides the reader with no definition of “long-term” and does not define who it is really talking about. On average, individual definitions of “long-term” probably change as one ages and cultural definitions of “long-term” may be different within different segments of the American population.
-- StephenClarke - 26 Jan 2010 | | | |
|
|
BrettJohnsonSecondPaper 10 - 25 Jan 2010 - Main.BrettJohnson
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | UNDER REVISION | >
> | REVISED. READY FOR REVIEW | | | Introduction | | | Introduction | |
<
< | By providing readily available choices the internet has the effect of shortening peoples’ attention span. As discussed below, this shortened attention span may affect not only entertainment choices but also personal relationships--resulting in a decrease in the number of long term intimate relationships. | >
> | By providing readily available choices the internet may have the effect of shortening peoples’ attention span. As discussed below, this shortened attention span may affect not only entertainment choices but also personal relationships--resulting in a decrease in the number of long term intimate relationships. | | | | |
<
< | The issue of whether a reduced number of long-term relationships is good or bad is far beyond the scope of this essay. While some people tend to assume that long-term relationships are beneficial to society it is impossible to set forth such a blanket rule. Instead, each relationship would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Undoubtedly there are times that it is better to end the relationship—such as in cases of abuse—or even unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the relationship. On the other hand most would probably agree that a long-term relationship should not be ended because of a minor argument. Thus, the resulting inability to set forth a blanket rule for the desirability of long-term relationships. | >
> | The issue of whether a reduced number of long-term relationships is good or bad is far beyond the scope of this essay. While some people tend to assume that long-term relationships are beneficial to society it is impossible to set forth such a blanket rule. Instead, each relationship would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Undoubtedly there are times that it is better to end the relationship—such as in cases of abuse—or even unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the relationship. On the other hand most would probably agree that a long-term relationship should not be ended because of a minor argument. Thus, the resulting inability to set forth a blanket rule. | | |
An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society | | | With the internet, we have become a society of instant gratification as a natural consequence of the number of options that we have at our disposal, resulting in a lack of patience for something/somebody that/who is not currently meeting our needs. With respect to personal relationships, there are websites specifically devoted to meeting and dating, Match.com, EHarmony and Plenty of Fish as well as the social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook. After the initial connection—via the internet—or otherwise, there are cell phones, text messages, emails, and IMs. | |
<
< | Commentators have speculated upon the effect that the internet has and will continue to affect the manner in which people meet and begin personal relationships. Some have specifically suggested that the existence of the internet has made infidelity in relationships more common and have explored the specific type of infidelity, called cyber infidelity. Moreover, “[m]atrimonial lawyers have reported seeing a rise in divorce cases due to the formation of such Cyberaffairs” See also Quittner, J. (1997, April 4) Divorce Internet Style. Time, p. 72. | >
> | Commentators have speculated upon the effect that the internet has on the way in which people meet and begin personal relationships. Some have specifically suggested that the existence of the internet has made infidelity in relationships more common and have explored the specific type of infidelity, called cyber infidelity. Moreover, “[m]atrimonial lawyers have reported seeing a rise in divorce cases due to the formation of such Cyberaffairs” See also Quittner, J. (1997, April 4) Divorce Internet Style. Time, p. 72. | | | Todd Kendall has written a paper on the effect of the internet on long term relationships and divorce. He notes that “[o]ver the last decade, as home internet access has spread, anecdotal reports of infidelity and divorce associated with the worldwide web have become widespread.” Id. at 2. Kendall further acknowledges that “in such a[n internet] model, the cost of searching for romantic partners, both before or after marriage, is a crucial parameter, and indeed, it may be argued that the internet has lowered these costs substantially.” Id. However, Kendall argues that the internet provides features that will also have the effect of reducing the divorce rate such as providing better and longer searches for a long-term partner, which ultimately results in better matches. Id. at 4-5. Kendall ultimately concludes that the varying long term effects and ultimate long term consequences of the internet on divorce are ambiguous. Id. at 16. | |
<
< | I do not disagree with Kendall’s ultimate conclusion that there is not a sufficient amount of information to reach an ultimate conclusion on the effect, if any, of the internet on long term relationships. However, I do tend to agree with the numerous commentators (Kendall citing commentators but ultimately disagreeing with their conclusions) who have speculated that the most likely effect will be to decrease rather than increase long-term relationships. While everyone seems to acknowledge that search costs are an important component in the longevity of relationships Kendall appears to be one of the few who argues that better search ability prior to entering into a relationship provided by the internet increases the success of long term relationships. While this factor would admittedly appear to favor longevity it does not seem to be a sufficient advantage to overcome the detrimental effect of reduced search costs for replacing an existing partner. This seems true in part because often the reason people stay in relationships is a perceived lack of options rather than the desire to be with that person. | >
> | I do not disagree with Kendall’s ultimate conclusion that there is not a sufficient amount of information to reach an ultimate conclusion on the effect, if any, of the internet on long term relationships. However, I do tend to agree with the numerous commentators (Kendall citing commentators but ultimately disagreeing with their conclusions) who have speculated that the most likely effect will be to decrease rather than increase long-term relationships. While everyone seems to acknowledge that search costs are an important component in the longevity of relationships Kendall appears to be one of the few who argues that better search ability prior to entering into a relationship provided by the internet increases the success of long term relationships. While this factor would admittedly appear to favor longevity it does not seem to be a sufficient advantage to overcome the detrimental effect of reduced search costs for replacing an existing partner. This seems true in part because, based on my own observations of peoples' behavior in my home-town, as well as the observations of others--that often the reason that people stay in relationships is a perceived lack of options rather than the desire to be with that person. Consequently, the availability of potential new partners to replace an existing partner presented by the internet may decrease the number of long-term relationships. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Even if it is correct, however, that the number of long-term relationships will be reduced in the future, this is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monogamous relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships easier to replace is likely to cause a reduction in the number of future long-term relationships. | >
> | Even if it is correct, however, that the number of long-term relationships will be reduced in the future, this is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monogamous relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships easier to replace may cause a reduction in the number of future long-term relationships. | | |
Oh, Brett. I recognize that there isn't much to say about your paper that Eben hasn't covered, but I feel compelled to comment--- your paper is simply too offensive not to. I won’t repeat what he’s said, but I just want to say that if you expect to be taken seriously as a person or as a scholar, you might want to consider toning down (if you can’t bring yourself to drop it) the blatant and frankly kind of weird sexism pervading this piece. It’s just gross. |
|
|
BrettJohnsonSecondPaper 9 - 25 Jan 2010 - Main.BrettJohnson
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | UNDER REVISION | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | The "Traditional" Family Model
Movement Away from the "Traditional" Family Model | | | An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society
Relationships in an Internet Society | |
>
> | Conclusion | | |
Next... | | | Introduction | |
<
< | By giving people readily available choices the internet has the effect of shortening peoples’ attention span. This shortened attention span affects not only entertainment choices but also personal relationships.
- This is an extraordinary claim for which no evidence whatever is presented, and so far as I know personally, for which none is available.
The condition of the internet, in conjunction with changes in societal norms and the ability of both genders to equally sustain themselves in a technological society will cause a decrease in the number of long term intimate relationships.
- "Will cause"? That's an even more extraordinary claim.
The "Traditional" Family Model | >
> | By providing readily available choices the internet has the effect of shortening peoples’ attention span. As discussed below, this shortened attention span may affect not only entertainment choices but also personal relationships--resulting in a decrease in the number of long term intimate relationships. | | | | |
<
< | A few generations ago the traditional family included a man (Husband), who worked outside of the home and contributed all financial support for the woman (Wife), and their two or three children. | >
> | The issue of whether a reduced number of long-term relationships is good or bad is far beyond the scope of this essay. While some people tend to assume that long-term relationships are beneficial to society it is impossible to set forth such a blanket rule. Instead, each relationship would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Undoubtedly there are times that it is better to end the relationship—such as in cases of abuse—or even unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the relationship. On the other hand most would probably agree that a long-term relationship should not be ended because of a minor argument. Thus, the resulting inability to set forth a blanket rule for the desirability of long-term relationships. | | | | |
<
< |
- The adjective "traditional" apparently means "a few generations ago, the ideal family was ..." But there's no reality to either the claim: (a) that's what "the family" "was," or (b) that's what people thought "the family" "was." Family where? Rural or urban families? Free ones or slave ones? Why no "grandparents" no "uncles and aunts"? Do you mean to claim that the "American nuclear" family style was dominant "a few generations ago"? If so, what's the evidence? The statement above is not historical demography, it's not census statistics. It might be tendentious right-wing bullshit. With some actual evidence it might be an argument. Right now, it's just offensive.
Wife’s contribution was to take care of the home and the children. Because she had little income potential, Wife was entirely dependent upon Husband for support of basic needs including food and shelter. Probably at least in part because of this dependence on Husband, marriage occurred at a young age and divorce was uncommon.
- Evidence? When and where?
Movement Away from the "Traditional" Family Model
For a variety of reasons that dependence began to change. One contributing factor was the evolution from an industrial society, where most professions involved physical labor for which men generally had an advantage because of their relative greater size and strength, to a technological society where many more professions do not require physical labor and which provide equal opportunity for both genders. Therefore, along with a change in social expectations, many more woman obtained educations and entered the labor force. For example, in 1963, just 3.7% of law school students were women. By the year 2000, more women applied to law school than did men and presently there are nearly as many women associates in law firms as men. Statistics illustrate that divorce rates have increased as women have had more opportunities to provide for themselves. This independence is one factor in a movement away from a traditional family with the internet being a second factor.
- In industrial society, lawyers had to be big and strong, so women didn't apply to law school? What crap is that? Perhaps you mean to say that many social forces (including among those you do not mention the birth control pill and the civil rights movement) began the destruction of anti-feminist social restrictions that kept women out of the learned professions. So the liberation of women is one of the deplorable factors deteriorating the "traditional family"?
| | | An Extreme Example of a Non-Internet Society | |
<
< | The effect of the internet on personal relationships may be demonstrated by first looking at what occurred in a very non-internet society. I grew up in a tiny town in Wyoming and graduated from high school with eighteen classmates. The closest stoplight was 30 miles away; we had one convenience store/gas station, a church and a post office. The sign entering “town” said “Population 100” but when I returned to visit a few years later it said “Population 200,” which leads me to believe, based on the round numbers, that the census methodology may have been suspect. There was no satellite television and cable was not available. We had a single television station (NBC), and our 19” tube television, adorned with tin-foil antenna, allowed us a fuzzy (black and white in my early years) picture. Competing with the television was one FM radio station and two AM stations, one of which was talk radio and the other was a country format so they were not of great value to a child/teenager. Under those circumstances, we were willing to tolerate poor quality television because it was the only game in town. We would sit loyally through atrocious local commercials, blackouts, and poor quality programming. Nobody would have endured that had today’s entertainment options been available. | >
> | The effect of the internet on personal relationships may be demonstrated by first looking at what occurred in a very non-internet society. I grew up in a tiny town in Wyoming and graduated from high school with eighteen classmates. The closest stoplight was 30 miles away; we had one convenience store/gas station, a church and a post office. The sign entering “town” said “Population 100” but when I returned to visit a few years later it said “Population 200,” which leads me to believe, based on the round numbers, that the census methodology may have been suspect. There was no satellite television and cable was not available. We had a single television station (NBC), and our 19” tube television, adorned with tin-foil antenna, allowed us a fuzzy (black and white in my early years) picture. Competing with the television was one FM radio station and two AM stations. Under those circumstances, we were willing to tolerate poor quality television because it was the only game in town. We would sit loyally through atrocious local commercials, blackouts, and poor quality programming. | | | | |
<
< | Similar to a lack of entertainment choices, my home town provided a very limited supply of potential dating/marriage partners. Persons who were no closer related than second cousin—on rare occasions first cousin once removed were fair game as a potential mate. Because of a lack of other options, there were many pairings of people who probably did not have a lot in common and would most likely have not even associated with each other had there been other options. Just as we watched poor quality television programming, however, people made due
with what was available in the dating/marriage department. It is apparent that one reason
people seek out and stay in relationships is because
they do not have better options. | >
> | Similar to a lack of entertainment choices, my home-town provided a very limited supply of potential dating/marriage partners. Persons who were no closer related than second cousin were fair game as a potential mate. Because of a lack of other options, there were many pairings of people who probably did not have a lot in common and would most likely have not even associated with each other had there been other options. Just as we watched poor quality television programming, however, people accepted what was available in the dating/marriage department. | | | | |
<
< | Relationships in an Internet Society | | | | |
<
< | With the internet, we have become a society of instant gratification as a natural consequence of the number of options that we have at our disposal, resulting in a lack of patience for something/somebody that/who is not currently meeting our needs. There are websites specifically devoted to meeting and dating, Match.com, EHarmony, and Plenty of Fish as well as the social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook. If one is too successful with his or her internet dating experiences there are even specialty sites devoted to meeting others similarly situated. Through these sites it is easy to initiate contact without fear of rejection or the risk of the walk of shame after being rebuffed in front of one’s friends (which is less of a problem after a few cocktails but poses a substantial deterrence to a sober person). The internet has made alcohol unnecessary. | >
> | Relationships in an Internet Society | | | | |
<
< |
- Yes, everyone knows that. WTF?
| >
> | With the internet, we have become a society of instant gratification as a natural consequence of the number of options that we have at our disposal, resulting in a lack of patience for something/somebody that/who is not currently meeting our needs. With respect to personal relationships, there are websites specifically devoted to meeting and dating, Match.com, EHarmony and Plenty of Fish as well as the social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook. After the initial connection—via the internet—or otherwise, there are cell phones, text messages, emails, and IMs. | | | | |
<
< | After the initial connection—via the internet—or otherwise, there are cell phones, text messages, emails, and IMs. | >
> | Commentators have speculated upon the effect that the internet has and will continue to affect the manner in which people meet and begin personal relationships. Some have specifically suggested that the existence of the internet has made infidelity in relationships more common and have explored the specific type of infidelity, called cyber infidelity. Moreover, “[m]atrimonial lawyers have reported seeing a rise in divorce cases due to the formation of such Cyberaffairs” See also Quittner, J. (1997, April 4) Divorce Internet Style. Time, p. 72. | | | | |
<
< | This ability to connect with people, in conjunction with changes in professional opportunities for women is likely to cause fewer and fewer “traditional” families in future generations. Many past long term relationships, such as the proverbial sixty-year marriage of great-grandma and great-grandpa were probably driven as much by a lack of other options as eternal loving bliss. In an internet society, with our shortened attention span, people will be less likely to invest as much in relationships (or stay in bad relationships) because it is so easy to replace their partner (easy come--easy go). | >
> | Todd Kendall has written a paper on the effect of the internet on long term relationships and divorce. He notes that “[o]ver the last decade, as home internet access has spread, anecdotal reports of infidelity and divorce associated with the worldwide web have become widespread.” Id. at 2. Kendall further acknowledges that “in such a[n internet] model, the cost of searching for romantic partners, both before or after marriage, is a crucial parameter, and indeed, it may be argued that the internet has lowered these costs substantially.” Id. However, Kendall argues that the internet provides features that will also have the effect of reducing the divorce rate such as providing better and longer searches for a long-term partner, which ultimately results in better matches. Id. at 4-5. Kendall ultimately concludes that the varying long term effects and ultimate long term consequences of the internet on divorce are ambiguous. Id. at 16. | | | | |
<
< |
- The US has been a divorcing society since the late 1950s, slightly before "the Internet." The overall divorce rate reached 50% in this society in the late 1970s, also slightly before "the Internet," and is now falling. Marital stability in the US now correlates significantly with educational level, and a number of studies this decade have shown that the correlation is increasing: well-educated women are now substantially less likely to divorce than less well-educated ones, and the gap is increasing. As usual, despite my many warnings on the subject, you are still just making stuff up. You need to revise this paper comprehensively, to provide factual support for whatever your positions turn out to be once you have done some research.
| >
> | I do not disagree with Kendall’s ultimate conclusion that there is not a sufficient amount of information to reach an ultimate conclusion on the effect, if any, of the internet on long term relationships. However, I do tend to agree with the numerous commentators (Kendall citing commentators but ultimately disagreeing with their conclusions) who have speculated that the most likely effect will be to decrease rather than increase long-term relationships. While everyone seems to acknowledge that search costs are an important component in the longevity of relationships Kendall appears to be one of the few who argues that better search ability prior to entering into a relationship provided by the internet increases the success of long term relationships. While this factor would admittedly appear to favor longevity it does not seem to be a sufficient advantage to overcome the detrimental effect of reduced search costs for replacing an existing partner. This seems true in part because often the reason people stay in relationships is a perceived lack of options rather than the desire to be with that person. | | | | |
<
< | This is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monotonous [sic monogamous] relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships much easier to develop and replace is likely to cause a further reduction in “traditional” and even long term relationships. | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
>
> | Even if it is correct, however, that the number of long-term relationships will be reduced in the future, this is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monogamous relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships easier to replace is likely to cause a reduction in the number of future long-term relationships. | | |
Oh, Brett. I recognize that there isn't much to say about your paper that Eben hasn't covered, but I feel compelled to comment--- your paper is simply too offensive not to. I won’t repeat what he’s said, but I just want to say that if you expect to be taken seriously as a person or as a scholar, you might want to consider toning down (if you can’t bring yourself to drop it) the blatant and frankly kind of weird sexism pervading this piece. It’s just gross. | | | Dear Dana, | |
<
< | I am going to post a revised version of the paper that will most likely eliminate the parts that you found so “sex[ist]” and “gross” in large part because I do not have the space to analyze all issues so I have divided the topic. However, in light of your allegations please explain exactly what you found “sexist” and “gross.” Was it my observation that men are generally bigger and stronger than women? Was it my observation that me generally used to have an advantage in jobs that required physical labor such as throwing 100 lb bales of hay over their head onto a buck-wagon all day long and that physical advantage is no longer an advantage in most careers? Is it my observation that women are no longer finically dependant on men as they once were? If so, I stick by those observations. | >
> | I am going to post a revised version of the paper that will most likely eliminate the parts that you found so “sex[ist]” and “gross” in large part because I do not have the space to analyze all of the issues and address Professor Moglen's comments so I have divided the topic. However, in light of your allegations please explain exactly what you found “sexist” and “gross.” Was it my observation that men are generally bigger and stronger than women? Was it my observation that me generally used to have an advantage in jobs that required physical labor such as throwing 100 lb bales of hay over their head onto a buck-wagon all day long and that physical advantage is no longer an advantage in most careers? Is it my observation that women are no longer finically dependant on men as they once were? If so, I stick by those observations. | | | | |
<
< | Frankly, I feel that it is a very cheap and immature tactic to rely on political correctness in lieu of real analysis to support your position. Since you took the time to comment on my essay please quote language from my original essay, explain the meaning that you attribute to such language, and explain why that language is sexist or gross. | >
> | Frankly, I feel that it is a very cheap and immature tactic to rely on allegations of sexism in lieu of real analysis to support your position. Since you took the time to comment on my essay please quote language from my original essay, explain the meaning that you attribute to such language, and explain why that language is sexist or gross. | | | With respect to the Wyoming issue I was certainly not disparaging the state. I hope to retire there one day. The technological picture I outlined was simply a recounting of my childhood. Also, if you would like to visit my home-town I will be happy to introduce you to more than one couple who are married to their second cousins. That is not disparaging—it is simply a fact. |
|
|
BrettJohnsonSecondPaper 8 - 24 Jan 2010 - Main.BrettJohnson
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Introduction | | | On another note, hi, I’m from Wyoming, too, and I’ll be damned if we don’t have TV, radio, and gee, even the Internet (and for the record, I have never once considered dating my cousin, thank you very much). It’s not that I don’t think being from a rural place, particularly Wyoming, doesn’t mean something different in the very technological age in which we live (I do), but your depiction of Wyoming as a place entirely removed from “technology” writ large is not true now, if it ever was. It’s as unfair and inaccurate as anything else in your paper, which means it warrants revision.
-- DanaDelger - 23 Jan 2010 | |
>
> |
Dear Dana,
I am going to post a revised version of the paper that will most likely eliminate the parts that you found so “sex[ist]” and “gross” in large part because I do not have the space to analyze all issues so I have divided the topic. However, in light of your allegations please explain exactly what you found “sexist” and “gross.” Was it my observation that men are generally bigger and stronger than women? Was it my observation that me generally used to have an advantage in jobs that required physical labor such as throwing 100 lb bales of hay over their head onto a buck-wagon all day long and that physical advantage is no longer an advantage in most careers? Is it my observation that women are no longer finically dependant on men as they once were? If so, I stick by those observations.
Frankly, I feel that it is a very cheap and immature tactic to rely on political correctness in lieu of real analysis to support your position. Since you took the time to comment on my essay please quote language from my original essay, explain the meaning that you attribute to such language, and explain why that language is sexist or gross.
With respect to the Wyoming issue I was certainly not disparaging the state. I hope to retire there one day. The technological picture I outlined was simply a recounting of my childhood. Also, if you would like to visit my home-town I will be happy to introduce you to more than one couple who are married to their second cousins. That is not disparaging—it is simply a fact.
-- BrettJohnson - 24 Jan 2010
|
|
|
BrettJohnsonSecondPaper 7 - 23 Jan 2010 - Main.DanaDelger
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Introduction | | | research.
This is not to suggest that there will never again be sixty-year long relationships. Undoubtedly, there are connections where both people desire to be together in a monotonous [sic monogamous] relationship with the same person for their entire lives. However, for better or worse, the condition of the internet society, making relationships much easier to develop and replace is likely to cause a further reduction in “traditional” and even long term relationships.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
Oh, Brett. I recognize that there isn't much to say about your paper that Eben hasn't covered, but I feel compelled to comment--- your paper is simply too offensive not to. I won’t repeat what he’s said, but I just want to say that if you expect to be taken seriously as a person or as a scholar, you might want to consider toning down (if you can’t bring yourself to drop it) the blatant and frankly kind of weird sexism pervading this piece. It’s just gross.
On another note, hi, I’m from Wyoming, too, and I’ll be damned if we don’t have TV, radio, and gee, even the Internet (and for the record, I have never once considered dating my cousin, thank you very much). It’s not that I don’t think being from a rural place, particularly Wyoming, doesn’t mean something different in the very technological age in which we live (I do), but your depiction of Wyoming as a place entirely removed from “technology” writ large is not true now, if it ever was. It’s as unfair and inaccurate as anything else in your paper, which means it warrants revision.
-- DanaDelger - 23 Jan 2010 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|