The chances of accurately encoding a direct link like that by hand on first go are so low that I was longing for software affordances like push-button linking when I wrote comment five, as well as to the general ability to edit and delete comments that you mention in comment nine. I realize that I’ve come to expect powerful and easy to use writing tools not only for polishing published posts, but also for tweaking day-to-day conversations, and one-off commentary in both public and private settings. It is kind of sad to imagine an old fogey like me visioning leaps and bounds ahead of software designers.

That admixtures of media and discourse conventions can be either observable and predictable or volatile may encourage human agency in attempting to shape them. In spite of the relative novelty of the media we’re using–unlike, for instance, offset printing by major publishing houses, or newpapers of the ilk you note conforming blog publication to pre-existing print conventions–perhaps we both expect norms to evolve gradually, rather than be established at the onset of communication. That is, authors and audiences may implicitly or explicitly create the norms that they prefer, in a fashion rather unlike what teachers may demand in virtual classrooms.

Yes, I have checked out the Classroom 2.0 discussion you mentioned in comment two (2008.08.07). I guess one of the disadvantages of such a large virtual venues is discussion leaders and participants hardly ever notice when someone slips in or out. That particular discussion was exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned consolidation in wikis or other venues (comment five, 2008.08.14). I was reminded of it when I read through the discussion Susan Manning stater in Learning Times: Re: How are you getting people to share knowledge? (2008.07.25, ff., http://tinyurl.com/getting-people-to-share) today. Without getting too hot under the collar about searching, threading, and viewing affordances and options in situ on Nings and other community sites, I guess whether discussion there is constructive depends upon what you and other active participants make of it, or do after it.

It’s interesting that you consider “conversation” to be a “dirty word,” that you consider forum posts to be “a lot of hot air,” and that you consider me to be “posting against the grain” when I treat my blog as a publication of sorts. I guess I differ with you on all counts. I think you might be conflating medium with discourse unnecessarily. In my view, it’s not only possible but advisable to separate them. Conversations can be superficial or deep, regardless of medium. Blog posts can be casual or thoughtful, depending on the author’s intentions (or teacher’s expectations). It all depends on the discourse norms that are established at the outset of any communication and cultivated throughout. We have agency in shaping our discourses. While there might be observable patterns in organic uses of various communication media, we can play an active role in reshaping them if we so choose, at least in our own communications and those we facilitate in the classroom.

Have you checked out the discussion forum I’ve referenced? I don’t find it to be full of hot air at all. In fact, I’ve found all of the Classroom 2.0 discussion forums in which I’ve participated to be thought-provoking and constructive.

I think we can blog for different purposes and audiences and thus use different discourses. As with print media, the medium does not dictate the rhetoric we use – our audiences and purposes do. For example, some magazines employ a more academic discourse, while others adopt a much more colloquial one. Certain media (and more specifically, certain tools) may lend themselves to certain communication functions, but there is a two-way interaction at play. We can search for (or develop) the types of blogging tools that best suit our particular communication needs. While some independent bloggers may write in an informal style, I would expect a New York Times blogger to consider his or her posts to be published works. I believe that as educators, we should be proactive in helping students develop multiple discourses to suit the various communication contexts they will encounter.

Nope, moreover, I don’t get an option to delete the comment with the failed attempt to backllink. Maybe that’s why most folks don’t bother to link pro-actively to relevant posts or sites.

Meta-blogging is reflecting on what blogging is all about. It should never be tiresome, if blogging, written reflection of meta-cognition (the whys, hows, and wherefore’s) of blogging is not.

That you refer to forum posts as conversation (a dirty word in my vernacular), and choose to make blog posts into “more fully formed published pieces” seems like posting against the grain, at least as far as blogs may evolve.

The ringing in my ears suggests that blogs and commentary are all about conversations, when most forums degrade into noise; with tens, to hundreds, to thousands of ill-threaded comments; or silence. If not collected, condensed, and consolidated in wikis (or other venues), aren’t forum posts a lot of hot air?