Thanks for your frankness. You’ve gotten the point exactly – as I wrote in a comment on your site today, I have the luxury of evaluating things honestly in a way which others don’t always have [i.e. leaders in school districts, etc.]. It’s important to take advantage of that opportunity for the sake of advancing the common goals we all have.

It’s really the same as a politician thinking or believing something and, for a host of different reasons, not being able to say it. We’d all be better off if he could.

First, Matthew, go ahead and debunk anything I write. I would prefer an attitude of sober critique laced with friendly humor be the rule of the day. Perhaps we would not find ourselves in the current mess (you fill in the word: education, government, whatever) if such critique were more common. Tilt away at bloggers, Matthew, with the lance of your intellect. The worst that may happen is an ill wind. (smile)

Second, I missed the “debunk” part of the blog entry. That said, thank goodness for differences of opinion…I’d be bored reading just a one-sided conversation, no matter how erudite or well-reasoned.

Wishing you all well,

Miguel
Around the Corner-mGuhlin.net
http://mguhlin.net

Debunk is not a disrespectful term, though we hear it most often associated with crazy myths and conspiracies. It is very straightforward and shouldn’t carry with it overly negative connotations. It’s a matter of refutation, not personal judgment.

Brian is right – I put many hours and words into the topics I address. When I’m forced to dismiss a topic it is almost always because of logistics and nothing more. If I put time into addressing one’s work, as I did with Mr. Warlick, it’s because that work warrants deserves serious attention. Such is the case with many of the education technology visionaries you named. The evidence shows that any effort to debunk is for the sake of advancing the appropriate topic. If I took their work lightly or dismissed it, I simply wouldn’t bother reading it in the first place, let alone carry out a detailed exchange to further our understanding of an issue.

These issues aren’t personal and it is a serious mistake to make it personal. Though I find many of their technology solutions lacking or inadequately grounded, you’re quite right – they are gentleman and that is one reason why I respect their work and welcome substantive debate. If I were unable to divorce a personality from his policies, the resulting stress probably would’ve killed me sometime around the 6th grade.

Under the circumstances, however insignificant they may be, I would say “flippant” and “unprofessional” are perfect words to describe Dave’s comment. I imagine I’m not the only one who considers improper capitalization/grammar mixed with snark to be the blogging equivalent of coming to church in muddy workboots. Save it for the threads at digg.com.

Also, even very intelligent people with excellent points to be made can be debunked. Henry Ford had an interesting take on eugenics. Brilliant man, certainly, but does that mean his opinions should have been considered irrefutable? Furthermore, “taken lightly” and “dismissed” are not terms I would use to describe turning an issue into a four part series as Matthew did with Warlick.

The bit about a technology writers’ conspiracy was meant to be humorous. I do not sincerely believe that there is a secret society that agrees to produce content with which I’ll find fault and schedules its web publication so that I can’t address it. The use of “debunk” was not a joke, however.

I found your original comment needlessly inflammatory and gave it the response it warranted.

Thanks for the dialogue, and if I get to another post on how the “if” is both critical and not even close to being resolved, we can continue a discussion with a bit more value.

“these authors have conspired to destroy me with sheer volume” this looks like a joke to me. As does the John Grisham novel reference and the ‘debunk’ comment.

If you are being serious… which your reply to my reply seems to imply… you might be more polite in your blog posts.

I’m not sure why a professional authority would use such flippant language, but it doesn’t appear that you’re willing to engage in serious debate.

Arguing the issues is one thing; I found your notes inadequate because of their content and my analysis would reflect that. Baiting and challenging as if we’re children on a playground is another thing – and dismissing one as “hilarious” is nothing short of that. It’s disrespectful and unprofessional.

You would do well to follow leaders like Mr. Warlick and Mr. Stager who, despite frequent differences of opinion, have engaged in respectful debate that, I would say, has advanced our understanding of several issues. I feel privileged to work with them on the challenges facing education technology in part because of their commitment to serious debate and a willingness to accompany that with a good attitude. while I may not get excited at the prospect of Twittering with David Warlick, I’d most certainly be amenable to having a beer with him.

If I have time – as I implied in my post – I’ll address your presentation. I likely won’t get to it, but if I do, you and others are free to respond.

And, if it makes you feel more comfortable, I’ll end my analysis with “my dad can beat up your dad.”

Matthew

dude… they’re notes from a presentation… which it says in the preamble… you may, i suppose, read directly from your notes in your presentations, but i tend to flush out distinctions in my discussions… not in my collection of links :)

you’re hilarious. respond to my presentation notes… I’ll respond to your response.