When I woke up Thursday morning, I thought about editing or even deleting my ‘bum steer’ post… not because my feelings had changed, but because I recognised my tone was too raw, and that in my rush to post I had neglected some points. But the comments had already begun to flow in, so I decided to let it stand. I’m glad I did, as the post eventually attracted ten thoughtful responses, and ended up a remarkable and provocative discussion as to what degree “support” is possible and appropriate when it comes to emergent tools. Given the obvious interest, and its pertinence to me, this is a theme I hope to return to. (And isn’t it great that Martha is posting again?)
This isn’t the first time that commenters have used a weak post to launch a discussion that goes to new and exciting places. Given that the post could easily have joined the massive pile of entries never written due to self-censorship, maybe there’s some value in loosening up the restrictions I place on myself, and being a little more honest and direct. Then again, I don’t want to seem manipulative or overly dramatic, stoking rhetorical fires and playing emotional cards just to get a reaction.
Yesterday, I was speaking to another attendee at the Open Education Conference who told me that my blog is an inspiration for him to start up one of his own — not because Abject Learning is such a stellar online publication, but because he envied how the site had a community of supportive peers interacting with it, directly and indirectly, on and off the site. He was absolutely dead-on in assessing where the value is.