Interesting, right? *Yawn*

i just read through the post on jeremy’s site. just today i deleted my account there at OAC, and my only regret is that all of my conversations went into thin air with that deletion. i had kept the account for that sole purpose, but really do not want to be tied to their deal in any way. pretty sad that it all worked out like that.

the responses that i got from hart and others were really disappointing and strange. there were also responses from some others that were extremely narrow-minded and one-sided.

Speaking of jokes, I agree that the vote was a joke. It was a deceitful way for Hart to finally pay some lip service to “democracy”, even though the choice of questions, voting threshold, etc. was done in the usual undemocratic fashion, and that was also pointed out to the administrators by some of their own members, who were promptly ignored of course.

The original problem was not created by all of the members of the OAC, but by Hart’s rush to control. It was his mistake, and his alone to fix. It would be like you accusing an advertising executive of false advertising, and after he acknowledges there may indeed be a problem (mainly, the fact that you noticed is the problem), he says:

No, you know what? Let me ask everyone in my company to vote on whether I should fix the mistake. How about that! They mostly agree with me.

Most of those who commented had apparently taken little or no time to inform themselves of the issues, read both sides, reflect and balance opinions. It was like looking at one hand clapping and applauding itself for doing so. Nonetheless, there were still about 80 out of 210 people who agreed that they should change their name.

As you say: “Since there is no agreed upon plan, idea, goal, vision, direction, or even conception of what to do with the site, the name doesn’t even matter.” It was merely an excuse for them to score some petty personal and cheap political points. Some of them don’t even know whether they really disagree with me, as in the case of those who praised my article…not knowing it was mine since it has been plagiarized.

And yes, I withdraw my statement that I am not accusing them of plagiarism. I am now:

http://openanthcoop.ning.com/group/theanthropologyofanthropology/forum/topics/world-anthropology

Let me add these statements as well:

Those who wish to understand better, can also see Jeremy Trombley’s post, “Why I Left the OAC,” and my responses:

http://jmtrom.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-i-left-oac.html?showComment=1252507189138#c6627144001591460659

and

http://jmtrom.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-i-left-oac.html?showComment=1252507226595#c1282797618752893642

sorry for the rehash if it was.

I tried to stir up some folks to get them to think about what exactly they were trying to do there, but all of my posts ended up in the doldrums of theoretical nonsense. It’s like a big machine that curtails ideas with “the endless openness and possibilities of the internet.” So many possibilities that nobody does anything. Yay. It IS like an endless anthropology conference, just without the travel expenses.

The “vote” was a joke, as was the defense of the name of the site. Since there is no agreed upon plan, idea, goal, vision, direction, or even conception of what to do with the site, the name doesn’t even matter. I ran into so many people who were telling me that I was being closed minded by asking what they wanted to do with the site–the answers I received were about some vague idea that there were no limits, and that people could do ANYTHING they want with “anthropology.”

For me, THAT was part of the problem.

Now my only issue is whether to join the un-cooperative or the union. hmmm. maybe the association. it’s all so WIDE OPEN max.