Just btw, I simply have to mention that it seems a full half of the posts I glance at these days in the blogosphere go something like this:
One thing this process has made clear to me personally is that defining [blank] is not as easy as you might think. Obviously, the emphasis of this project was on [blank](as it was defined as being about [blank]), but nevertheless the question inevitably came up. . . can we ever truly define [blank]? And once we have, does that mean the conversation about [blank] could, or should, stop? Speaking personally, I almost always argue for inclusion in opening up the conversation about [blank]. Because on the whole, our [blank] tends to be dismissive of [blank] (except for, obviously, [blank]). And personally, that's something I always look at when I look at [blank]. Although I do think there is a crucial distinction to be made in the definition of [blank] that is often overlooked. Which is that this is not a case of [blank] vs. [blank]. Or [blank] vs. [blank]. Not that I am trying to co-opt what may be a good working definition of [blank]; I am instead very much of a mind that the more voices included in the conversation about [blank], the stronger our [blank] will be. So please don't take this as saying you have not been a voice of inclusion about [blank]! I know you have been a voice for inclusion about [blank]! But I have to ask, what do we risk personally by even possibly ignoring unheard voices regarding [blank]? Isn't there room for everyone in the ongoing conversation about [blank]? Because if we look at any time in history when there has been an explosion of innovation in [blank], it has been when differing [blanks] connect and inform each other in an ongoing dialogue about [blank]. So that should be the lynchpin in any discussion of [blank]. [Blank] makes better [blank]. There's no historical precedent to argue against that. Any argument against [blank] is therefore moot. That is why we need more voices about [blank]. Because before we move on in this ongoing conversation, and hear more voices, what [blank], I have to ask, isn't really about [blank]? I mean not about [blank] at all? I don't think any. Everything on some level is about [blank]. Anyway, some very, very exciting things here about [blank], check it out, this is definitely a must-read on [blank]! A lot of good questions are being raised, with everyone ending up in the same place I am at right now: The way to [blank] is to [blank]. We must [blank] to [blank]. We'll have more about [blank] later, but in the meantime, seriously, RTWT.