Dave Winer moderated a loosely structured discussion that ultimately returned to a moderately moderated discussion (IMHO).
I would contend that this BlogNashviile discussion raised far more questions for personal reflection than it attempted to resolve with any degree of concreteness...and I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Is civil conversation possible? Can we agree to disagree, agreeably? Can we listen with understanding without feeling somehow that we are relinquishing our beliefs/positions/values? Are there common rules of civility for discussion? Who sets those rules and who decides what is civil and what crosses the line?
Is anarchy the rule of the day across the blogosphere? Can we distinguish between debate and dialog? Is the platform more suitable for debate or is it more suitable for dialog? How important is it that at some point we meet face-to-face , rather than merely interact in a text-based environment, so that we may better understand one another? Are we willing to police ourselves, even when someone who you may agree with gets out of line...rather than sitting on the sideline and taking no action?
There was discomfort in the room today as many of these questions were raised. I hope that we all learned something about ourselves as well as one another as we witnessed how difficult it appeared at times for us to carry on a respectful conversation. I hope that we all can become more comfortable with being uncomfortable...and through that learn that disagreement can mean growth instead of decay.
That last bit was a little heavy...perhaps someone could rephrase with better clarity.
Technorati tag: BlogNashville
UPDATE: Other perspectives on this discussion group