<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></div> </div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Mark, thanks for your interesting questions. I will attempt answers to them in reverse order, starting with the easiest:<div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>3. Does this mean that Balloon Boy (or his dad) really will get his own reality TV show? </div></blockquote><div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Of course. He already has, even if not in the form he (dad) wanted. His trial, if there is one, will certainly focus attention back on the family, and if he is able to play his cards right, he could get considerably more attention out of this, even after a jail sentence. </span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Hoefler Text; min-height: 14.0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; "></span></span></font><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></p><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">2. I'm not quite sure where the mode whereby attention is produced fits into Goldhaber's account. Is the assumption here that the fact that everyone pays attention to Balloon Boy can be explained as a demand-side phenomenon -- that the mechanism of commercial media operates merely as a transparent, neutral, and ultimately dispenable mechanism to connect an "attention entrepreneur" with a willing audience? </span></font> </div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> </div></blockquote><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">I wouldn't say attention is "produced." It is attracted, though. Given that there are many semi-independent journalists and camera crews all seeking attention, to ignore the story of the six year -old boy carried away in a balloon shaped like a flying saucer would have been difficult. It had too much intrinsic — or even mythic— appeal. So did the subsequent issue of whether it was a hoax. So certainly in this case there was considerable media transparency. ( A copycat any time soon, would most probably not succeed as well. Originality helps, even in hoaxes.) </span></font></font></div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"> In many another situation, considerable media transparency is also available. A good enough high school basketball player is going to draw local attention and then the attention of college coaches, who would be remiss if they ignore him or her. If college stardom follows, then professional stardom may as well, and then the star has considerable leverage in deciding , say what team to play on, how and wheheter to express political postions, and so on. Enough of a star is likely to avoid punishment or banishment for what for others would be considered serious crimes. In other fields too, once sufficient attention has reached some0ne they have a good chance at independent stardom, which no capitalist can squelch. However, there may well be more of a chance element in initial rounds of stardom, and it may be one has to find some commercial supporter at first. </span></font></div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Overall though , the avenues to obtain stardom independent of being first accepted or chosen by some business keep increasing. Many an actor, say, by joining some all volunteer company gets exposure quite directly. The Internet offers many possible paths to stardom that don't require passing any sort of test of commercial suitability. But most who attempt it, out of tens of millions. will not become stars, clearly since not can get the attention of thousands or more, and, of course, chance still intervenes in all these cases. So does a suitable degree of originality, skill at drawing audiences and holding them and other such matters. There are of course no fail-safe formulae. </span></font></div><div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Let me add there are many different levels of audience attention one can achieve, from being the class clown to achieving academic recognition, to becoming a known byline in journalism, etc. Also, various sorts of criminal behavior from hoaxes to bank robbery to serial killing to terrorism can be avenues to getting a good deal of attention. (Serial killers often get fan mail in abundance, together with all manner of gifts. More normal stars get much the same of course. A serial killer in Russia deliberately set out to kill more than anyone else ever had. )Every Palestinian suicide bomber prepares a video before blowing up, which later is played on TV. Likewise, every video made by Osama bin Laden, since 9/11, has gotten a world-wide airing. (Don't try this at home.)</span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Hoefler Text; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"></span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></p><blockquote type="cite"><div>1. Assuming I can't eat attention, does the mechanism whereby attention is congealed into a form that can be exchanged and thereby transformed into something I can eat (or wear, or drive, or live in, etc.) matter for Goldhaber's account? If, indeed, it is the case that if I "have enough attention" I can get pretty much anything I want -- wouldn't it be worth exploring how this "anything I want is obtained"? </div></blockquote><br>The key point to emphasize is that having attention is valuable in and of itself, and is quite hihgly desired, very often. It is a definite "upper" to have an audience in the palm of one's hand, to get applause, etc. Stars of every sort can receive attention is many forms, such as sexual, or a wide variety of willing services, from ardent fans. Though of course in an attention economy people still have other biological needs, say to eat, those with enough attention need not worry about being wined and dined. The material background that for instance gets the food to the table (through the intervention quite possibly of the services of star a chef, etc.) is decidly secondary or tertiary in this new economy.</div><div> </div><div>Even capitalist economists have long declared that "services" are now more important than goods production. Services are a quite heterogenous category, but it is nonetheless the case that many involve personal attention. Via the Internet there is no limit to how far back on the chain of "congealing" such services can go. Right now, much software is produced by fans, say, of Linus Torvalds, At present, of course, in what I see as a transitional period, it is still true that converting attention to money is one way to receive the results of industrial production. However, as productivity keeps increasing, the fraction of the world's population engaged in routine work such as manufacturing or agricultural industry keeps declining, even though more and more is produced. At the same time, factories of various sorts increasingly come under direct distant control, again, often, through the Internet. Thus it is certainly possible to envisage all production turning into services mostly supplied by fans to stars. Software can operate like machinery, and as the distinction between hardware and software fades, fans can more and more deliberately supply all sorts of material items , derived from further and further back on the supply chain, including directly from the earth, to stars. Non-stars would (and already do) get some attention through the various fandoms of which they are part. </div><div><br></div><div>Needless, to say, these are only my somewhat educated guesses about a very complex and uncertain topic. A somewhat different attempt of mine can be found here: </div><div><a href="http://goldhaber.org/blog/?p=199">http://goldhaber.org/blog/?p=199</a></div><div><br></div><div>Last questions (from Mark's intro)</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Thanks to Michael for the primer on his version of the attention economy -- and a few questions that all stem from wondering (alongside Jonathan) why such an economy is necessarily or tendentially post-capitalist. </div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">I take this to be a final question, or is it two: Why is the attention (centered) economy post-capitalist, rather than say pre- or simultaneous with capitalism? Why should I think it will or very well might replace or succeed capitalism? </span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">1. As I've already mentioned, industrial capitalism, though it continues to grow, also continues to outstrip the ability or even willingness to consume goods. this is why it has become "post-industrial". But post-industrial is not a description so much as a lack of one. My argument is that post-industry doesn't proceed equally in all possible directions. Much as capitalists seek to find ways to continue to operate in a new environment, they are less and less at the heart of what affects and motivates ever more people. For instance those affordances offered by capitalists that allow the seeking or obtaining of large audiences turn out to be in high demand. Along with material needs, as I mentioned earlier, everyone starts out in life with a certain desire for attention. In the heyday of industrial capitalism this was largely squelched or repressed. But of late it can less and less be repressed. The existing stars of ubiquitous media all are role models for attention seeking and getting, followed by an increasing number of young people in focussing their own lives. The easier it becomes, at least apparently, to seek attention, the more people in virtually all societies do seek it. This only heightens the scarcity of available attention and thus further increases the competition for it and the focus on it. </span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">2. As capitalism begins to reach the limits to which it can expand, at which a large number of people (at least in the advanced countries) cannot easily consume much more than they do or cannot increase their consumption as fast as productivity can rise, it may reach a natural limit; at this point something has to give. I argue that something is a new kind of class system , the one I have described, which has a different structure and different relations between classes. Further, the intensifying competition for attention also leaves less attention to devote to consuming goods or non-attention-related services. this feedback then increases the likelihood that attention relations will dominate still further. (Marx assumed that capitalism would be the last class system, only to be replaced by socialism, but in re-examining his arguments for that, I simply do not find them very convincing, again for reasons I will not get into here, but would be happy to discuss. )</span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Hoefler Text" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Hoefler Text">Best,</font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Hoefler Text" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Hoefler Text">Michael</font></div> </div> </div><br><div><div>On Oct 22, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Mark Andrejevic wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Thanks to Michael for the primer on his version of the attention economy -- and a few questions that all stem from wondering (alongside Jonathan) why such an economy is necessarily or tendentially post-capitalist. </div> <div> </div> <div>1. Assuming I can't eat attention, does the mechanism whereby attention is congealed into a form that can be exchanged and thereby transformed into something I can eat (or wear, or drive, or live in, etc.) matter for Goldhaber's account? If, indeed, it is the case that if I "have enough attention" I can get pretty much anything I want -- wouldn't it be worth exploring how this "anything I want is obtained"? </div></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large; "><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">2. I'm not quite sure where the mode whereby attention is produced fits into Goldhaber's account. Is the assumption here that the fact that everyone pays attention to Balloon Boy can be explained as a demand-side phenomenon -- that the mechanism of commercial media operates merely as a transparent, neutral, and ultimately dispenable mechanism to connect an "attention entrepreneur" with a willing audience? </span></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; "><blockquote type="cite"><div>3. Does this mean that Balloon Boy (or his dad) really will get his own reality TV show? </div></blockquote><div><br></div></span></span><blockquote type="cite"> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><br></div> <div>thanks,<br></div> <div>Mark</div> <div> </div> <div><br> </div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Michael H Goldhaber <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mgoldh@well.com">mgoldh@well.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style="border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; " class="gmail_quote"> <div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><br> <div> <div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Hoefler Text'; "> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; "> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><br></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"></span>Dear all, </p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">It would appear that most of the people on this list who have voiced an opinion firmly believe both that capitalism remains essentially the only current “mode of production” and that the attention economy is, if anything at all, only a not very interesting sub-species of the former. This is not how I have understood things for quite a few years now. What follows then is a rough and incomplete primer on how I see what I shall refer to as “the attention (centered) economy,” — a new, post-capitalist class system, differing in its essence from capitalism. I have emphasized features that I think demonstrate why some views expressed on this list, or in correspondence off list with me, are mistaken. The views I challenge include the notion that attention flows through the Internet chiefly to corporations, that attention only has significance if somehow monetized, that it is ultimately capitalists who exploit attention, and that money remains far more basic than attention. Obviously in such a brief introduction I can hardly hope to convince anyone, but I do hope that this will at least open some to reconsider the issues more fully. So to begin:</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">1. Attention (from other humans) is needed by every human being. In fact, no infant can possibly survive without it. Many children, at a very young age, clearly evince a desire for as much attention as they can get. Whether that desire remains as they grow older is a psycho-social issue. But many adults clearly want attention, and because of its immaterial nature there is no limit as to how much. [I have explored the meaning of attention much more fully here: </span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><a href="http://goldhaber.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/Chap_3_3.19.07.pdf" target="_blank">http://goldhaber.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/Chap_3_3.19.07.pdf</a></span><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"> ]</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">2. However each of us has only limited capacity to pay attention. Everyone's attention combined is thus also finite. As attention-seeking technologies increase, and as social prohibitions against seeking an audience weaken by example, the competition for it grows. [I have discussed the Internet in this light here: </span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><a href="http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/519/440" target="_blank">http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/519/440</a></span><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"> .]</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">3. If you and I were in the same room, having a conversation, and I were saying these same words (and you were interested) you would of course be paying attention to me. Even if we happened to be sitting in Starbuck’s your attention would still go chiefly to me and not to Starbuck’s, Inc. In reading this, likewise, you are paying attention to me, the writer of it, and very little directly to your computer screen, to your computer’s manufacturer, to your Internet Service Provider, to the phone or cable company, to <a href="http://thing.net/" target="_blank">thing.net</a>, or even to just to the words. (You read Shakespeare, Doris Lessing, or Marx, rather than just books they happen to have written. In reading, the publisher is of very little importance to you, though the publisher —and others in the distribution channel — possibly made a profit when you or someone bought the book.) Thus, it is irrelevant that attention via the Internet passes through corporate sites or to say, articles or blog posts on corporate-owned media. Attention still goes primarily to the authors of the individual articles, etc. In general, our attention can be thought of as primarily going to other humans or, at times, to ourselves.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">4. It is actually quite difficult to pay attention to a corporation as such, rather than to, say, a particular spokesperson or at times the person who motivates the particular actions of the corporation (e.g. Steve Jobs). Even TV fanatics are unlikely to watch just a network, as opposed to a specific program with a relatively small number of important creators behind it. Likewise, who attends or watches a tennis match to see a particular brand of ball, racket or tennis clothes? </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">When a corporation’s executives want to attempt to increase sales through getting consumer attention, they normally have to go through a complex rigamarole, involving for instance the creative people at ad agencies, and much more in the same vein. For instance, advertisers try to place commercials as close as possible to programs that draw attention; even then, they must also try to have the ads themselves be interesting, which often has little to do with what is being sold. If the corporation could just get attention on its own, why does it not just put its name on the TV screen? </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">5. If you have enough attention you can get pretty much whatever you want, including but not limited to money, should you want that. An anonymous capitalist who loses all her money is out of luck, but a star (read: substantial attention getter) if without money, can still usually get more attention and through that a very generous helping hand from her fans (who are usually net attention payers). Stars exist in practically all fields, from entertainment to more serious arts to academics to sports to politics to journalism and on and on — including even business. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">6. Without getting at least some attention, a person is likely to fare very poorly. Even people without jobs or money, on the other hand, can still very often get enough attention to be kept alive. Thus it is a complete mistake to think of money as more primary than attention. The money system and the attention system are different, but both rely on what is immaterial to allow material wants to be satisfied. (You can’t live by eating gold or dollar bills or credit cards, after all.) In fact attention is much more intrinsic to human existence than money, and thus, once it is possible to seek it and obtain it over wide networks, it can easily come to dominate. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">7. Now we come to the question of classes. For reasons I will not address here, I think Marx was right to suggest each class system is essentially dyadic, with the two classes of each in clear relationship with each other, one being dominant and the other dependent. A new class formation generally originates in a situation in which an older class dyad dominates. The new classes, partaking as they do at first of the old milieu, at first do recognize their own distinctness and explain themselves even to themselves according to the older formation, though not necessarily in simple ways. Thus a member of the nascent star class may see herself more as a worker or more as a capitalist (that is assuming she gives any thought to such questions) and a fan can also identify either way. Further, these identifications are not constant. Whether recognized or not, the new class system is in conflict with the old, for it relies on building up fundamentally different kinds of relations. The combination of different identifications and the underlying conflict lead to complex and changing alliances and/or oppositions among all the four classes involved. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">8.If valid, of what value is the foregoing analysis, beyond intrinsic interest? </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"> A. It facilitates a level of both clarity and nuance in examining various key trends and situations that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to comprehend. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">B. Recognizing the possibility of a post-capitalist class society open up thinking that has in some ways been frozen ever since Marx. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">C. The existence of the attention (centered) economy changes both the concept and the understanding of possibility of a basically egalitarian society, of the kind that critics of capitalism are presumably after. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 12px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">D. It is possible that in the very complexity of the underlying struggle for dominance between the capitalism and the attention (centered) economy there might be room for a new humane socialism to emerge. [See also </span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><a href="http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/Technosocialism.html" target="_blank">http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/Technosocialism.html</a></span><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"> .].[I have argued here </span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><a href="http://goldhaber.org/blog/?p=80" target="_blank">http://goldhaber.org/blog/?p=80</a></span><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"> that the attention economy is in fact increasingly dominant already; the argument is necessarily impressionistic, but I think has some heuristic value.]</span></p><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font size="3"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><br></span></font></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></div><br> <div><span style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-SPACING: 0px 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: 14px Hoefler Text; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px"> <div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><br> <div><br style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; FONT-SIZE: 12px"></div> <div>Best,</div> <div><br style="FONT-FAMILY: Hoefler Text; FONT-SIZE: 12px"></div> <div>Michael</div> <div>-------</div> <div>Michael H. Goldhaber</div> <div>PH 1-510 339-1192</div> <div>FAX 1-510-338-0895</div> <div>MOBILE 1-510-610-0629</div> <div><a href="mailto:michael@goldhaber.org" target="_blank">michael@goldhaber.org</a></div> <div>alternate e-mail:<a href="mailto:mgoldh@well.com" target="_blank">mgoldh@well.com</a></div> <div>blog and website: <a href="http://www.goldhaber.org/" target="_blank">http://www.goldhaber.org</a></div> <div>alternate:<a href="http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/" target="_blank">http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/</a></div> <div>alternate blog: <a href="http://mhgoldhaber.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://mhgoldhaber.blogspot.com</a></div><br></div></span></div><br></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org/" target="_blank">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br> <a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc" target="_blank">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/" target="_blank">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br> <br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc" target="_blank">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br> <br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://del.icio.us/" target="_blank">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br> </blockquote></div><br> _______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br>http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/<br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/<br><br>RSS feed:<br>http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc<br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647<br><br>Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div><br></body></html>