What? Me have an opinion? ... Just one?!

The Context

I live in the downtown core of one of the oldest cities in North America. Our 120 year old Victorian home is one of five in this row and located in a Heritage district. Being in a heritage district means that aspects of our street scape and buildings are protected to preserve the heritage of this uniquely old city. Of course, being right downtown, the parking lots across the street are zoned for mixed development and are a prime building lots for a developer. In fact, in the coming weeks our City Council will be considering an application to build five stories of condominiums on top of a five story parking garage.

Now I am not opposed to urban development, even in a heritage district in an old city. And we purchased our house knowing full well that that site was ripe for development. But we took solace in the fact that, regardless of what was developed, there was a municipal By-Law in this city that would prohibit any building from being taller than 15 meters. Or so we thought.

The Issue
This recent proposal requests a variance of this By-Law, and our City Council is considering it. To be clear, the developer can, without any variance, build this development to 15m and start tomorrow. So we have to ask why this developer is claiming that they need the variance.

The developer claims (pg. 11 of the Land Use Assessment Report, or LUAR) that this project will “… not only satisfy a need in the City’s Downtown for parking and housing, but will also rejuvenate an area of the City …”. These points appear to be the basis for their argument that the variance is necessary. The other argument for the variance is that by not permitting the developer to build to the 18m height they would have to completely re-work their proposal. I am now going to unpack and deconstruct these arguments, because they are hollow.

The Claims
First, despite the fact that this development will include 215 parking spots for public use (as stated in the LUAR); the truth is that the net gain of parking spots provided by this development will be less than 215. I do not dispute the claim that there is more parking needed in the downtown core [Ignoring the fact that progressive public policy would discourage personal/private vehicle usage and encourage and promote carpooling and the use of public transit]. But the elimination of the existing public parking lots and some undisclosed amount of on-street parking around this development leaves the net gain of downtown parking spaces less than 215. So claiming that this development will “… satisfy a need … for parking …” by providing 215 public spaces is disingenuous. This development even at 15m would help to address some of the need, and at 18m, it would provide a little bit more (~70 spaces according to the developer), but it does not satisfy the current need and it is not 215 more spaces.

Second, while it is undeniable that our city has a dire need for new housing, our need is for affordable housing. In fact, a Conference Board of Canada Report from this past summer commented that housing is one of issues that need to be address by our City Council; but this report clearly specifies affordable housing. In fact, this city needs more moderate income and small family housing. Thus, while pretty downtown condos are attractive to those who can afford them, this development does not address the need for more affordable housing. So whether this development is 15m or 18m makes absolutely no difference in how much it does not satisfy the need for affordable housing.

Third, the developer suggests that this development will help rejuvenate the Downtown core. How to "rejuvenate" an urban centre is not an exact science and the verdict on the benefits of gentrification is not without dispute. In fact, rejuvenating, without balance, a city core can have unintended and deleterious consequences to both property value and the social fabric of a community. Thus, while there is little doubt that the presence of this building will have some impact on the downtown core, arguing that this developer has to be granted a variance in order to help rejuvenate the city, is baseless.

Fourth, the developer is now on record claiming that if they do not receive the variance, they will be forced to return to the drawing board and re-examine this development, as they do not have all the necessary materials in order to move forward at the 15m mark. This comment is either stunning or brazen. I shudder at the idea that a developer would proceed with drawings and financials for only option ‘B’ of a development (option ‘A’ being what they could build now, 15m, without the variance). And I have to question the business sense of anyone who puts all their eggs in one basket and proceeds with a proposal for a development that requires a variance, rather than planning something they could do now, while hoping for something they cannot do yet. Of course, the other possibility is that the developer opted to save some money and not bother acquiring drawings and financials for the 15m (no variance needed) proposal, because they harboured no doubt that City Council would grant the variance. In that case it would not be an unwise decision to save some money when you fully expect there would be no need to even consider the 15m development.

The Truth
So, when you reduce the whole proposal down to its basis, what you are left with is a request to grant a variance so that the developer can build an extra story, which would be a 5th floor in the parking garage that would increase the number of spots available for the public (these facts are by their own admission). Without the variance, the condo development itself could still proceed, thereby not affecting the (suspect) claims that this development will satisfy the housing needs and rejuvenate a part of our city. So the whole question of whether or not to grant the variance is reducible to just one floor of public parking. But in order to obscure this point, the developer is suggesting a whole lot more, including the possibility that if you do not grant the variance, the whole deal may be off the table. The difference to the developer, between the 15m and 18m, height is the rate of return on the investment that would be affected by not having revenue from the extra floor of parking. This is not a question of the overall profitability of the development, but rather how much profit and how fast.

But I am not opposed to development. What I am opposed to is public officials making a decision based on weak and unfounded arguments. When our City Council considers this request, the question of granting this variance must be based on the facts ... the real facts, and not the myriad of pseudo facts and red herrings that have been floated around. As it stand now, the arguments in favour of the variance, as presented, are that;

a) Not granting it would require the developer to go back to the drawing board, and thus may end the proposal,
b) That this development will satisfy the parking needs,
c) That this development will satisfy the housing needs, and
d) That this development will rejuvenate a part of the downtown.

But the real basis for this variance of the By-Law is that with 70 more public parking spots the developer can expect to have more profit at the 10 and 25 year marks.

The Problem
So I have a problem with our City Council granting a variance of our By-Laws in order to create 70 more parking spots and increasing the project’s profitability for a private developer. If our elected officials disagree with this By-Law, as it is currently written, then can move to amend it and allow the people to voice their opinions on the matter. But until they do that, I strongly suggest that they adhere with, and stop breaking, our By-Laws, especially those that have been designed to protect our heritage centre.

QG

Ann Coulter and Me (<-YouTube version)

I do not have a problem with Ann Coulter coming to Canada to speak.

I believe that choosing to close our ears and our minds to another’s ideas, especially those with which we disagree, is choosing to be ignorant. I make an effort to read books that present ideas and views contrary to my own, so I have read most of Ms. Coulter’s books. And despite the fact that I disagree with her views, I do not deny her right to hold them.

I also do not have a problem with her speaking on a university campus. As educational institutions, universities ought to be the very place where public discourse and debate is fostered and even promoted. To bar anyone from speaking at a university is, in my opinion, antithetical to the very idea of higher learning.

Conversely, I do not have a problem with members of a campus community opposing something with which they disagree. Throughout history much good has come as a result of people rising up and protesting what they believe to be wrong.

So I don’t have a problem with Ann Coulter speaking at university campuses in this country.

What I do have a problem with is individuals who have extraordinary opportunities and platforms from which they can contribute to meaningful public discourse, but chose instead to promote ignorance and falsehoods.

Apparently Ms. Coulter was invited to Canada to present on the topic of Free Speech, but any valid and cogent points in her presentation have become all but entirely lost amid the fallout from events which occurred during her visit to the University of Western Ontario and the University of Ottawa, and a single email.

Francois Houle the VP Academic of University of Ottawa sent Ms. Coulter an email in which, she claims, Dr. Houle threatened and accused her of “… committing a crime in a speech” that she had not yet given.

The email was leaked to select media outlets so I have read the email many times. And I cannot see any threat or accusation. What I see is an attempt, by a university administrator and an educator, to provide advice to a visitor to his campus.

As a university official Dr. Houle has a duty of care for the members of the University of Ottawa community and visitors to that campus. He must always act with due diligence to ensure a safe and secure environment for the faculty, staff, students, and guests.

Dr. Houle’s advice that Ms. Coulter make herself aware of, if need be, the Canadian laws pertaining to freedom of expression and hate speech, was an attempt to prevent a problem that may arise, given his understanding of both the culture of his campus, the student body, and the controversial nature of some of Ms. Coulter’s opinions.

And yet this is what Ms. Coulter takes as an accusation and threat.

By this logic, had Dr. Houle chosen to advise Ms. Coulter that the speed limit on Canadian highways is 100kph, not 55mph, and that exceeding this speed may result in a fine under the Highway Traffic Act, she would now be claiming that he had accused her of speeding and threatened her with a ticket.

Identifying a potential problem, based on evidence, and acting diligently to prevent or mitigate that problem, is a prudent course of action. As a lawyer I expect that Ms. Coulter would understand these concepts.

Of course Ms. Coulter has every right to ignore Dr. Houle’s advice, but to suggest that it was an accusation and a threat is either foolishness or just her pandering to her base.

But playing the provocateur and clown seems to be Ms. Coulter’s forte.

After her speech at the University of Western Ontario, Ms. Coulter participated in a question and answer session, during which she was asked two questions from a 17 year old female, Muslim student.

The student’s first question was whether she would be converted to Christianity, the second was, what other modes of transportation Ms. Coulter would suggest, as she does not have a flying carpet.

Ann’s answer began with a history lesson. For the next 2 minutes, Ann rambled through the history of post World War II American hegemony, starting with the conversion of Japan.

Now, I think Ms. Coulter’s point was that converting a population to Christianity renders “dangerous” countries safe.

But despite Ms. Coulter’s assertion that Christian missionaries “poured into Japan”, the country today is mostly secular and less than 2% of the population self identifies as Christian.

By this logic, Ms. Coulter should be suggesting that the solution to “dangerous” peoples and countries is secularization and the abolishment of all religions.

Reciting history, but ignoring the present, to justify your views is just weak minded.

Anyway, when pressed by members of the audience to “answer the question”, Ms. Coulter chose not to get to an answer of the first question, which was still lacking, but to skip to the second. And so in response to which mode of transportation the student should opt for, Ann answered “take a camel”. Ms. Coulter now claims that that comment was either humour or satire. It was neither. It was flippant.

Since this exchange, Ms. Coulter has been stating that she had provided an almost “10 minute” answer to the first question, but that the media had edited that out. The truth of the matter is that she provided just over 2 minutes of nonsense about the proselytizing of the US post World War II and the Korean War, and then opted to provide a tasty sound bite in response to the second question.

Providing weak and obscure quasi answers to a simple question is poor debate, but claiming otherwise, when it is on record, is just plain dumb.

So more than any other comment, Ms. Coulter’s response to that question catapulted her visit to the forefront of the news. From professional news outlets to the blogosphere to the Twitterverse were afire with commentary about what she had said at the University of Western Ontario. And this was creating momentum that would make her visit of the University of Ottawa destined to become a media circus.

Upon reflection, I now think that Dr. Houle was too reserved in his advice to Ms. Coulter. Had I authored that letter, I would have added additional information about the differences between Canada and the US, so that she could better appreciate the cultural landscape to which she was visiting.

I would have encouraged Ms. Coulter to learn just a little about how it is that Canada has legalised same sex marriages and a women’s right to choose, enacted gun control and removed the death penalty, how nous avons deux langues officiel, and our multiculturalism is not a “melting pot” in which all ethnicities are blended together, but a mosaic, where each distinct piece is represented, but combined together to create our Canadian cultural identity.

I also would have pointed out that while she was invited by conservative organizations and individuals, conservatism in Canada is not exactly like that in the US. And while we currently have a conservative party in power, the other four national political parties are best described as left, left, left, and more left.

Canada is not a country based on “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, but of “Peace, Order, and Good Governance”.

So it is wise to be cautious about disrupting our peace or orderliness. It’s like poking a sleeping bear.

And that is exactly what Ann Coulter did.

The reception at the University of Ottawa was predictable. The campus community was prepared to protest her presence on the campus and to make it known that they disagreed with her views.

As the crowd grew outside the venue, university security personnel, Ottawa Police, and Ms. Coulter’s own security had reservations about the safety of the event. In the end, the talk was cancelled.

According to the organizers and Ms. Coulter, the event was cancelled by the Police, as they could not guarantee her safety. In fact, on her blog (read: column) Ms. Coulter states that it was a “… police-ordered cancellation of the speech”.

But according to Ottawa police spokesperson Alain Boucher, the police did not shut down the event, but rather they suggested that larger venue would be needed to hold the large crowd. And the University of Ottawa has made an official statement in which they indicate that it was the organizers who decided to cancel the event.

Given the fact that Ms. Coulter’s behaviour while visiting Canada was wilfully ignorant of the advice being offered by Dr. Houle, flippant toward a young citizen of this country, disingenuous a number times, and largely mindless and devoid of meaningful intellectual thought, Dr. Houle’s email now seems prescient.

But you know, I guess when you invite the clown, you need to be prepared for the whole circus.

QG

Journey to the Center of (the World) Web 2.0

It’s been a while, okay ½ a year, since I last blogged. But I did say that I was going to keep this up, so here I am back at it.

These past six months I have been wandering inside Web 2.0 in an attempt to develop a better understanding of what exactly is going on there. I have made and posted nine YouTube videos. I have had a few hundred views. I have gathered three subscribers including Lilylulay, who I credit with "dragging" me into this "party". And I have even received some ‘hater’ comments. I feel just like a real YouTuber … just on a much smaller scale.

I have also Tweeted; 202 times to date. I will make it 203 when I post this blog entry. I have gathered 27 followers. Although I think some of them are bots. And others are people who I think were randomly assigned to me. Then there are the people at work. And the local gourmet pizza place. Yes, my followers may not include any Web 2.0 luminaries, but I am a Twitter-er none the less.

I have also participated in more bidirectional Web 2.0 activities, including BlogTV (who ReTweeted me!), Omegle, and UStream. And rather than simply watch, I have attempted to interact with the hosts of the streaming ‘shows’. I was even been moderately successful as Laci Green responded to some of my questions. Thanks Laci.

And, true to my nature, I have read some books, including Andrew Keen’s Cult of the Amateur, Mark Bauerlein’s The Dumbest Generation and Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everyone.

So now, six months into my experience, I have come to some conclusions about what is going on inside Web 2.0.

First, it is not as profound as I had imagined. There is no great paradigm shift here. I think there are some subtle changes in the way in which we relate to each other, think of ourselves, and measure social norms. But it is just not that significant. In some ways, I am a little disappointed.

Second, I think that the concerns being voiced are as overrated as my assumptions about the significance of what is happening. Web 2.0 technology and its resultant online behaviours are not heralding some social catastrophe. They are simply the most recent manifestations of our ability to develop various means to communicate with each other.

And that, I think, is really what is happening. Web 2.0 provides many of us an ability to reach out across the planet and instantly communicate with almost anyone, anywhere. That’s all. We have been using technology to communicate with other people, over time and space, since we invented writing. Web 2.0 simply provides us the ability to communicate over greater distances, with many more people (most of whom we do not know), in real-time.

But in the end, we are still just doing what we started doing thousands of years ago. We are just reaching out and sharing what we have created, whether it is a poem, a skit, a joke, or an idea, with others.

And so here I am offering these ideas to anyone out there in the World Wide Web 2.0.

QG

QuietGorilla - Watched by Women over 55

It has been a couple of weeks since I last posted on either this blog or YouTube. I have during that time made a few videos, but after watching them decided not to post them. The reason is that I found myself straying from what I originally intended to accomplish. I re-awoke this blog and decided to post on YouTube in an attempt to better understand, and appreciate, how the use of Web 2.0 technology is transforming interpersonal communication and ourselves. Posting on YouTube however as resulted in some interesting personal experiences, which I have decided to document as well.

As I discussed in my third video, after posting my first video, I experienced a highly uncharacteristic sense of shyness. Subsequent to posting two more videos, I have found myself compelled to make video responses for other peoples' posts. As I indicated at the outset of this project, I was using the medium as a means to an end, in hope of garner more information that might answer the lingering questions with which I was struggling. It was never my intention to make skits, vlogs, or responses. And yet, over the last two weeks, I have found myself itching to enter into the dialogue with other posters. I have even produced video responses that were personal experiences or opinions on topics other than the original one that brought me posting on YouTube. After viewing those videos however, I was reminded of my original intent and questioned how straying off topic might alter the process. I will admit that I struggled with the desire to post those videos, but in the end, I decided to keep my focus (a challenge for me at the best of time) and just document my YouTube experience.

I have also decided to recombine my videos in which I am pursuing a line of questioning as well as documenting my own experiences. I think my attempt to separate what I wanted to know, from what I was experiencing myself, was artificial. So I am back to just one stream of questions.

Lastly, I had been waiting to hit 100 views on one of my videos, but I seemed stalled at 99 for a few days, so I decided to go with that anyway and see what the Insight feature told me about my viewership. When I first explored that function, it indicated that all my views had come from inside Canada ... ok ... and that all the viewers were over 55 years of age ... interesting ... and female ... strange : O

I don't think that that is an accurate reflection of my viewership, so I am questioning how that data is collected. I went back in to examine it again the other night, and now receive a message saying that my viewership is too low to provide demographic data. Oh well. It sounded funny.

So to all 99 of my females over 55 viewers ... thank you ; P

QG

It was an iDay filled with iConnectedness

I had a number of tasks in the real outside world today, but as with most things in modern life there is a connection to the virtual world and the network that connects us all. So this fluidity between the material world and the virtual world often makes for an interesting iDay.

Today these tasks included buying the new iPhone 3G S. As I was travelling around the other side of the country when it was released last month, I figured I would wait until I got home to get one. This decision was made all the more easy by the fact that none of the stores I visited in B.C. actually had a black 32G version. In fact the salesperson at one BestBuy said, "Yeah, we have been calling all the other stores around town [not just the other BestBuys] and no one has any". That seemed weird, but then again this is Canada and we seem to always get new tech later, more slowly, and in fewer amounts than our southern neighbours. It is also understandable that Vancouver and the surrouding area would be completely sold out of this icon of e-coolness. Anyone, who is anyone connected, must have an iPhone. Surely, I thought to myself, my little ol' province on the other side of the continent would have a few lying around. So I waited until today, but connecting with a new iPhone proved more complicated than I thought.

Always trying to be eco-conscious, I try to never burn gas needlessly. I won't drive across town just to look at something. I will be certain that I wish to purchase it and then call ahead and make sure it is available before I turn the ignition. So I picked up the [regular] phone and called my local iPhone carrier - the only one authorised to carry the device in Canada. But despite my efforts at being connected to the local outlet, the automated phone tree kept directing my call to their national service office.
"I don't want to hear about the packages", I said to the customer service representative.
"I want to buy the phone. I just want to make sure you have one in your local store before I drive over there", I explained.
"I am not connected to their inventory control system and therefore I cannot determine whether or not they have any in stock.", replied the CSR.
"I anticipated that" I exclaimed, "which is why I have been trying to call the local outlet, but I keep getting connected to you".
"I can connect you to our wireless technical service department" was the reply.
"Are they connected to the local inventory control so they can they determine if the local store has any phones in stock?" I queried.
"No" was the simple response.
And with a curt 'Thank you' I disconnected customer service.
I truly marvel at modern customer service. It is clearly a misnomer, because even if you can get connected it will be of no service to you at all. For another, and more humourous, customer service story, I suggest Spricket24's recent YouTube post.

Anyway, the decision to move to an iPhone was made all the more poignant when I discovered that the previously free internet service at the local store for the national book store chain is no longer free : | I had come to appreciate the time spent sitting in the small coffee shop section of the store, browsing my new books, all while being connected to the net. But now that access required I either be a subscriber to a certain local ISP (which I am not) or pay a daily connection fee. Frustrated, I took my new purchases, left the store, and headed straight to the iPhone dealer. No more would I be victim to a lack of free internet service for my, so 2008, iPod Touch. I really think that internet connectivity should be provided free of charge in certain places; schools, libraries, museums, and book stores ... you know, places of learning.

So there I was standing in a very short line at the iPhone store. Line ups here in this city tend to be very small because we are a small city in a small province. Although that doesnt seem to stop people from complaining about cueing up. Strange. Anyway, when my turn came I eagerly asked for a black 32G iPhone, fully anticipating that this little, far away from anywhere store, would have at least one.

"I am sorry, but we don't have any", was the shocking reply.
"You had THAT much demand?" I wondered, bemused by the very idea that there were local inhabitants who would want an iPhone, but did not already have one.
"No, we haven't" was the answer.
"Oh, you didn't get any?" I asked.
"Well, not really" came the reply and she continued, "we had 9 shipped to us for the release, but they never made it to our store".
"What? I don't understand". My mind raced.
"Apparently they went missing somewhere between the UPS depot at the airport and the store".

WTH?! I thought. What kind of criminal mastermind would steal a box of cellular phones that can only be supported by one carrier on an island of 500,000 people?! How are they going to them activated and connected? The phones have unique electronic serial numbers. And I am sure they are on record somewhere. You can't just walk into any wireless service provider and get them connected to just any cellular network. They can ONLY be used on one provider's network ... the one you stole them from. I suppose they can sell them on-line to people in Europe or the US, but what a hassle, not to mention the possibility that the ESNs will be traced back to those reported as stolen from here. Clearly, the 'i' in iCrime stands for 'idiot'. Okay, I just so made that up ... iCrime. But I like it.

So, I have no iPhone and have to wait until their next shipment comes in, which is apparently sometime ... hang on ... what if those iCriminals are reading my blog. No way am I going to tell them when the next shipment is due to arrive.

Anyway, here I am, with my impoverished iPod Touch and its limited wireless connectivity. At least I have some new books to keep me busy while I wait for the next shipment of the latest and greatest connected device.

Until then,
QG

The Live Vlog or How PhillyD and gogreen18 are Trying to Kill Me

I feel like crap and look even worse; I have the 'John Green' poof going on. I have been trying to get my internal clock reset to the time zone on this side of the continent, but that all went out the window when I decided to spend a few hours last night watching some live broadcasts from two on-line personalities.

While I have recently been spending a lot of time thinking about the whole YouTube experience, I am actually trying to grasp how the entire Web2.0 phenomenon is changing us. So when PhillyD and Laci Green announced they would be on-line live last night I tuned in to their UStream and BlogTV broadcasts. I had not previously spent a lot of time watching on-line broadcasts as I wasn't certain what I was watching for, but now that I am forming some clearer thoughts concerning this change, I am more prepared to observe.

What I should have realised was that both PhillyD and Laci Green are on the west coast of the US, while I live at the eastern most point of North America, unless you go past the point that says, "Don't go Pass this Point" ... lest you fall into the Atlantic Ocean. Come to think of it, I have a picture somewhere of me going past that point :|
Anyway, I tuned in, stayed on, and lurked until 4am, at which time I slipped into a fitful sleep filled with dreams of Twitter icons and YouTube videos.

That being said, the two sessions were as different as chaulk and cheese (a local colloquialism I enjoy) and therefore filled with interesting bits of information for me to mull over. And since I do my very best mulling in the shower, and I look like hell, I think I will let the rainshower head do its wonders and revitalize my poor body and stimulate my brain. Then I will document what I saw, heard, and thought about my first on-live live broadcast experiences.

Until then,
QG

The Tipping Point on YouTube

I am going to suggest that there is a tipping point at which some lurkers will become web 2.0 posters. Think someone who watches YouTube videos and then decides to post one themselves. I think that this transition comes as an internal want (e.g. the expression of a thought, a feeling, a creative art, etc). becomes more compelling than any de-motivational considerations (e.g. shyness, etc.), which prevent someone from making this leap. I think the conditions and the threshold are specific to the individual, but I wonder if there is a common general set of factors such as the want to express oneself publically ... very publically in this case and, on the other side of the scale, the fear of having others (and unknown others at that) be witness to this expression.

So what are our triggers?
What is it that prompts someone to go from lurker to poster?
What compells someone to spread news to the world everyday as sxephil does? or script, produce, edit, and star in elaborate stories like Venetian Princess? Or attempt to change the world, one Nerd at a time, by vlogging with his brother?

This is the essence of my second video. I hope that I garner some response, lest I be forced to use other data collection methods :)

I invite you to offer me your opinions <- That just seems weird, as I think I am the only one reading this :P

Anyway,

QG

Now THAT was Interesting

The experience of producing and posting my first YouTube video was very interesting and had some unforeseen outcomes, as I eluded to in my last post. For the first time in my life I was, what I think most people consider to be, shy, or something like it. After uploading the video and watching it I realised that I was a little self-conscious about the fact that other people, whom I do not know, might see it and hear what I have to say. Now this has never been a problem for me before. I have spoken to groups of people as large as 1000 or more, on a variety of topics, but I have always known something about them; who they were, why they were listening to me, etc. So the idea that their might be viewers just randomly landing upon my video was a little unsettling. I am still not entirely sure why and so I am going to have to give this more thought.
In the interim, the experience has left me wondering if the shyness, or something similar, is what prevents some individuals from posting, and how do prolific posters manage this obstacle. Perhaps they are not shy, but neither I am ... usually.
So I am seeking answers to the question about how the possibility of numerous, anonymous viewers affects YouTube posters and viewers. I have made my third video just about this, because you know what they say about falling off horses and such.

Your comments, thoughts, and answers are warmly welcome.

Cheers,
QG

OMG ... I'm a YouTuber!

Well, as I said, I have decided that if I am going to really understand what is happening with regard to the whole Web 2.0 and socialization, I need to get into it. So, I have decided that participant observation is the best method for me to fully experience this phenomenon.
Therefore, I have posted my first YouTube video. It is an introduction to me and why I am doing this. I think it might be very boring for some people. However, it was intensely interesting to me!
First, it was a lot harder that I realised to video myself. There is a sense of self consciousness that it strange. I am not a self-conscious person in real life; I have spoken to groups as large as 1000 on a regular basis, but this seems different somehow.
Second, the idea that 10's of people might watch that, and some might even comment, is very intriguing. I think that this is entirely related to that sense of self-consciousness. And that is exactly what I was anticipating.
Third, just the technical aspects of shooting a video (i.e. lighting, sound, etc) and uploading it were novel. I am not unfamiliar with photography, but this is different. I like learning new things, so this was fun.
Anyway, there you go. I have my first video on-line and it was a marvelously interesting experience. I need to go think about that now.

Cheers,
QG