"Shut up," he explained.

I posted this way down in the comments to jeffwik's LJ, but it may be of interest here, in re: the current burblings of the gaming blogiverse, or in re: whatever other internet arguments you may happen to be or become embroiled in.

At JOHO last week, (that's "Journal of the Hyperlinked Organization"), Dave Weinberger linked to some discussions of New York Times editor Bill Keller's complaint that on the internet, arguments never end:

There is a great thread that starts with Jay Rosen picking up on Bill Keller (editor of the NY Times) complaining that in the blogosphere arguments never end. It's a throwaway phrase, but Jay is right to pick up on the mindset in which it's a plausible complaint. Jeff Jarvis solos on the melody, and Scott Rosenberg brings it on home with the observation that the complaint is really about who gets to end the argument.

This is one of the top five most important effects of the Internet*: We are not going to settle our arguments. There's enough room on the Web to permit that. You argue for a bit, maybe you learn a little or maybe the argument hardens your position so that you become a little stupider, and then you move on to something else. That's why the "conversation" meme is so powerful: Conversations are explorations, not title fights.

The big question is whether we can adapt this lesson of the Web to the real world with its finite space and inescapable proximities. If we're never all going to agree, can we at least all keep talking?

*No, I don't have a list of the top five. I was bluffing. [Original Post.]

I like that. Make of it what you will.