The thought occurred to me when reading Martin Weller’s response, and thinking that trying to define “open” or “openness” seemed as vague as trying to define “cool” — except you know it when you see it.

And it was just irony that the flickr creative commons images I found for 2 icons, Arthur Fonzarelli and James Dean, where actually imitations thereof.

So for Jim, I am feeling your concerns, but personally have little worries of companies being effective at defining the table. The networked world does not work that way; they will try, but it will be obvious (like a fake James Dean) and someone will call them on their shit.

I liked the provocation that George started and would agree we need more “crazy ones” and doubts that its going to come in a big way from established institutions. Maybe it will be an on foreseen outsider or a swelling of small revolutionaries, or never at all.

And no way, I was and am so un-cool, shall live and die a nebbishy geek.

I officially nominate you for first Chair in the Society for Analyzing Cool.

(I agree with Jim’s comments – I think your jesting/mild mockery has more relevance than you may have intended!)

So while you are jesting here, I think your ideas are even more resonant that you may have intended, although I may also be assuming that this wasn;t your intention, or someone the intention I am suggesting here is different than yours. Either way, cool post.