[joho] JOHO - Sept. 03, 2004

  • From: "David Weinberger" <self@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <joho@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:05:33 -0400

Journal of the
Hyperlinked Organization
September 3, 2004
Editor: David Weinberger (self@xxxxxxxxxxx)
To unsubscribe send a blank message to
For the fully glorious illustrated and
hyperlink-saturated online version of JOHO, please
To view this issue correctly, please use a
monospaced font such as Courier and stretch your
window until it all makes sense.

  | CONTENTS                                    |
  |                                             |
  | The DDC's aging value system shows the      |
  | pernicious influence of reality.            |
  |                                             |
  | IN DEFENSE OF SMALL TALK: The virtues of    |
  | being trivial.                              |
  |                                             |
  | COOL TOOL: PowerDesk beats Windows          |
  | Explorer. And Mozilla Thunderbird beats     |
  | Outlook. What a surprise!                   |
  |                                             |
  | WHAT I'M PLAYING: That damn Zuma. But Doom  |
  | 3 is here.                                  |
  |                                             |
  | INTERNETCETERA: Hotels go wifi.             |
  |                                             |
  | LINKS: Miscellaneous leads.                 |
  |                                             |
  | EMAIL: Your response to last issue's        |
  | proposal                                    |
  | IT'S A JOHO WORLD AFTER ALL                 |
  |                                             |
  | Halley Suitt [1] interviews me over at IT   |
  | Conversations. So if you want 50 minutes    |
  | of me mumbling into a phone, that's where   |
  | you should go. [2]                          |
  |                                             |
  | I blogged the Democratic Convention for     |
  | The Boston Globe. I lacked the moral and    |
  | intestinal fortitude to try to get invited  |
  | to the RNC. [3]                             |
  [1] http://halleyscomment.blogspot.com/
  [1] http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail196.html
  [2] http://www.boston.com/news/blogs/dnc/
  | MORE ABOUT CLASSIFICATION                   |
  |                                             |
  | Yup, I seem to be thinking and writing      |
  | about the principles of organization        |
  | again. Don't worry, I'll have it out of my  |
  | system in a year or two.                    |


There seems to be a disturbing message hidden in the
Dewey Decimal Classification system, the
organizational scheme first published in 1876 and
now used in 95% of US schools: Of the hundred
numbers set aside for topics concerning religion, 88
-- numbers 201-287 -- are reserved for Christianity.
Jews and Moslems get just one each. But those
single-digit religions are still doing better than
Buddhists (294.3) who share a decimal point with the
Sikhs (294.6) and Jains (294.4), looking up
enviously at Christian "Parish government &
administration" which gets its own whole number

Why is the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system
so embarrassingly behind the times? After all, its
owners are fully modern, reasonable people, many
with advanced library degrees. How can they let
their classification scheme get it so wrong? If the
US Census can finally, in 2000, acknowledge that
many people don't fit into a single racial bucket,
surely the academics and intellectuals managing the
nation's standard library classification system can
end its 130 years of religious bias.

It's not that easy. But it's not because Melvil
Dewey (1851-1931) was a racist or that the Online
Computer Center Library consists of extreme right-
wing Fundamentalists. The OCLC is a dedicated bunch
of professionals and Melvil Dewey himself was a
progressive on social issues. For example, he hired
seven women at the Columbia University library --a
radical idea --and even set up a library school that
admitted women.

No, the DDC is skewed toward Christianity because
Dewey intended it to be universal. It has stayed
skewed because the DDC is aimed at classifying real
books in the real world.

Dewey was a believer in the power of reason. This is
reflected in his use of numbers to arrange books and
his interest in spelling simplification: He started
out as Melville Dewey and for a while went by Melvil
Dui. But, most of all, his rationalism is reflected
in his belief that the structure of libraries ought
to reflect the structure of knowledge. Your local
library's geography should be a microcosm of
knowledge's own geography.

What does knowledge look like? Francis Bacon said it
divides into history, philosophy and literature:
What's actually happened, what explains what's
happened, and how we reflect on it. Dewey was
influenced by William Torrey Harris who took Hegel's
suggestion and put philosophy first. (Hegel believed
history is how philosophy unfolds in time, or
something like that.) So, after putting some
miscellaneous stuff into the 000's, Dewey's system
begins with Philosophy, then Religion, Social
Science, Language, Natural Science and Mathematics,
Applied Sciences, Arts, Literature, and finally
Geography and History.

Within the categories, Wayne A. Wiegand [1] has
argued that Dewey -- who created the DDC when he was
in his early 20s -- was strongly influenced by his
undergraduate education. For example, the nine
divisions of the natural science Dewey proposed
mirror the nine chapters of the text book he'd used
as a student. And, his apportionment of the ten
categories of Religion reflects his small orthodox
college's assumption that Western civilization
culminates in Christianity.

In the modern world, we no longer make that
assumption. Or, if we do, we know that not everyone
else does. So, why hasn't the DDC been updated?

In fact, it is updated, just about every week. But a
large-scale, two-digit change would presumably wreak
havoc. The change would require massive amounts of
physical work: scraping off existing numbers,
painting in new ones, updating millions of library
cards. In the interim, the library system wouldn't
be a system at all. And, then you'd have all the
arguments over how to re-do it. Do Scientologists
deserve their own left-of-decimal spot? Where do you
put Jews for Jesus? How about Wicca? It'd be an ugly
can of worms to open.

This highlights two ways our taxonomies are
changing now that we're shaking off the physical and
moving to the electronic. First, the physical world
is so hard to change that a taxonomy that's
offensive in its inherent values --and all
taxonomies have values baked into them -- may be
worth maintaining simply because no taxonomy is
worse than an offensive taxonomy. Second, the most
important job of the new generation of librarians is
to build into information objects sufficient
metadata that any organization can create its own
taxonomy. Taxonomies are tools, so there's no such
thing as the One Right Taxonomy, just as can-openers
aren't more right than asphalt spreaders. By
building in sufficient metadata -- no easy task --
diverse groups now and forever can build taxonomies
that suit their needs.

It means giving up the dream of Universal Reason.
But we woke from that dream a long time ago.


I'm just at the beginning of researching this. I
haven't yet read the books or talked with the OCLC,
so the above could be wrong and, more important, if
you have information or ideas about this, please let
me know.

Also, this is a version of a column that will show
up in KMWorld soon. [2]

[1]  www.gslis.utexas.edu/~landc/fulltext/LandC_33_2_Wiegand.pdf
[2]  http://www.kmworld.com


1. I made a new friend recently. We'd been reading
each other's writings for a year or so and, when we
met in person discovered not only that we are mutual
admirers but that we actually like each other. But
then we hit a little bump, nothing we won't get
over: In an email exchange, I suggested that she
tell a little white lie in response to a particular
awkward question, on the order of getting out of a
social invitation by claiming you're busy, without
pointing out that you're busy ironing. She doesn't
believe in lying, no matter what the color.

2. I have another friend who means a lot to me
although she's very angry at me. This is quite
painful. We've tried to repair the damage by having
long talks about the relationship, but the talks
just instantiate the differences that caused
the rift. So, I've suggested that we try to rebuild
by engaging in simple, civil small talk. Maybe we
can talk about the new movie we both liked instead
of why our personalities seem to be getting in the
way of our love.

3. In 1969, I read Heidegger's Being and Time, in a
course taught by Joseph Fell. Heidegger's approach
broke me out of a common adolescent personal crisis
that was fueled by a tradition of thought that kept
digging up the ground as I was trying to put down
roots. I didn't need every jot and tittle of Being
and Time to be true to enable me to get me out of my
hole. For example, something always struck me as
wrong about B&T's idea that our "fallenness" into
"idle chatter" is one of our inevitable
characteristics. I agree that we can't escape it,
but Heidegger is such an elitist about it. (Note: I
haven't read B&T in 20 years, and I still find
philosophy so dispiriting that cracking open that
volume would be too much like, well, like
remembering my past.)

So, I've come to be a fan of small talk and white
lies. Here's why.

First, especially when you're meeting someone new,
small talk is a sign of respect. Consider the

         "Hi. I'm Betty. Pleased to meet you. Beautiful
         weather, don't you think?"

         "What do you think about the recent developments
         in taxonomy? I have a theory about latent
         semantic indexing..."

Small talk lets you and your interlocutor take little
steps until you find ground you share.

Second, art expresses something big in something
small. (If it expresses something small in something
big, you leave during the intermission.) Likewise,
in small talk, we express ourselves in the details
of what we talk about, the words we use, the ones we
don't, how far we lean forward, how tentatively or
aggressively we probe for shared ground. Because all
of this is implicitly presented, it tends to give a
more accurate picture of who we are and what we care
about than big, explicit conversations.

Third, because small talk pokes here and there as
it looks for ground, you can de-commit to it without
hurting anyone's feelings. Walking out on a heavy
talk about God's presence is history because you
"think you heard your cat" is rude. Excusing
yourself during a chit chat about whether Brittany
Murphy is a Spring or a Winter is not nearly so.

Fourth, I guess I'm more of a constructivist than an
archaeologist when it comes to social relationships.
My aim isn't to expose my buried self to you. It's
to build a conversation and then a relationship that
eventually is so deep that we can't disentangle the
roots. For that, we need lots and lots of ambiguity.
The only people who feel like they can adequately
describe us are the ones who don't know us.

And that's why I'm ok with many white lies. We can't
get along with one another in the desert of
sunlight. I need you not to know everything I'm
doing and everything I feel. So, sorry, I'm busy
that night.

I am not ok with banter, however. It's no
coincidence that I stopped bantering when I left
academics. I couldn't take the constant pressure to
prove myself smarter or funnier than the person
who just spoke, especially since I wasn't.

As for gossip: Bring it on, baby! So long as it's
not about me. About you would be fine, so long as
it's juicy. (Ok, and not hurtful. Why can't anything
be fun any more?)

| COOL TOOL                                   |
|                                             |
| Microsoft Windows Explorer really does      |
| suck. There's no excuse for some of the     |
| features it's missing, starting with        |
| allowing us to split the window to get two  |
| instances running in the same frame.        |
|                                             |
| V-Com's Powerdesk Pro 6 [1] is, if anything,|
| over-featured. In addition to the expected  |
| file management functionality it also       |
| includes a good file sync-er, integrated    |
| ftp that actually works, a zipper, and a    |
| directory size reporter. At $50, it's $10   |
| overpriced, in my opinion, but I bought it  |
| anyway, so I guess they actually hit my     |
| number.                                     |
|                                             |
| And, hey, PowerDesk, how about putting in   |
| tabs so we can go from one set of           |
| directories to another? Haven't you heard?  |
| Tabs are in!                                |
|                                             |
|                 ---                         |
|                                             |
| Re: Replacing Microsoft products: I've been |
| using Mozilla Thunderbird [2] instead of    |
| Outlook for the past few months and it is   |
| a solid, delightful, free, open source      |
| product. The big drawbacks for me: I can't  |
| get the TB calendar extension to work and   |
| X1 [3] doesn't index it yet. But both       |
| problems are being resolved...              |
| [1] http://www.v-com.com/                   |
| [2] www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird    |
| [3] www.x1.com                              |
| WHAT I'M PLAYING                            |
|                                             |
| I'm still playing g-ddamn Zuma. [1]         |
| Aaarrrggghh. And I've watched my son and    |
| my nephew zoom past me to the final level   |
| while I've been stuck on the penultimate    |
| one for a couple of months. It's a great,   |
| addictive game.                             |
|                                             |
| My kids pre-ordered me a copy of Doom 3     |
| for my birthday almost a year ago, and it   |
| finally shipped. I've tried it just to see  |
| if it's as astounding as it's supposed to   |
| be. Quick answer: It is. More later. Now    |
| ... must .... defeat .... Zuma....          |
|                                             |
| [1] http://www.popcap.com/                  |
| INTERNETCETERA                              |
|                                             |
| Hotels are at long last figuring out that   |
| broadband in the bedroom is a must-have,    |
| according to a report by In-Stat/MDR [1]    |
| reported by The Center for Media Research.  |
| "Total properties deployed will grow from   |
| 5,207 in 2003 to 26,828 in 2008."           |
| Apparently, this comes after a three year   |
| slump which I assume was due to the hotel   |
| industry's assumption that wifi was just a  |
| fad and that Real Men Pull Cable.           |
|                                             |


A handful of links, all previously in my blog

Bev Harris reports on a truly scary security hole -- 
and the embezzler who created it -- in the Diebold
electronic voting system. Must-read and must-do-


Toogle does something cool, but I don't want to ruin
the surprise by telling you what.


John Battelle has had a really interesting idea:
Sell side advertising. I blogged about it here:


Tom Matrullo is such a damn fine, and funny,
writer, it's enjoyable watching him ride his rant
about FEMA like a buckin' bronco, even while
knowing how hard Hurricane Charley hit him.


AKMA has written an amazing piece about how the
police stopped him from using the library's free
wifi because he was sitting outside the library.


Here's a very slick wiki. You should give it a try,
particularly if you've used wikis before.


Spinsanity is doing its best to tell the truth.


The world's worst site? Not hardly! No registration
required, no page transitions, no frames (except
for Tripod/Angelfire inserting itself as an IE
search companion, apparently not as part of the
joke), no popups, no pornography, no spyware (as
far as I can tell), no size=1 font, no redirect of
the back button. The music and animated gifs are
real annoying, though.


Thanks to a recommendation by danah boyd [1], I've
created an i-neighborhood [2] for Brookline [3]. The i-
neighborhood site is an experiment in adding a
virtual layer to existing real world neighborhoods.
(There's an interesting discussion of the nature of
neighborhoods over at danah's site. [4])

As of now, I am the only member of the Brookline i-
neighborhood, and thus am, at last, lord and

[1] www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/08/15/ineighbors.php
[2] http://www.i-neighbors.org/home.php
[3] http://www.i-neighbors.org/02446/brookline
[4] www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/08/15/ineighbors.html

I heard Shimon Rura give a highly informal talk
about frassle, an open source project he's working
on. Fascinating. It's a blogging platform, but also
an aggregator, community blogger, and publishing
system. It's able to pull together blogthreads
across multiple feeds, and lets you build blogs out
of queries across feeds. Very cool. (It's in alpha
and "built out of duct tape and drinking straws," as
one of its tag lines says, so don't bang on it too

Optical illusions? You won't believe your eyes.

This is a plug for Dan Gillmor's "We the Media"
because it is a damn good book that's going to turn
out to be more right than a lot of us expect.


I ran a photo essay of my encounter with the Red-
Footed Falcon on Martha's Vineyard [1]. I thought it
was amusing, but apparently I was wrong. (Other
photos here [2]. I got a new camera --a Canon S60 --
and I've been playing.)

[1] http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/002991.html
[2] http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/002933.html


I got a bunch of mail about the piece in the
previous issue about the three orders of order, an
idea I'm trying out for the book I'm pre-writing.


Timothy Slager, who knows about this stuff, finds my
distinctions confusing:

         I'm not sure I understand the difference between
         your levels 2 and 3...

         Aren't organization and messiness mutually
         exclusive? I mean there's the mechanic in Zen
         and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, who knows
         exactly where each tool is lying, scattered
         across the floor. But one's memory, while it may
         depend on a mnemonic quirk of one's own, doesn't
         quite qualify as organization.

         Any good level two index gives you the option of
         hanging clothes on the multiple clothes racks
         you mention. You organize the same clothes by
         size, color, material, gender "orientation,"
         weather-appropriateness...Then you have a
         polyhierarchical taxonomy. But each approach
         requires its own organization. If I'm going to
         use any system to help people find stuff, it has
         to include some order. (Of course, your
         warehouse will also need a good level-one
         organization if you plan to fill orders.) Else
         everyone paws through the bargain table applying
         sticky notes of various colors, which only serve
         to confuse everyone else (bookmarks are
         inherently personal).

I wrote back that second order order organizes
physical representations of the metadata about stuff
sorted into piles (first order). E.g., books on a
shelf are first order, and the card catalog is
second order. In a third order order --enabled by
digitization --you don't create taxonomies so much
as create richer metadata so that others can create
the taxonomies they need.

Here's and excerpt from Timothy's reply:

         But there is a problem with messy metadata.
         Similar objects are not equally tagged. ...You
         need the categories (taxonomy) to ask the same
         questions for organizing similar objects.
         Otherwise the user cannot find all the options
         with the characteristics they are looking for.
         How can a practitioner carefully create metadata
         without set categories?

         I've also seen vendors who want to associate
         unrelated metadata with their product. (Extreme
         example: include the keyword Pamela Anderson; it
         will bring us more customers...) That gets
         plenty messy.

Tim is finding second order order sneaking into my
3rd order order: In order to create the enriched
metadata that allows users to organize information
the way they want, the librarian has to rely on some
set of established categories. So, overall, yes,
librarians carry some set of categories with them
when they do 3rd order metatagging. Nevertheless, it
seems to me that the differences between second and
3rd order orders are significant enough to warrant
differentiating the orders: In one case, I'm tagging
in order to populate a tree that I am publishing. In
the other, I'm tagging in order to allow users to
create their own trees and other organizational

By the way, in the course of the first message,
Timothy tells the following anecdote, which I

         ...working on a monster organization scheme for
         construction products, we used a childhood joke
         to remind us of good (bad?) taxonomy. The joke
         was, "Do you walk to school, or carry your
         lunch" which is funny because of the incongruity
         of the two options. ...Incredibly, many
         hierarchies include such misorganizations.

The canonical example of this is Borges' Chinese
Encyclopedia entry [1], which only gets better as you
re-read it. (And here's a brief memoir [2] well worth
reading, especially the contribution by Andrew

[1] http://www.multicians.org/thvv/borges-animals.html?
[2] http://www.multicians.org/thvv/borges.html


Jeffrey Mann of the -- appropriately enough -- META
group writes:

         Perhaps I am focusing on exceptions, but I see
         plenty of holes in your argument that users own
         the 3rd order. Restrictions on deep linking, for
         example. Copyright, for another. Squeamishness
         about infomarketers that cross link databases to
         give maps of wealthy people, or Republicans.
         Operational restrictions are also placed in many
         cases. For example, I would think it is
         perfectly permissible for me to go to government
         web site to find out about the gas station that
         has applied for permission to install an
         underground petrol tank in my neighbourhood. But
         I would hope that the government site would
         restrict anyone trying to find a list with
         locations of all underground petrol tanks in my
         region. They should even get a friendly visit
         from a polite person in uniform to ask why they
         want that info

Some good examples, but I'm not saying that all
classification schemes will become 3rd order. Also,
it's not obvious to me that my building a list of
copyrighted pages violates anyone's copyright. If it
does, my bookmark list is in trouble and 
http://del.icio.us is a huge violator.


Melody Vargas likes the distinctions except for
where I say the 3rd order values messiness.

         I'd argue that the third values creativity or
         reinvention over neatness. It isn't necessarily
         messy to pull those shirts off the shelves to
         compare, it's a way to be creative and explore
         possibilities. After all the store owner does
         this in a minor way when she pulls shirts, pants
         and accessories together from various areas of
         the store to create displays to show you how the
         products can be used in unique ways. We've been
         using the third order for some time, but
         technology makes it easier.

         Some humans value exploration and creativity,
         while some humans value stability and proper
         procedure. They all have merit and a place in
         our lives.

I use "messiness" because it sounds negative whereas
I mean it as a positive in much the way Melody talks
about creativity. But, a 3rd order mess is different
than the mess you get when too many shoppers fail to
re-shelve the stuff they've looked at. Rather, in a
3rd order mess, objects are heavily linked and for
multiple purposes. There are no racks set up ahead
of time (except in Timothy Slater's sense). People
sort the stuff dynamically without making decisions
for anyone else.


Kevin Dutcher writes:

         Your orders don't sound right.

         First is OK.

         Second, is really organized by a hierarchy about
         information on the original objects.

         Third Order is realizing that there are many
         hierarchies, and it's really a web. Sortable and
         hierarchical in many numerous ways. Credit for
         this thought goes to Jack Ring, at least that's
         who I heard it from.

Kevin raises a difficult issue. I thought about
slicing the pie by the complexity of the order:
lumps, lists, trees, webs. There's sense to this.
But it doesn't get at some stuff I want to talk
about, particularly the raw impact physicality has
had on how we assume stuff has to be ordered. When I
think about what's changed because of the
digitization of information, the growth of webs
seems like a secondary effect. The primary effects
are that things don't have to be put in only one (or
two or three) slots and that the owner of the
information no longer has to own the organization of
the information. Put those together and you get
webs. And that's why I don't characterize the 3rd
order the way Kevin does. It's not simply that there
are many hierarchies. There many because ownership
of them has been transferred to the user.


Robert Filipczak writes:

         I'm sure you've considered this, but the first
         two levels of order are at least somewhat based
         on the scarcity of physical objects that doesn't
         exist when you get to the third level. My sister
         sets up new stores for Kohls. I'm sure if they
         had limitless goods and space, they might create
         many more organizational schemes (based on
         seasons, fabric, prices, etc) to organize their
         clothing. But the limits of good and space make
         them choose one. I'm not sure if that's
         important or not.

It's central, in my opinion; see the previous
message. For example, many years ago when I worked
at Interleaf, we had Kohler (not Kohls) as a
customer. They chose our publishing software because
they could tag their various bathroom fixtures with
metadata, allowing them or their customers to
assemble a catalog particular to their needs.

         I wonder if you could also include a chapter
         entitled "How Someone Organizes Information
         Tells You A lot About Them."

I've been reading the annoyingly brilliant George
Lakoff's 1985 book, "Women, Fire and Dangerous
Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind."
Granted, this is about how categories reveal the
mind, not anyone's particular mind, but it's an
amazing book.


Frank Paynter, who should not be believed when he
calls himself a dummy, writes:

         As I read about the first order of organization,
         I was excited to think that the next two orders
         would be different. The first order you posit
         relates to organizing "stuff." But, the second
         order relates to a more detailed organization of
         stuff, and so perhaps could be thought to be
         simply a level of detail in the first order. If
         I pile up my comic books, that's first order. If
         I alphabetize them in their stack, that's still
         first order. If I make a list of the contents on
         paper I've abstracted a bit and so it's second
         order. The third order seems to be the
         electronification of the information about the
         stuff. While "three orders of order" doesn't
         have the same ring to it as "three orders of
         organization," I think you'll do well to
         underscore that you are writing about three
         orders of order so dummies like me don't gloss
         over the sentence and have to pick it up on the
         re-read, while we're trying to figure out why
         you didn't move on from organization of stuff to
         organization of people and --I dunno --
         organization of knowledge maybe, although that
         last one seems to dovetail nicely with your
         second and third orders.

         Anyway, I think I get where you're going with
         this and as I look around in my office I want to
         suggest a zero state... a chaotic order of
         stuff, not the simple untidiness from which the
         organizing principle can be abstracted... that
         would apply to my desk at work. Rather, in my
         home office we have true chaos because I'm not
         the only one who stirs stuff around and
         occasionally adds or subtracts stuff from the
         mix. Beth helps me with this, often bringing
         things in and piling them on things that I'll
         never find again.

I see your messy desk and raise you The Completion
of Entropy, as exhibited in the background of this
video blog I did a few weeks ago...


Kevin Johansen talks about what order means:

         ...when my 13 y/o son plays cards he *does not*
         organize them by suite. This makes me nuts, but
         he doesn't see the need. Nor does he organize
         the chess pieces he's taken in any particular
         way while he plays. That *really* makes me nuts.
         I think this helps explain why. He's growing up
         (into?) in a '3rd Order' world and has different
         hard wiring than I do.

         Put some spin on these quanta, make them into a
         deck of cards and you've a new Tarot.

Gary Kasparov also probably didn't arrange captured
pieces by rank, but it has nothing to do with 3rd
order thinking. It's just that Kasparov is waaay
smarter than the rest of us when it comes to chess.
You might want to get your kid tested for incipient
brilliance. (Don't worry, the public schools will
dim him down to normal.)

Sally Mahoney

         Your three orders of organization idea is
         interesting. I can see an application of your
         schema to the September 11th commission report
         (http://www.9-11commission.gov/ ) . In the
         executive summary, the recommendations on how to
         fix the government are mostly based on the boxes
         people are in. For example, create a national
         terrorism center; create a national intelligence
         director; restructure the congressional
         oversight committees. These are all examples of
         your first order organization (put the right
         people in the right boxes) and your second order
         organization (if the right people are in the
         right boxes everyone will know who to talk to
         and what to say).

         However, scattered throughout the report is the
         idea that people should share data in new ways
         (e.g. CIA with FBI). The required new way of
         doing business really requires a third order
         organization, and moving boxes on the
         organization chart will not meet the

Thank you, Sally. That's what I've been trying to
say: Agree with me about the Three Orders or the
terrorists have won.


JOHO is a free, independent newsletter written and
produced by David Weinberger. If you write him with
corrections or criticisms, it will probably turn out
to have been your fault.

To unsubscribe, send an email to joho-
request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line. If you have more than one email
address, you must send the unsubscribe request from
the email address you want unsubscribed. In case of
difficulty, let me know: self@xxxxxxxxxxx

There's more information about subscribing, changing
your address, etc., at
www.hyperorg.com/forms/adminhome.html. In case of
confusion, you can always send mail to me at
self@xxxxxxxxxxxx There is no need for harshness or
recriminations. Sometimes things just don't work out
between people. .

Dr. Weinberger is represented by a fiercely
aggressive legal team who responds to any
provocation with massive litigatory procedures. This
notice constitutes fair warning.

Any email sent to JOHO may be published in JOHO and
snarkily commented on unless the email explicitly
states that it's not for publication.


JOHO is a free, independent newsletter written and
produced by David Weinberger. If you write him with
corrections or criticisms, it will probably turn out
to have been your fault.

To unsubscribe, send an email to joho-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe" in the subject line. If you have
more than one email address, you must send the
unsubscribe request from the email address you want
unsubscribed. There's more information about
subscribing, changing your address, etc., at
http://www.hyperorg.com/forms/adminhome.html. In
case of confusion, you can always send mail to me at
self@xxxxxxxxxxxx There is no need for harshness or
recriminations. Sometimes things just don't work out
between people.

Any email sent to JOHO may be published in JOHO and
snarkily commented on unless the email explicitly
states that it's not for publication.

The Journal of the Hyperlinked Organization is a
publication of Evident Marketing, Inc. "Hyperlinked
Organization" is a trademark of Open Text. For
information about trademarks owned by Evident
Marketing, Inc., please see our Preemptive
TrademarksTT page at

This issue of JOHO is licensed under a creative
commons license:

Other related posts:

  • » [joho] JOHO - Sept. 03, 2004