There were good talk overall. I skipped most of the town halls and I think that was good. I missed one of the keynotes. Apparently that was also good.

I learned some, more about what I don’t know than about what I do know.

I was lonesome. I did get out and talk more, possibly because this conference has a “friendly” reputation. But I would have liked to have had some way to meet newbies who were also solo early on to maybe have someone to go out to eat with.

I went to every talk. That’s a big deal for me at a conference. It says that it was all interesting and not… inaccessible.

Great things about the conference:

Small, so lots of people to meet without being totally overwhelmed.

Not too much politics, though it was certainly visible. How great Obama was in one talk. Quotes from Green Peace telling us what we needed to do in another.

Lots of very practical stuff, even when hinged or predicated on theory. (Of course, I went to predominantly practical. I am sure you would find plenty of theory.)

Always food around and it was good food too.

Not a lot of drinking. It’s always better when your colleagues are sober.

Had 15 people in my talk. That’s not a lot. But I had a lot of feedback and response. Very much on topic and some focused on exposing/clarifying my definitions. I think I did a good job. The other presenters in my group did too. One was very similar to mine and really provided a good lead in, but the paper in the middle was on a totally different topic in a totally different direction.

Wonderful weather after Thursday (when it was hot).

Beautiful campus. Just gorgeous. Green open spaces. Lots of old trees. I like that in a campus.

Excellent organization. Great job, Carl, et al.

Some weirdnesses:
A person said that, “I can’t believe she read her paper. I didn’t come to hear the paper read. She could have emailed it to me.” She wasn’t talking about me, but I wrote my paper. I didn’t read the whole thing, but I did read the first three pages.

A person blew me off because I was an adjunct. I mean literally, leaned away. When, in answer to someone else, I said I had a PhD in Rhetoric and Composition from Purdue, she pepped up, “Oh really?” After that I was a person again. I wonder if she realized how clearly her prejudices were showing.

Someone said that the research was wrong because people who use it are against people with learning disabilities. I asked her to explain why she felt that a research was illegitimate because people used it in an illegitimate manner, rephrased several times for clarity, and she insisted that because most people who used it were against people with LDs, the research was bad. Er, no. That’s such a fallacious argument.

There was one other thing, but I don’t remember what it was that was so weird.
Update: Oh, yeah, I know what it was. Someone said, “I see the computers, but where’s the writing?”

Overall:
Excellent conference.

I’m going to C&W 2010 at Purdue and bringing Debbie with me.