an inevitably down-to-the-wire post

Wenger: "...styles and discourses are not practices in themselves. They are available material--resources that can be used in the context of various practices" (p. 129). Doesn't the style and discourse of a "community" such as Twitter and other applications/technologies/programs (SMS text messaging, radio hams, etc.) create a community of practice in and of itself? Or are those styles and discourses actually by-products of those communities? Here's the age-old chicken or the egg: does Twitter produce 140-character speech that produces a community, or does a community that uses 140-character speech produce Twitter? Of course, Twitter (as we learned) evolved from SMS text messaging, so in this case the practice of text messaging gave birth to Twitter, which became an online community. But, my question remains: Does the use of certain online styles of speech/writing (l33t, how r u, kewl, etc.) necessarily mean engagement in a practice that creates a community? In regards to my previous post, would sharing this style or discourse count as an "action" that creates such a community? Or, is it a community but not a community of practice? I would argue that it's a community of practice, and we can't ignore the other aspects of online conversations that contribute to such a practice: for example, online short-hand like "r" for "are" is a way of achieving a goal/practice/enterprise, like "having a conversation with friends" or "meeting new people." But, again, does one necessitate the other? Is "necessitate" a word? Is it a style of writing that creates a community of practice? Or is it a by-product of my trying to communicate with an academic community of practice?

I have to wonder at Nardi's and O'Day's obvious resentment and opposition to use of the word "inevitable." While I have to agree that ultimately, we--as humans--do have control over what kinds of technologies we produce and how we use them, we--as a society--have less control. The notion of "inevitability," as the authors have mentioned, is so commonplace even among "technical" people; I wonder what the general populace thinks? If the notion of "inevitability" is (as they imply) ignorant, is the general populace of society more ignorant than the "technicians"? If so, how can we possibly hope to diffuse to the masses that WE control technology and not vice versa? (There will be no diffusion if this type of discussion remains in "academese" and among scholars.)

Sweeping generalities:
I actually think there are some technologies that are inevitable. I don't see inevitability as inherently bad. The discovery of new technologies and new uses of existing technologies is part of exploration. It's what makes us human: we're innovators. We will do everything that's within our capabilities, if only just to prove that it's possible. How we choose to continue with such endeavors is within our control, but the fact that they will happen I believe is inevitable. Robots? Space stations? We're there. Are we creating cylons yet? Are we colonizing and seizing control of alien solar systems yet? No, but that choice is ours.