I was pretty dissapointed with the conference overall. But I'd like to say why and offer a suggestion for the future. I get the impression that many of the people involved see anarchism as a hobby for "academics" or "activists." Now, to speak of anarchism without talking about destroying the social roles of "academic" and "activist" is nonsense. The one speaker I particularly enjoyed, Barry Pateman, was introduced as a "scholar-activist" and he said something like, "well I don't know what that is," showing that he didn't wish to play that game. What I am getting at is that it is not in itself a problem to listen to some of the "academics" talk, nor is it a problem that they seemed uncomfortable labelling themeselves anarchists. What was dissapointing for me was that there was no exploration of anarchist theory and practice, least of all by people who are considered activists. What would have made an "Anarchism" conference more interesting for anarchists (and not just academics and activists) would have been more of a focus on smaller group discussions (even if they are introduced/facilitated by someone with a phd). This way ideas could be exchanged and challenged in a less impersonal environment (no lecture hall, microphones, etc.)