HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: C509379@MIZZOU1.BITNET (Eric Crump)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Subject: Re: Last (?) thoughts on lurking
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:13:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              18 Nov 1992 09:20:58 -0500 from <WALTERSAM@WCUVAX1>

On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:20:58 -0500 Angela Murphy-Walters said:
>     Patty wondered why some of us "unlurked" because of the discussion of
>what to call lurkers.  Among the many reasons for me is that you're paying
>attention, albeit indirectly, to me and the other wallflowers when you wonder
>what to call us.  You have invited us to dance, or at least noticed that we're
>in the "room" watching you.

I think that may be one of the key elements of participation here, and
in print: getting noticed, being acknowledged. When I think about my
first few days on MBU I remember the feeling of intimidation Dene
and others have mentioned. However, I also recognized an implicit
invitation to join in, so I closed my eyes, held my breath and
hit the SEND button. And voila, people *answered* me, even *cited*
me, and I felt like a part of the community. Not that I *always*
get a response. Being ignored for various reasons comes with the
territory, but the high of provoking discussion gets us through
times when our words are swallowed up by the void.

I've had trouble keeping up with my reading here lately, so I hope
this isn't redundant, but has anybody else been amazed at the
resiliancy of this subject? It has always cropped up periodically and
briefly, but since Michael Hart posted his "wallflower" note on several
lists, the lurker thread has persisted. It continues on three lists
I'm on, mbu, nettrain, and tesl-l. Why, I wonder, did his post serve
so well as a catalyst? Hmmm.
Some bits from tesl-l that might be of some interest:                     answer

One person suggested holding periodic "lurkers days" during which the
active participants would claim up and let the lurkers have the
space if they wanted it. Claimed this had been done with great
success on a few lists.

An Asian reader explained that he had tended to lurk because he took
the "time is money" saying literally and to heart and was afraid to
post for fear of wasting readers' valuable time.

A woman reported being kicked off a list because she lurked. The list
had a rule requiring participationg.

There was even a definition of lurking posted, noting that the term
belonged to people who "never" post messages, which of course excludes
anyone who starts a post with "I'm a lurker, but I just wanted to say..."
                                                       WALTERSAM@WCUVAX1
Gotta run, but at any rate this subject obviously is one that is
important to a lot of us or it wouldn't be so persistent and pervasive.
I don't much care for the term wallflower, either, but I'm glad Michael
threw it out and got this thread rolling.

--Eric Crump
occasional lurker
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 12:57:00 EST
From:         00d0henrikse@BSUVAX1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Notes on lurking from behind the wallflowers

Okay, okay.  So many have complimented Wayne on finally getting through,
and how they enjoyed his message.  Now, I'm wondering, what did I miss?
He obviously didn't get through to everyone.  I (Ball State user) never
got the message.  I noticed we were "down" for a time, with no messages
coming, but finally a bunch came through.

Why doesn't some compassionate person post Wayne's message again so we
can see what everyone's talking about.

I've been a wallflower all semester, enjoying the reading, but trying to
keep my head above all the essays that need attention.  Anyone have any
good tips on reading and responding quickly, incisively, and
meaningfully to over a thousand papers a semester?  Just thought I'd
ask.

Donna Henriksen  @Ball State University
00d0henrikse@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu

PS  I'm catching up on reading the 80 messages that came through all at
once which is why this message is behind the current thread.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:57:24 EST
From:         "(Gary Beason)" <bubba@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Still defending reason
              at Nov 17, 92 8:30 am

> I don't think I said that reason was "neutral." I think I
> said that there is an ideal of reason which includes a
> concept of fairness, equality, justice. I don't even know
> what "neutral" would mean in this context. In fact,
> argumentation seems to me to carry a very specific ideology.

But when is this ideal actually played out?  I'm wary of
platonic-sounding language.  (And, yes, I agree with Vitanza,
Feyerabend, Nietzsche to the extent that the "ideal" of fairness and
"good reasons" of argumentation is really a type of control.  So, I
disagree with John B. that saying that argument is a type of force is
self-refuting.)

One of my goals in teaching argumentation/logic is not teach some
means by which all participants become equal (for I question whether
such is possible--see my summary below).  I'm trying to teach students
how to defend themselves against both supposedly fair argument and
unfair, manipulative argument.


As to the idea of
justice--I just read Judith Butler's *Gender Troubles*, and one of her
points at the outset is that the justice system itself commits a kind
of violence against women in that it demands and defines stable
identities.  And one of Butler's points is that the myth of the stable
identity "misrepresents" (my term) women, for there is no singular
community of women, some essential definition of "woman."


I am not saying that I don't see a need for argumentation, but as a
system used, it is not the ideally fair argumentation.  As someone,
Jim C. I think, said, argumentation is a way of resolving differences
and creating a unity (sorry if these are not the exact words).  But
some, such as Vitanza as I read him, would reject any attempt to
resolve differences.  Making decisions is another matter.  And these
are two differnt issues.


-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
|
|   Gary Beason
|   Purdue University
|   bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:15:30 -0700
From:         MACEYTAY@ARIZVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: C & C Programs

I thought of another for investigation.  Lincoln College had a lab of
Pets 'way back.  I don't know if they were used for comp classes or
not.  Macey
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:38:05 -0600
From:         RONRON@USU.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Images

Raul -- your comments on Chinese are apropos, as are the references to
early writing systems.  However, that's not quite what I had in mind.
It is true that Chinese, for instance, is iconographic, but the
propsitional content of any Chinese message is determined by things
that are not as clearly visual word order, diacritical marks, the
like.  It's these that make syntax (such as the border on certain
glyphs in Egypt that made them proper nouns). The concept I'm
struggling with is whether a single visual entity, such as a painting,
or a dance step, could have a syntax and propositional content. I'm
not sure I've made myself clear, but from what I know of visual
writing systems, they fall somewhat to the side of the discussion. Ron
Shook
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:01:13 -0600
From:         slatin@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject:      Re: Hypertext for IBM

>Here at OSU, we have poured much money and effort into developing our Mac labs,
>upgrading our hardware and installing new hypertext and synchronous electronic
>discussion software.  But in our Machead frenzy, we have neglected our IBM
>Windows lab.  So my question to the posters and the lurkers (god bless them) of
>MBU is the following:  Can anyone suggest a good network system that supports
>Windows and allows for synchronous conversation?  Also, is anyone aware of a
>good hypertext software for the IBM?  We have found something called
>WindowCraft which is a Windows version of HyperCard, but we are mainly
>interested in finding a hypertext version of a Storyspace-like environment.
>Any suggestions or helpful leads would be greatly appreciated.
>
David, there isn't anything like a Windows equivalent of StorySpace, not
rally; the closest thing to it would probably be OWL International's Guide,
which isn't really anything like StorySpace but is at least an environment
that writers could use and has some interesting features, including a
(rather clunky) scripting language.  I don't know how or even whether it
would function over a network.
John Slatin
Director, Computer Research Lab
Department of English
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
(512) 471-9293
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"mbu-l@ttuvm1.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:02:00 EDT
From:         "Composition Digest (Robert Royar,
              Moderator)" <R0MILL01@ULKYVX.BITNET>
Subject:      (Fwd: *C&CD*) ERIC (12)

Entry: 12
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:39:28 EST
From: IN%"RobertRoyar@Delphi.COM" Robert Royar, (C&CD Moderator)
Message-id: <1992Nov16.203928.v7.020.1.Grendel.Lair@Cratylus>
Subject: ERIC (12)
Reply-to: "Computers & Composition Digest (R. Royar)" <R0MILL01@ULKYVX.BITNET>
Organization: Cratylus Educational Software

Isn't the ERIC database (at least part of it at IU Bloomington? There is a
move afoot to take it back to Urbana (U of IL). As for ERIC online, I've
checked it via CI$, and I believe that was a pay service (in addition to the
normal CI$ overcharge.

Anyone else know about the location of the ERIC online databases and telnet
info?

 -- Robert Royar (RobertRoyar@Delphi.com) New York Institute of Technology
    "Computers are potentially the most addictive drug yet devised"
                                                            - R. U. Sirius

------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3_uno PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:38:22 CST
From:         Irvin Peckham <peckham@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Taking Offense at Reason
              92 3:17 pm

With regard to Sharon Crowley's complaint about J.Crosswhite's
paean to a kind of disembodied reason.  I certainly follow and
am persuaded by the general drift of Jim's "reasoning."  I can
see the conintuum from war to different kinds of discourse in
which the violence is progressively submerged.  Jim seems to
be glossing over, however, the role of ideologies in establishing
what warrents will support what claims--that is the violence
is deeply submerged in issues of language and culture.  In
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, Lakoff presents another
argument contesting any notion of a disembodied reason.  He
in fact argues that the structure of our bodies in many ways
determines our governing logic, that is, our reason.
  While agreeing with the gist of Sharon Crowley's remarks and
complaints, I don't think (I am very willing to be corrected
here) that Aristotle's discourse on rhetoric (discovering the
available means of persuasion) is the kind of discourse
Jim Crosswhite is talking about.  There is a kind of difference
(not the one Bain suggests) between persuasion (audience centered)
discourse and argumenation (reality centered) discourse [referring
to Kinneavy's distinctions here.
--
Irvin Peckham
Internet: peckham@unomaha.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:45:00 CST
From:         GOS@UHDBIT.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Wallflower

Wallflower a sexist term?????
   I beg your pardon.  In junior high and early years of high school I was
always referred to as a wallflower.  And no one ever accused me of being
anything but male.  Just ask the opposing teams' quarterbacks.  :-)
From: wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Subject: Re: shower ideas
Date: 20 Nov 92 08:28:20 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

In article <17592505@UMICHUM.BITNET> Ann Green <USERTFSH@UMICHUM.BITNET> writes:
>Angela, at last someone else who does her best thinking in the shower!  No
>time for singing, too busy thinking.  Ann/JCC


	Good for you.  I get mine while attempting to sleep :-( or
when I'm walking from once place to another which got quite a few acquain-
tances steamed up when I merrily walked along my way and not noticing that
they had curteously hailed me.
	I even had a prof waved to me in an exaggerated way, tilting
his head to the side.  And I was walking directly towards him.  I couldn't
help wonder at that time (I couldn't help noticing his waving!) if I've
somehow slighted him sometime earlier by having ignored him.

Wing
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"MBU-L%TTUVM1.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU",MFOSULLI
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:15:00 CDT
From:         Mary OSullivan <MFOSULLI@MACC.WISC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Taking Offense at Reason

>From:    IN%"MBU-L%TTUVM1.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU"   "Megabyte University
 (Computers & Writing)"
>To:      Multiple recipients of list MBU-L <MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET>
>Subject: Re: Taking Offense at Reason
>
>Received: from 129.130.12.1 by vms.macc.wisc.edu; Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:19 CDT
>Received: from KSUVM.KSU.EDU by KSUVM.KSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
>          with BSMTP id 9171; Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:19:17 CST
>Received: from KSUVM.BITNET by KSUVM.KSU.EDU (Mailer R2.07)
>          with BSMTP id 5705; Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:19:17 CST
>Message-Id: <22111920193886@vms.macc.wisc.edu>
>Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:53:33 -0600
>From: RONRON%USU.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU
>Reply-To: "Megabyte University (Computers & Writing)"
>          <MBU-L%TTUVM1.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>
>Sender: "Megabyte University (Computers & Writing)"
>        <MBU-L%TTUVM1.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Taking Offense at Reason
>To: Multiple recipients of list MBU-L <MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET>
>
>Irv -- Sorry to stutter.  You mentioned, in addition to Rosh, Lakoff.
>Is the reference his _Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things_?  If so,
>great book.  If not, could you give me a reference? Ron Shook

Ever since this discussion of reason vs. emotion began, I have been planning to
jump in with a terrific summary of the major ideas of Elizabeth Minnich--the
problem is it is just too hard to summarize what she says.  So instead, I will
suggest that for those interested in this topic, read Minnich's book
_Transfoming Knowledge_, Temple University Press, 1990
 Her major focus is explicating the thesis that much of our
disagreement over the "canon" and multi-culturalism is based on problems of
logic--universalizing from a very small group's experience and history.  In the
process, she spends a great deal of time explaining when "reason" is not
"reason".  See, I knew it wouldn't make sense if I tried to summarize...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:13:06 CST
From:         Wes Chapman <WESCHAP@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      thanks for info on lists

All those who sent me information on lists on feminism and gender studies,
thank you.  If anyone wants a compilation of the results, let me know and
I'll try to get one to you (I haven't figured out how to get an uploaded
text file into a standard mail message--any ricemail users out there who
have figured this out?).
Thank you,
Wes Chapman
weschap@uiucvmd
weschap@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:21:20 CST
From:         "Patty Ericsson" <PATTY@SDNET.BITNET>
Subject:      new book

Bill W. - A late request for that Prentice Hall book you mentioned -
Patty Ericsson
222 Beadle Hall
Liberal Arts
Dakota State University
Madison, SD  57042

Thanks
From: mday@SILVER.SDSMT.EDU ((Michael Day))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Subject: Re: *lurking* here to stay
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:09:15 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>Speaking of nicknames, BTW, why in the Net are we
MegaBunnies?

Smokey,

We are also, at various times, MegaBUddies, MBUers, MegaBUttheads, etc.

And yours truly has been labelled an "Internerd".

Revenge of the internerds!

Now, back to some serious lurking.

Here's to those shadowy images at the corners of your eyes!

Michael Day
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <smh@aal.itd.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:46:51 EST
From:         smh@AAL.ITD.UMICH.EDU
Subject:      Tufte's Envisioning Information

John,
Tufte's book is a beautiful one and I like the way he talks about the
power of images and their ability to communicate things that text
cannot--one of his most salient examples is at the back of my mind but
not enough up front for me to be able to explain it, so I'll try to
sign on later when I've remembered it fully.  And I especially like that
I live with someone who owns the book so I don't have have pay $50 to
use it!
Susanmarie Harrington
University of Michigan
smh@aal.itd.umich.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Posted-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 00:48:03 -0200
Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 00:48:03 -0200
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:48:03 -0200
From:         "(Leland Emerson McCleary)" <mccleary@CAT.CCE.USP.BR>
Subject:      Dialogue-driven teaching

Russell Hunt, I liked your 'dialogue-driven' metaphor.  Has ancient
roots.  I've also been bothered by the 'student-centered' dogma
(very strong in ESL/EFL), came across a devastating critique in
James Tollefson's _Planning Language, Planning Inequality_ (Longman).

--Leland McCleary / U Sao Paulo / mccleary@cat.cce.usp.br
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
            <01GR5FVOY15S8WW4GD@ulkyvx.bitnet>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:34:35 -0500
From:         Chris Neuwirth <cmn+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: software & hardware (*MBU*) (19)

>Drexel and Carnegie Mellon must have been early players, but I don't think
>that CMU used computers *for writing instruction* until '86 or so.  Anybody
>know for sure?

When I arrived at CMU in 1980, Ann Hayes was (and had been) using
mail/bboards on the University TOPS-20s in her classes (I don't know
when she started--I'll have to see if I can dig up ancient history).
The word processing system students were using was EMACS/SCRIBE.  At
that time, not all students had computer accounts (for email, etc.)
automatically assigned to them as they do now, but an instructor could
submit a class list and get accounts for students in a class for the
asking.  1980 was the start of the Ph.D. in rhetoric program and Ph.D.
students began to teach some of the first-year writing sections (up to
that time, faculty had done them).  Some of the Ph.D. students who were
savvy about using computers (Pat Sullivan, etc.) began using computers
in their writing classes as well about then.

More later,
Chris
From: eng_allen@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Subject: visuals vs text
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:28:44 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Gary,
Maybe the students continue to emphasize text because they've been conditioned
(with good reason) to expect that teachers value it more highly.  How many
of us grade on visuals or give students standards on which visuals will be
evaluated or even have standards for visuals?

Nancy
eng_allen@emunix.emich.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:20:41 EST
From:         "(Gary Beason)" <bubba@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      monological reasoning
              at Nov 16, 92 2:43 pm

The idea that argumentation is not monological because it must respond
with a warrant or proof *implies* other perspectives but does not
necessarily name those perspectives.

Aristotle's dialectic comes closer, in terms of classical
argumentation, to giving a legitimate voice to the argumentative Other
(and then it is still derided and selective--see the *Topics*).

Still, I would argue that though opposition is implied in
(traditional) argumentation, the *conclusions* are still monological.
(And let me go ahead and qualify 'argumentation'--I am speaking
primarily of the theory represented by Johnstone, Perelman, Aristotle,
a basically classical tradition.)

I think because of reasons noted in this thread (e.g., the naivete
about images) images are more open and ambiguous than text for some
students.  True, images can be *translated* into propositions, but
that does mean that they are propositional.

But as I noted when I responded to Jim, I was quibbling because as
others have noted, hypermedia involves both images and texts.

Furthermore, I think our discussion has become removed from
contexts--we're talking about some "nature" of texts and images, in a
sense.  I find images far more significant than text when analyzing a
problem; the open-endedness and equivocality enriches consideration of
multiple perspectives.  And, to give y'all an idea of why I've been
saying some of the things that I have been, I and others here see a
need for students to see problems from many perspectives, and visuals
offer a very good means of doing so.

But, in a different context of use, visuals can clarify--white space
and headers *focus* the reader's attention, as much as the writer can
impose an intention.  A list or a table clarifies a textual
explanation.  Sometimes, we want a monological text.


"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least--at least, I mean what I
say--that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit," said the Hatter.  "Why you might just as
well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"



-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
|
|   Gary Beason
|   Purdue University
|   bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l