Offline Suspicion
PoMo-A-GoGo
I thought that Liz meant she was suspicious of messages that were composed
off-line and tidied up (and spell-checked and all that) and then posted,
as opposed to those messages (like mine :-) which come dusty and gritty
straight out of the not-even-a-line-editor.
I'm suspicious of messages composed offline too; or at least (wary, maybe?)
My electronic persona is pretty unpolished and off-the-cuff; I can't
help it. (I've tried to be more formal, especially on MBU, and it just
doesn't work.) So I feel a little intimidated by a message when you can
tell just by _looking_ at it that someone actually spent some time working
on it and wanted it to be just-so.
Maybe I feel that it reduces the element of risk for them, while I am
(still voluntarily, though) still subject to it.
That omnipresent risk that one will open one's mouth and insert one's foot
up to one's knee.
judith
Leland McCleary
You say, "I am suspicious of off-line messages". Glad you said it, so
I can ask you "Why?"
I started in my characteristic way replying to you offline, then caught
myself in the incongruity of it, figured I could gain some points with
you if I posted this listways.
I have noticed your frequent private-style postings to the list, and
have been irritated by them. It helps me to know they're coming from
conscious policy, and it would help me more to know more about that
policy.
What really irritates me about them, I suppose, is not that I get
nothing from them, but that with the volume of mail I go through in my
perpetual behindness, I just can never remember Cynthia's fascinating
comment, or what it was we heard from Diane, or which posting of Joan's
you're probably referring to. Maybe it's not volume of mail. Sometimes
I can't remember from one post to the next. Other times, I know, it's
because my mail doesn't arrive in my box in the order it was written,
so very often I read a cryptic reply several messages before the one it's
replying to.
So I'm curious: why the suspicion of off-line messaging? I'm a frequent
off-liner. Does that mean that you should be suspicious of me as a
person, as a community member, or did you just mean that your guard is
raised when you receive a message off-line that could have gone to the
list?
Puzzled,
Leland McCleary
Russ Hunt
>I'm suspicious of messages composed offline too; or at least (wary, maybe?)
>My electronic persona is pretty unpolished and off-the-cuff; I can't
>help it. (I've tried to be more formal, especially on MBU, and it just
>doesn't work.) So I feel a little intimidated by a message when you can
>tell just by _looking_ at it that someone actually spent some time working
>on it and wanted it to be just-so.
not so sure that that "formal," "polished," "just-so" message is a product
of having been edited offline; it's a product of obsessiveness about
finish (which I think I have). If Michael S. Hart had to edit on a line-
dedicated antediluvian mainframe, he'd probably still do that wonderful
manual right-justification. I try to work at sounding conversational, and
get obsessive about sounding unobsessive. I hope nobody's suspicious of me.
-- Russ
(no ship because I'm working from our new local mailer. I'm also interested
in whether this message actually goes out as mail or is just posted to the
newsreader; could someone who receives this as an MBU mail message let me
know (offline, eh?) that you received it that way?)
Peg Syverson
>I thought that Liz meant she was suspicious of messages that were composed
>off-line and tidied up (and spell-checked and all that) and then posted,
>as opposed to those messages (like mine :-) which come dusty and gritty
>straight out of the not-even-a-line-editor.
>
>I'm suspicious of messages composed offline too; or at least (wary, maybe?)
>My electronic persona is pretty unpolished and off-the-cuff; I can't
>help it. (I've tried to be more formal, especially on MBU, and it just
>doesn't work.) So I feel a little intimidated by a message when you can
>tell just by _looking_ at it that someone actually spent some time working
>on it and wanted it to be just-so.
>
>Maybe I feel that it reduces the element of risk for them, while I am
>(still voluntarily, though) still subject to it.
>
>That omnipresent risk that one will open one's mouth and insert one's foot
>up to one's knee.
Whoa! As someone who both composes off line and has often inserted foot in
mouth, I think I have to take issue with this whole line of reasoning. In
the first place, my software package, Eudora, makes it impossible to
compose ONLINE. Instead, I compose messages which are then queued for
posting the next time I check my mail. But I think you are dead wrong
about that fact reducing some element of risk. I don't see much risk in
making a typo; I see the risk in speaking one's mind, however it happens.
This is a weird issue, in fact. What are you getting at? It's true I
occasionally tidy up a sentence that started in a direction different from
where it ended up. Am I therefore less "daring?" More "unethical," even
"corrupt?" What seems to be the problem here? I do spend some time
thinking about the messages I post, primarily because I respect the
audience, and I want to be careful to speak in a way that represents what I
really think about an issue. I don't want to assault someone who has a
different perspective, but to raise alternative points of view for
consideration; therefore, I try to be careful in how I frame a post. I do
worry about inadvertently creating barriers to discussion rather than
openings, and so I consider and sometimes change my wording. Let's not
start privileging "spontaneous" discourse over "considered" discourse, thus
replacing rigid academic hierarchies with their inverse, OK?
Respectfully,
Peg Syverson
msyv...@ucsd.edu
Dimensions of Culture, 0525
UCSD
La Jolla, CA 92093-0525
(619) 558-1514
KARL SCHNAPP
something different than what Russ found. I think it's interesting that
people would be suspicious/wary of people who write offline. Am I writ-
ing offline now? Does the text REALLY "show" offline-ness? I guess what
is most interesting to me is that among most composition professionals,
process is valued, and for me (and I hope for my students) that usually
means spending time on my writing--rethinking, revising, editing. This
suspicion of writing offline seems to be saying that a quickly composed
message is more "authentic," while an offline message is "contrived"
(perhaps the pejorative use of "mere rhetoric" is closer to what I think
I'm hearing).
I don't know about YOU (and we should certainly discuss this), but when
one thing that irritates the hell out of me is when my students confess
that they have composed a draft in the last few hours before class time,
particularly when I believe in (preach, encourage, demand, and otherwise
glorify) revision as a "good" practice.
If I have a question, then it's this: Why is the unedited ("raw" ala
Elbow) message more authentic? How are authenticity and authority being
redefined here?
I confess... I don't get it.
Karl
(who actually DID write this ONLINE)
KARL SCHNAPP
Just read your "considered" response to the online/offline question...
Sure wish I could have said it with your clarity and elegance.
Karl
Joan Livingston-Webber
Last fall in Rhetoric, I used the campaign texts as the texts for
analysis. The students didn't believe anything anybody said
unless it was reported as "off the cuff" or "spontaneous." My
response was, hey, these are very complex issues, and I would
hate it if people assumed what I said "off the cuff" was my
genuine sincere response to any complex issue. I don't write
off-line, cuz I don't have to. Most of us have already thought
about the issues we talk about. I don't see why suspicious of
off line tho. If I were a grad student, hey you guys would be
my teachers, possible future members of interview committees.
Then I would be like Bob--wanting to achieve a studied spontanteity--
enough to conform to the genre not too much to jinx my future.
If I composed off-line, I would do almost no posting--too much
time.
Joan L-W
Russ Hunt
>Last fall in Rhetoric, I used the campaign texts as the texts for
>analysis. The students didn't believe anything anybody said
>unless it was reported as "off the cuff" or "spontaneous." My
>response was, hey, these are very complex issues, and I would
>hate it if people assumed what I said "off the cuff" was my
>genuine sincere response to any complex issue.
don't. In my 18th century lit class the planned & shaped nature of so
much of the discourse (Samuel Johnson's conversation, for instance) is
seen as contrived, planned, and therefore potentially dishonest. What
they want is "talk-show" spontaneity. If he doesn't take time to think,
it must be sincere (maybe the issue here is sincerity rather than honesty?)
In any case, I think there's a hint of just that in the suspicion that
I've stepped out of the conversation to consider my reply.
-- Russ
__|~_
Russell A. Hunt __|~_)_ __)_|~_ Learning and Teaching
Department of English )_ __)_|_)__ __) Development Office
St. Thomas University |EMAIL: hu...@academic.st.StThomasU.ca
Fredericton, New Brunswick___|____|____|____/ FAX: (506) 450-9615
E3B 5G3 CANADA \ / PHONE: (506) 452-0644
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Crump
this is more clearly a conversation than an isolated, whole-unto-
itself work, which is, we assume, *supposed* to be carefully
sculpted in ways conversation, with its oral associations, is not.
Suspicion of writing has a long and glorious history, and part of
it involved, I think, the assumption that rehearsed and revised
words might be the result of too much "intention," that is, too
much plotting to convince or sell or swindle or something.
Also, some of us are glad to be out from under the horrid
Revision Commandment, which doesn't have near the power here
that it does in print. I revise when I have a mind to, but
I hate like hell to revise because I'm *supposed* to
(and I suspect many students feel the same way).
--Eric "Thinks with his Fingers" Crump
PoMo-A-GoGo
Judith writes,
"corrupt?" What seems to be the problem here? ... Let's not
start privileging "spontaneous" discourse over "considered" discourse, thus
replacing rigid academic hierarchies with their inverse, OK?
Respectfully,
Peg Syverson
msyv...@ucsd.edu
From: KARL SCHNAPP <ksch...@TOPCAT.BSC.MASS.EDU>
Karl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a good example of what I mean when I say that my on-line personality is
raw and off-the-cuff and possibly does not mesh well with others', or with the
"academic" discourse of a field-devoted list like MBU.
I posted a chatty note responding to something someone had posted about their
personal reaction to different sorts of email messages. "Offline" messages were
mentioned without being defined. I assumed "offline" messages were messages
that were composed offline and then mailed, rather than messages composed on
(often inimical to editing) mainframe editors.
Perhaps another criterion should be added: "offline" messages are those that
are composed with an eye towards participating in a fairly high-level academic
discourse about prescribed topics, while "online" topics are possibly more
quickly composed, not revised, and more reflective of personal opinions or off
the cuff reactions to someone else's posting.
Note: I have no theory to back up any of the above assertions. I haven't even
read Peter Elbow, even if I do go to Brandeis, and I probably won't any time
soon. These are completely my opinions, based on my personal, biased
observations (TM).
Now, my original posting on this topic, quoted by Peg above, was more in the
vein of what I have termed here "online" rather than "offline" communication. I
expressed a personal observation, noting (and obviously putting myself in a
vulnerable position by noting) that I _personally_ feel like offline composed
messages put the discussion at a particular level of discourse that makes me
feel rather unqualified to contribute, or at least wary of _looking_ too much
like I am unqualified to contribute (which I am.) I know what I'm interested in
on MBU, and they are the shorter, slightly messier, more personally flavored
comments. I like postings by people like mer, John B, Eric etc. I have come to
really like Kirsten's messages. Are all of these composed online? I haven't a
clue. Are all the other postings composed offline? I haven't a clue. Do I have
any hard evidence backing up my intuitions? Nope.
In response Peg and Karl want to know if I am "privileging" the
"online-composed" message. Do I think the "online" message has "more
authenticity." Peg thinks I've accused her of being "less daring", more
"unethical" or perhaps even "corrupt"! Karl thinks I'm redefining "authority
and authenticity" and (worse!) implies that I am the sort of person who
condones writing a rough draft of a paper two hours before it's time to turn it
in. The word "suspicious" (which I quoted in order to reflect that my post was
a response to another posting, not a word I introduced into the discussion, and
in fact I qualified it by indicating that what I meant was perhaps better
reflected by "wary") was taken as the flagship of my discourse, indicating that
I meant to talk about some sort of system of authenticity, or that I sit behind
my virtual firewall, fingering my virtual M16 and waiting for offline-composed
messages to slither furtively by so that I can blow them up, presumably while
shouting joyously "INAUTHENTIC!"
My response: huh?
See, I was not engaging in that level of discourse. I haven't read all the
things that a lot of the other people on MBU have read about composition and
its theory. I probably never will. I confess, I'm probably a lot less
interested in most of it than most of the other members of the list. I'm
interested in computers and writing. I'm not hugely interested in Peter Elbow.
I understand that the two may intersect but that's not where my head is. I read
MBU for "fun" (I think) and because I learn a lot.
Does "offline composition" (as an actuality or as a metaphor for a certain
genre of electronic communication) show? Yes, though not definitively, and many
MBU posts could not possibly be defined as one or the other on sight. Some
posts are short, have missspellings and typos and line ending errors. They make
few references or informal references to offline sources and are relatively
conversational. Some don't.
But I think it is _more_ important that different participants on the list
bring different expectations to their email experiences. The superficial
differences listed above are not nearly as important to the ebb and flow of the
MBU experience as the fact that some people are in this for heavy-duty
high-falutin' Discourse with a capital D, and some are not. (And yes, I chose
the word "high-falutin' " for a reason. I'm a little annoyed.) No, MBU is not
populated with hawks just waiting to jump on every new-hatched chick and rip it
apart. But there _are_ pitfalls in there. Apparently I have just demonstrated
one.
And Karl:
You know what? I am, in fact, _still_ one of those people who tends more
towards writing a first draft a few hours before the class. I admit it. Yes, I
adjure my students over and over again not to do it; yes, it is undoubtedly the
case that their writing (and mine) is better when they follow the writing
process I want them to follow. Still, I don't lop their heads off when they
don't do it. They get the response the paper deserves. When they wrote it
quickly and it's awful, it gets treated like an awful paper.
All of which has -- I won't say zero, but little to do with what I posted. Is
MBU a student/instructor relationship zone? I hadn't thought so.
Some people are writing for journals and some people are just talking,
apparently.
And if we want to get a little more theoretical, let's talk about the dynamics
of this kind of discourse such that I am _forced_ to up the level of my replies
to respond to others' responses like this. I am required, essentially, to spend
an hour of time I don't have and respond in a _most_ un-extemporaneous fashion
(still more extemporaneous, I am sure, than many MBU posters -- will it be
judged on that basis?) to a discussion that wasn't even the one _I_ was having.
Judith Tabron
Dept. of English / Computing Center
Brandeis University
tab...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
tab...@brandeis.bitnet
Michael.H.Dickel-1
received a message I intended for everyone. This is a new version:
What happens to the online/offline debate when my online software is,
essentially, a (low-level) word processor (PopMail, on Macintosh, although
available for IBM). I can move text, edit, go back to any line or character,
etc.--obviously no fonts or formatting included, but certainly a processor. So I
can go back and forth. I don't have spell check, but the IBM version does, and
it checks every message before posting, if you wish. I am online. I am editing.
Am I suspect? I hope not.
Michael.H.Dickel-1
interpretation of offline I had picked up from the thread before Judith
suggested composed offline was the idea of private messages -- offline in the
sense of not public to the whole list. This, of course, is another issue.
Because I am new, I think that I have missed the beginning of the thread.
Christopher T. Loschen
in historical context: it seems quite clear to me that it comes, at least in
part, from the Romantic notion that the true expression of the innermost self
is the result not of considered thought but of immersion in the wholeness of
immediate experience. Thus, poems are best not if they are elaborate exercises
of cereberal form but if they are fragmentary flashes of brilliance, preferably
composed while under the influence of opium. While the metaphysical concern
for first things is a lot earlier than the Romantics, and has a much broader
influence, from Aristotle to the Logical Positivists, and from Homer to the
Dadaists and the minimalists, it seems to me that the value our students place
on spontaneity can be tied to the pervasive influence Romanticism still has on
the thought we perceive as just plain "natural."
That said, I too place great value on the pieces I compose on-line (as I am
now). I wouldn't say that I am suspicious of pieces without typos, nor even
that I can always identify what is composed on-line and what off-line. I
value the time and thought that go into quite a few of the posts I read (no
matter how they may have been composed). Still, I feel a qualitative differ-
ence in my own composing process when I am posting and when I am writing a
paper or article. I can stare at the screen and be totally blocked for hours
and hours when I feel something is really on the line (a grade, a publication,
criticism, maybe even a job). Then when I do manage to get past the resistance,
the writing is sometimes stilted and convoluted in on itself, trying to accomp-
lish far too much by each paragraph, each sentence, each phrase, each word.
Sometimes I feel that I have produced something that only I can understand.
By contrast, on line, I can write more easily, and the more conversational
style and the lower professional risk make me much more willing to make
mistakes, to try out a position, to take a stand. I know that even if I
get criticism, I can then reply and converse, while somehow the off-line
writing feels as if I am writing for the ages. I realize that a lot of
this is my own anxiety speaking, and I hope that eventually I will feel
as I write articles that I am in the midst of the conversation I experience
here, but for now, I feel a lot of my best, most carefree and pointed
writing is on-line. I can force myself to say something and not instantly
then take it back again. That seems to me an absolute godsend.
I don't want to criticize those who do compose off-line, whether for
rhetorical or technological reasons, and indeed I hope that I will be
able to duplicate the conversational ease these posts still seem to
possess. However, for now, posting on-line is a wonderful form of
writing therapy for me.
Feeling voluble and prolific,
Chris Loschen, Brandeis U.
KARL SCHNAPP
OUCH!
I'm sure you didn't mean to offend. Neither did I. But we don't have to
discuss this further if it's gonna get so hot in here.
Earlier this week I posted a rather LONG complaint about the number of
messages I receive that are actually someone else's mail--like this one.
Everyone on the MBU list will receive it, even though it's intended for
you. My complaint was that I didn't like reading other people's mail and
that posting to the whole group creates a reading situation for (some of)
us that's uncomfortable. I repeat this complaint here because I decided
to respond to your message as a public post because I thought there was
something "interesting" going on. Exactly what do I mean by "interesting"?
I dunno. I have an academic interest in reading theory, I guess, and a
political position too (as a member of an English department that
"privileges" reading over writing (consumption over production). In my
department, as the "composition specialist," I carry the honorary title of
"Cream of the Scum"m"
oops
My point being earlier this week, and again now, that computer media
communication on lists like this that encourage a certain kind of posting
creates a different reading/rhetorical situation that is unlike most other
forms/modes/media. And I THINK that the vulnerability (your word?) and
risk-taking you mention is real, especially when others misread your intent
or read your postings with purposes unlike your own. You may be right
that MBU (and others) are supposed to be conversational. Judging from the
messages I was complaining about, I guess you hit the nail on the head. I
read your posting in a way that caused you great distress, I assume. At
least that's what your response said to ME. But, again, I'm reading what
you said from a different perspective than you. I AM an academic person.
I DO teach composition. I look to this list as the only source of contact
with others in my profession (because of the above-mentioned situation in
my department). This, in a word, is the only "community" I can find (out-
side of conferences). Sad, isn't it? Be that as it may... My response
to your posting was my attempt to pick up a thread that I found interesting
at the moment but for which, I admit, I have lost enthusiasm.
If I talk like an academic person here, writing online, it's because I am
an academic person. No doubt I do have an electronic personna, as you do.
But I'm trying (for the sake of my own sanity) to arrange a meeting between
my several personnae (?). A consistency thing... not a universal good thing.
(Yes, Karl IS my real name)
Macey B. Taylor
and with reflection. I run my wp while I'm online so that I won't have
to use the revolting editor if I want to write anything long or "important".
Macey Taylor mace...@ccit.arizona.edu
David E. Schwalm
up a long time ago when we were discussing just whta kind of discourse e-mail
communication was. Was it like conversation? Was it like the more premeditated
exchanges that go on in our journals? Then there was the question of whether
this sort of communication--on screen composed e-mail--would replace other
kinds of communication. The answer to this question has consequences in what
we might teach in our writing classes. In that context, we noted that people
who were pursuing especially conplex lines of thought (e.g. Diane Langston's
provocative contributions on the GUT--Grand Unified Theory) often composed
offline and uploaded polished and revised discourse. And so the discussion
went.
-- David E. Schwalm, Assoc. Provost for Academic Programs
___Arizona State University West
___4701 West Thunderbird Rd.
___Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100___(602) 543-4500
Macey B. Taylor
to depart for a summer in Taiwan--but NO! He is not Chinese. He's an
anglo, but his wife is Chinese.
back to la Liz...
She is a very warlike person, as you may have noticed. I followed her
in the job in IL. I'm sure it irked her no end that I was explicitly
hired for the position she had worked so hard to try to get created. She
got as far as getting called "Curriculum Coordinator", but I came in as
"Curriculum Director", with equal say with the Director about staffing
(hiring, firing, assigning) and a mandate to overhaul the curric.
One of the first things I accomplished was to get rid of the watered-down
version of Engl 101, with its library "research" paper.
Oops, TA again. Too bad the VAX won't accomodate 2 copies of this term
program running at once.
ANNIE BRUSH
discussion:
>
>I wonder if suspicion of crafted prose is related to the fact that
>this is more clearly a conversation than an isolated, whole-unto-
>itself work, which is, we assume, *supposed* to be carefully
>sculpted in ways conversation, with its oral associations, is not.
>Suspicion of writing has a long and glorious history, and part of
>it involved, I think, the assumption that rehearsed and revised
>words might be the result of too much "intention," that is, too
>much plotting to convince or sell or swindle or something.
Seems to me that we (socialized humans in general) tend to be
suspicious of anyone who seems to have thought more about what
he or she says/has said than we do. Maybe it's an ego thing, where
we feel the need to challenge those who seem to have an unfair
advantage. These reactions remind me of the sixth and seventh
graders I work with...most of the time they tend to react negatively
whenever they feel that someone else (the teacher or even another
student) has stated their own ideas better or more clearly than they
could have.
I don't think the discussion here is focusing on a "I would have said
that if you'd just given me enough time" aspect of off-line composing,
but I do detect a hint of "That's not fair!" in some comments. I don't
compose off-line, but I am _acutely_ aware of who my potential audience
is, and I am made to feel insecure...Perhaps this is where the suspicion
comes into play.
--Annie Brush
--Salisbury State University
--Salisbury, MD
--<AXB...@SAE.TOWSON.EDU>
Kirsten L Anderson
a line editor, although this is more true of the few
readings and one writing I've done at the virtual c&w,
is that I sometimes prefer going with the tuypo I've
done. There's one now. I could have deleted, but
went with it. Unfortunately for all of us on the list,
it's rather boring--or at least to me. You see, I've
been listening to the lectures of this brilliant
rhetorician, John Tinkler, who has a passion these days
for looking at "invention" as a focus, here in a department
where "trope" has been king of the mountain, lord of the
domain, queen of the castle (yes, those are Seinfeld
metaphors from the onanistic episode). Tinkler also
talks a lot about the wordplay that the English indulge
in--he's Australian & went to university in Canada--
anyway, I've got invention & wordplay on the brain in
a most chaotic fashion these days, and love the tuypos.
"Tuypo" looks Greek to me, and sets off associations
like "tyrant" which, in Greek, looks like "turant,"
since the letter the Romans (and we) use for the Greek
upsilon, or "u", is "y". I've done better typos at
c&w and to tmcgee and mday.
This is not just some garbage. It's a special kind of
garbage. One of the things I enjoy about mbu is that
I can't really go back; another thing I enjoy is the
flexibility of publishing conversation this way. Has
anyone else been thinking--this is more for irc and MOO
talk than the list--about Socrates in the _Phaedrus_ and
his resistance to writing based on the fact that the
father of the written work [see, I typo'd "work" when I
meant "word" and then left it, it was more true--!--]
and here even on mbu if the "father" is not "present,"
he's not more than a day absent....
Judith's recent posting clearing up the Offline Sus thread
is an exact case in point. Socrates--and I believe Plato--
both feared that misunderstanding would produce trouble.
Judith's posting produced that misunderstanding--also Leslie's
posting about mothers loving their children--and both of
them were able to clear it up. We do this very quickly in
conversation. We do it very slowly in journals (or those of
you who contribute to journals do) and with less assurance
of success with journals. Here on mbu the process is not
so fast that we can't take themisunderstanding and run for
a few days with it, and get some interesting offshoots, and
in addition is not so slow that the misunderstanding does
not get cleared up in time, but gets corrected very quickly.
In my own case, I think mer and I agree totally about
relativism and getting down and dirty, but the words--in
the lyrics of some American pop group--get in the way.
This way we can "father" (I'm not anti-feminist, just
trying to authorize & legitimize my discourse, in part in
prep for my stupid MA exam in rhetorical theory next Monday,
by using Soc/Plato's language consistently)--we can "father"
texts, send them off, and then come to their rescue.
Sorry again about the length, not because it's long but
because I should have KNOWN it would be long and would
have put a warning at the front, as a good orator should.
Kirsten Anderson, who thinks this stuff is fascintaing.
And say that last type out loud---
PoMo-A-GoGo
WELL PUT. I think you're absolutely right.
and that's part of where the addiction to
email etc. comes from, isn't it? It's a little
like getting into the habit of reading the paper
or listening to the news -- you want to find out
what's going on but you follow the subtexts too,
and then the subtexts become supertexts and---
actually this makes no sense at all and kirsten
said it much better.
Macey's post also interested me greatly. I don't
recall if we've discussed recently the issue
of "computer comfort". I don't feel that way
about vax editors but I think I know what you
mean. I myself will go out of my way to log
in to the VAX through my Mac so I can make use
of its windows and clipboard and buckets of
other things.
Judith "Macs are Comfy" Tabron
Jeff Finlay
there's something I need to be careful about. Very, very
occasionally I'll upload something I worked on offline. But
since I'm comfortable with vaxNOTES, I like to compose online
with it.
But perhaps I should ask for a distinction. When people say
"composing online" do they mean composing a reply while in
MAIL or going back to the $prompt and using the system
editor? With the first, it's dead easy to say the wrong
thing and find oneself aghast at what one said when it gets
posted back from the LISTSERV.
I suppose the spirit of this conversation has had to do with
whether composing online is a more energizing experience than
doing so offline. I would have to say that, for me, it is. There's
just something about using a computer as a communication device
rather than as a text processor that makes a difference. Writing
online, I feel I am a writer, really writing. I think the sense
that someone is going to read it soon and maybe reply to it,
that I am contributing to a live conversation, is inspiring.
Also the method of quoting part of the conversation (with
indents or >>) makes the conversation real, and makes my
response to it immediate.
Well, time to hit the hay. My Spring semester classes run until
May 18, and I'm starting an overlapping course somewhere else
next Monday. Time to hit the hay. Heigh ho!
Jeff
Theresa P. Ammirati
do more lurking than posting as it is because of time constraints. If I were
to compose off-line, I'd never post. I must admit that I am bothered when
I see a typo that I've made or when I reread my posting and it sounds less
felicitous, clear, or thoughtful than I'd like--but I also feel oddly
comfortable with the list (considering that I've met maybe three people on
it face to face--and then, except for one, only in passing). I suppose I
trust that the others--like me--are suspending their grading of typos, etc--
more interested in the substance and in the connections than in the small
missteps that may happen when one is composing without revising.
Theresa Ammirati, Connecticut College, tp...@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu
Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster
edited prose less authentic? Unedited, more?
Another possibility is intent. Purposes differ: The message that will be
recorded as a permanent part of an online discussion on a public topic is
more likely to be reviewed (by the writer) prior to posting than a quick
reply ("Yes, I'll be there.") in a dialogue. The review would probably
be done online, if brief, and offline, if long.
BTW, I'm writing this online, and revising it as I go.
Jim Shimabukuro
<jam...@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Irvin Peckham
Where can I get a copy of Endora. Sounds great! Here's to the
off-liners!
Irv
--
Irvin Peckham
University of Nebraska at Omaha
pec...@unomaha.edu
Leland McCleary
I do the same thing, there's almost an anarchic urge to
stretch the possibilities within the limits of comprehen-
sibility, and you don't even have to be a poet to do it.
Poetry to the People. If you coolect (there's one!) some
nifty typos, send them along!.
Leland.
Russ Hunt
Doug Hofstadter gave at Indiana ten years ago, describing his
collection of varying kinds of slips derived from typos. He was
into electronic conversations (online; you could watch other people's
words appear on your screen) and had started noticing the kinds of
errors that cropped up. He moved on to discuss errors beyond the
typo -- the speako, the writo, and ultimately the conceivo (walking
up to the combination-locked door on our computer lab, I reach into
my pocket and pull my keys out). Indeed, let's coolect some typos
for Leland.
-- Russ
__|~_
Russell A. Hunt __|~_)_ __)_|~_ Learning and Teaching
Department of English )_ __)_|_)__ __) Development Office
Leland McCleary
note on typos, speako, writoes (where is Dan Quayle when I need him
most!) and conceivos. Where corection is most exhasperating (hmmm,
do I really mean that I find it exhilarating?) is in TALK mode on
the Unix. You see the word coming onto your screen, you know what
it is, you even know how to finish the sentence and you're ready
to write, but no! you have to wait agonizingly while fingers a
zillion miles away back resolutely back up the blinking cursor to
change an ei to an ie (or erase a stray "back"). So you resolve:
not me, I'll let it fly as my fingers fall, we're not getting graded
on this, the object is communication! Then, sure as Adam took the
apple, I find myself backing up! It's bigger than me, it's forty
years of education!
Leland.
Doris Smith
> . . . varying kinds of slips derived from typos. He was
> into electronic conversations (online; you could watch other people's
> words appear on your screen) and had started noticing the kinds of
> errors that cropped up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You forgot the "chalk-o." This is what I call the errors I make while
writing on the chalk board - errors that I don't make when writing with
pen/pencil and paper.
doris smith
Jeff Finlay
I don't thing this is a tyro proper, but it made me laugh for a
week. Somebody at CW93:forum decried how his student had said
that having people applaud his presentation in Speech class
was a "big boost to his eagle."
Jeff :-)
(tongue on cheek as usual)
PS Are deliberate typos on a par with offline suspicion?
Kirsten L Anderson
uses a line-editor? As in "line-o"s? To rime with
"wino"s?
You all know what rime is, right? I don't think we get it here...
Kirst
Jeff Finlay
>uses a line-editor? As in "line-o"s? To rime with
>"wino"s?
How about we lump all errors, such as typos, chalkos,
conceivos, writos, linos, talkos and thinkos under one
heading, call 'em all mistakos, and ship 'em off to
Leland with any ungraded papers we have left and can't
bring ourselves to read?
Jeff,
A literalminded metaperson
st...@lu.lincoln.edu
twice written "crucifiction." We agreed collectively it would be a shame
to correct it. Linda Stine
Kirsten L Anderson
Kirstnla of Dwin
PoMo-A-GoGo
>twice written "crucifiction." We agreed collectively it would be a shame
>to correct it. Linda Stine
Linda, that is absolutely brilliant.
Judith
Leland McCleary
send them to Trummel! That'll stop him for sure!
Leland.
Jeff Finlay
Except, Paul, that I intended this in fun (and received acknowledgement
of it as such) rather than as an eloquent gesture of contempt, as I
think you may be implying. Or is this some kind of clawback, some
pitiful hail-fellow-well-met in an attempt, after alienating most
of the known electronic universe, to be received again as another
jolly fellow netter?
Jeff