RESULT: comp.edu.composition will be removed

2 views
Skip to first unread message

The Big-8 Management Board

unread,
Aug 14, 2006, 5:23:00 PM8/14/06
to
RESULT
comp.edu.composition will be removed

The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 8 Aug 2006 initiated a five-day
period for final comments. Following the comment period, the Big-8
Management board has decided by consensus to remove the newsgroup
comp.edu.composition.

This group will be removed on 21 Aug 2006.


RATIONALE: remove comp.edu.composition

comp.edu.composition has had no on-topic messages in the past 11 months.
Discussion about the use of computers for writing instruction would be better
placed in the misc.education.* hierarchy or in misc.writing.

This RFD is part of a proposal to remove 31 low-traffic former-INET
groups. Please see article <11528143...@isc.org>, available here:

http://news.killfile.org/?group=news.announce.newgroups&number=1363

Note: the proposal to remove two of the 31 groups, comp.os.rsts and
comp.std.announce, has been withdrawn.


HISTORY:

comp.edu.composition has existed as an INET group since at least 1987. It
was promoted to the standard Big 8 distribution in October 2000.


DISTRIBUTION:

This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
comp.edu.composition
misc.writing


PROPONENT:

Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>


CHANGE HISTORY:

2006-08-14 Results posted.
2006-08-08 3rd RFD (Last call for Comments)
2006-07-13 2nd ("comprehensive") RFD
2006-07-06 1st RFD

r royar

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 6:18:40 PM8/17/06
to
Thu, 17 Aug 2006 (06:33 -0700 UTC) chris_...@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> Jim Riley wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2006 08:32:36 -0700, "chris_...@hotmail.com"
>> <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Tim Skirvin wrote:


>>>> Dr Zen <freddy...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> comp.edu.composition has had no on-topic messages in the past 11
>>>>>> months. Discussion about the use of computers for writing instruction
>>>>>> would be better placed in the misc.education.* hierarchy or in
>>>>>> misc.writing.
>>>>

>>>>> No, it fucking wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Where you would suggest?
>>
>>> Zen is addressing the inappropriateness of turfing "discussion about
>>> the use of computers for writing instruction" in misc.writing. I don't
>>> think he's commenting on misc.education.
>>
>> There has been NO discussion in comp.edu.composition in recent months
>> (and for a long time before that). It is not as if the abuse staff at
>> ISPs and NSPs will suddenly start directing a mass of traffic into
>> misc.writing. So there is really no need to worry about being turfed.
>>
>>> Misc.writing isn't about teaching OR use of computers. So those topics
>>> would be an even worse fit than most of the off-topic posts here.
>>
>> The charter for misc.writing states:
>>
>> Misc.writing is a forum for discussion of writing in all its forms
>> -- scholarly, technical, journalistic, artistic and mere day-to-day
>> communication. It is a venue for professional writers, would-be
>> professionals, dilettantes and all those who use the written
>> form of communication.
>
> I was imprecise, and I was addressing Misc.writing as she exists rather
> than as the charter describes her. And I was less worried about the
> inundation of MW than of the almost certain disappointment of those who
> come here seeking useful information about using computers to teach
> writing.
>
> Of course someone can post about teaching writing or teaching writing
> using computers or using computers in writing. They may even get a
> response or two of value. But in short order the subject will be
> subverted and the thread will devolve into nesting insults, wordplay,
> and so forth.
>
> I know that happens a lot in newsgroups. It's my perception that it
> happens more here than you would expect in a group devoted to a beloved
> AND arguably serious subject.
>
> The first reason I responded is the inevitable disappointment of
> "immigrants:"
>
> I read the charter language as you do, pretty much. But there are many
> in the group, in particular the regulars who shape a newsgroup, who
> argue the strongest purpose of MW is this part: "mere day-to-day
> communication. It is a venue for professional writers, would-be
> professionals, dilettantes and all those who use the written form of
> communication."
>
> They would say that MW is the water cooler around which people who like
> to write--perhaps mainly in newsgroups (my editorial comment)--come to
> chat and play. As long as I've been here, that's been part of it. But
> there is now precious little of the other stuff.
>
>> The charter for misc.writing.moderated states:
>>
>> Misc.writing.moderated is a forum for discussion of the process and
>> profession of writing. It is a newsgroup where all participants are
>> treated as peers. The focus in misc.writing.moderated is on
>> developing as writers, increasing writing income and/or discussing
>> the process and business of writing.
>
> Misc.writing.moderated was a good response to the frustrations I
> suggested above. But it failed and is on the path to be the next
> comp.edu.composition
>>
>> So why wouldn't teaching the process of writing (utilizing computers
>> to do so) be on topic for misc.writing?
>
> The second reason I responded is that this is an education topic in
> which education ranks higher than computers, and composition probably a
> distant third.
>
> Computers are tools, and utilizing computers is a method. Utilizing
> computers in teaching composition is an educational methods topic,
> probably most relevant to the primary and secondary school teacher
> "market" as well as some introductory college-level writing
> teachers/lab tutors.
>
>>> Misc.writing isn't about teaching OR use of computers. So those topics
>>> would be an even worse fit than most of the off-topic posts here.
>>
>> comp.edu.composition is not about the use of computers, other than for
>> the purpose of writing instruction. It is misplaced in the comp.edu.*
>> hierarchy.
>
> I have no doubt. As I said before, I believe it's mainly an education
> topic. It would be nice if there were a way for teachers and computer
> geeks to interface, especially regarding applications and software
> development. But interested folks would be few and, probably, best
> served by a listserv.
>
> Christine (writer AND teacher)

The original Composition & Computers Digest was for college writing
teachers interested in software design and teaching in computer-mediated
settings. It began in 1986. The gateway was created in late 1986 or
early 1987 by someone (perhaps Erik Fair) at Berkeley to bridge the
BITNET-based digest to some sites connected to the ARPAnet. Early
editions of the digest contain discussions about how text editors affect
the writing process and what effects screen size has on revision
practices. The last volume of C&CD was Volume 14. It was last
published Tues. Sept. 4, 2001.

I initiated C&CD on 15 Nov. 1986 while completing a dissertation about
adapting software to facilitate teaching basic writing in a networked
classroom (networked through a Vax cluster, accessed via dual-floppy
PCs). There weren't that many folks using wide-area networks at that
time for such. We relied on VMS-EMACS and some local software to allow
file sharing in real-time between students.

--
Robert Delius Royar The email address is valid as it is written.
Tom Waits steals EVERYTHING, dood. Captain Beefheart once called him
and said "I want my voice back".
-Poot Rootbeer, in alt.religion.kibology
17:56 up 2 days, 26 mins, 1 user, load averages: 0.00 0.02 0.01

Ray Haddad

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 6:24:10 PM8/17/06
to
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:18:40 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and r royar <royar-...@adelphia.net> instead replied:

>The original Composition & Computers Digest was for college writing
>teachers interested in software design and teaching in computer-mediated
>settings.

I'm sure everyone understands that by now. Since the newsgroup has
been removed, it all seems moot now.

Get over it and please stop cross posting this.
--
Ray

r royar

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 6:35:20 PM8/17/06
to

Sorry, that ending date should have been Oct. 30, 2001, not Sept. 4,
2001. The last few issues of volume 15 were mostly Position
Announcements.

--
Robert Delius Royar The email address is valid as it is written.

It feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free.
Iris DeMent
18:33 up 2 days, 1:02, 1 user, load averages: 0.13 0.08 0.05

Alan Hope

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 6:49:10 PM8/17/06
to
Ray Haddad goes:

Don't let Haddock boss you around, whoever you are. Post to
misc.writing if you want to. Hadsbeen speaks only for the imbecile
wing of the group, not for those who know how to ignore posts.


--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com



yoyoma

unread,
Aug 17, 2006, 6:56:19 PM8/17/06
to

--
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages