On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 16:43:42 +0000, you wrote:
> What are we doing here if not
- not for the first time we seem to be hung up on the nature of
e-discourse, which is the subject of whole academic studies, and has
its own discussion lists in other places. It's of strictly limited and
theoretical interest to me, I'm almost ashamed to say. We could waste
so much effort saying are we doing this? Or are we doing that? Or what
are we doing if not? When we could be actually evolving this/that in
our practice. I agree with Alaric that our exchanges ARE at times (or
should be) "academic" in the more positive, exploratory sense of what
academe is doing (or trying to do), and want to see this developed.
Make it so, as Jean-Luc says.
>Is the self imposition of this particular limit (I think it is - 'don't
>talk about people behind their backs') the best way of running this
>academic List?
- "academic-based" was the expression. Yes, some degree of self
imposition, self regulation is required in all our communication. If
this convention cuts out the worst excesses of hurt (and on the whole
it does) it's worthwhile. You got a better idea?
>They potentially have access to it like any journal. Do we
>have to check when we publish an article whether or not the people we refer
>to have bought the issue? ... It was an academic question.
- yup, pretty academic, in the rather sterile, no-use-to-the-real
-world sense. Alaric knows as well as anyone that huge tracts of the
population DON'T have access to e-space, however much they may
"potentially" appear to do so. Maybe in a few years... meanwhile, are
we to engage in the new labour fiction that having imaginged an
"information society" it actually exists? Don't get me started. Nor do
I feel I've any right or inclination to go round quizzing people on
their in-house software capability to see if they really could be on
the britpo list....
Are we not making mountains out of molehills here?
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|