Thu, 17 Aug 2006 (18:18 -0400 UTC) r royar wrote:
> Thu, 17 Aug 2006 (06:33 -0700 UTC) chris_tine49@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>>
>> Jim Riley wrote:
>> > On 15 Aug 2006 08:32:36 -0700, "chris_tine49@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>> > <chris.editrix@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Tim Skirvin wrote:
>> > > > Dr Zen <freddyvessant@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 ****ing 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.
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
|
