Go get em Mick. I think that Eric's response is a good one. However, as I am with Foucauldian ways of doing things, I did not find your argument to imply anything other than that you were interested in what was GOOD about the conventional practices of T/P. Mentioning Foucault at all is a good idea if you are genuinely influenced by his work because his name carries several useful resonances (dead authors, lying historians, askew Nietzschean subjectivity, network metaphors, etc.). If in addition you do as Mick has done and attempt to rescue the positive and debug the rest, you are on sound grounds for this type of a rhetorical act. Above the first Response!, is it logical to try to "understand the future" of anything? Maybe "prepare for possible futures." Below the first Response!, nice answers but more emphasis on the other types of electronic scholarship (MOO discussion forums and classrooms, e-mail discussions like pretext, etc.). Maybe, or am I just overwhelmed with enthusiasm? I did have a sense of balance when I got to the end so maybe this is close to the exact mix that you are looking for. A well-structured response with a nice conclusion. Did you jump to that at the point where you ran out of time? or write it first? : ) Of course, like Eric, I'm writing this after a long day, late at night, without coffee, other disclaimers, so if what I am saying is lame, all I can say is sorry to bother you. Just be calm and honest and you will be okay, Brice BTW, this question was hard for a two hour answer. I think you handled it well.
Answer to LeFevre