> On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Bob King wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Beth W. Baldwin wrote:
> > > I do think that this medium however *has the potential* for making
> > > ideas, positions, motives, etc. visible.
> > Well, this assumes that what's *not* said is meaningless!
> No, it assumes that it's not visible. What's not said does have
> meaning, of course. But, the meaning of the "not said" must be
> inferred because it is not visible.
It must be inferred if it's visible, too. It _always_ has to be
inferred (even when it's said). Only difference out here is the cues we use.
Writing Program, University of Michigan-Dearborn
4901 Evergreen Rd, Dearborn, MI 48128