RhetNet Cafe
A cafe. Ordinary. Beige.
Obvious exits: out to The TechnoRhetoricians' Bar and Grill
You see Stoogeway Grand Piano, Burke,
and Projectorator here.

Peer Review, Kuhn's Legacy, Nested Processes
& the Future of Quality in Online Publication

Thursday, June 27
8:00 EDT

The text below is a very edited version. What remains is mainly comments I thought were interesting. Anyone else is welcome to make their own highlights versions and I'll be glad to post them along with this one.

--Eric Crump
co-facilitator (with Mick Doherty, Editor of Kairos)

Eric says, "I reckon we should get this show officially going"

Eric shows slide #1.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

               Welcome to RhetNet Cafe!

     Like RhetNet's other venues, the point of RhetNet Cafe 
     to capture and continue conversations. The conversations
     that happen here will become part of the RhetNet collection
     of texts on the web (http://www.missouri.edu/rhetnet/). 
     And, depending on the subject & all, these conversations 
     might be appropriate for other publishing venues, print or
     net. Efforts to publish these things elsewhere, though, will
     happen in consultation and cooperation with the folks doing the
     talking. So it's important to take a minute to introduce ourselves
     here, and for guests to include their email addresses as well as
     their names.
     So, who are we?

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Eric is eric crump, university of missouri
booboo is Jane Lasarenko, WTAMU, aka jane@wtamu.edu
PeteS is Pete Sands, U Maine at Presque Isle
Mick is Mick Doherty, Editor, Kairos -- and tonight, Vanna to
 Eric's Pat.
sandyet is sandye thompson, tx woman's u
JanetC is Janet Cross outta Northridge...CAl Stat that is
cath is catherine spann, univ. of arkansas at little rock
Amber_Guest says, "I am David Ross;  I teach English as a Second
 Language at Houston Community College:  ross_d@hccs.cc.tx.us"
JanetC snickers at Mick.
Camille is Camille Langston @Texas Woman's U
JanetC eyes Mick's wardrobe warily.
Mick  [Vanna] introduces Mike Salvo, Texas Tech

Eric shows slide #2.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     On 23 June 1996, EduPage published the following item...

     Scientists attending a conference in Denmark sponsored by
     the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
     (OECD) were almost unanimous in dismissing electronic challenges
     to the tradition of peer review for scientific publications, 
     although there was also wide agreement about the benefits
     of the Internet for the exchange of scientific information
     (through the speeding up of peer review and the developing use of
     the Internet for distribution of 'preprints' that allow 'open
     peer commentary'). (The Economist 22 Jun 96) 

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Amber_Guest says, "OK, OK already, what's all this about Kuhn's
Mick says, "[Amber] the concept of paradigm shift is becoming
 very important to online publishers.  paradigms can shift
 without actually disappaering ... but perhaps we'll get into
 that in detail later."

Eric shows slide #3.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Some questions come immediately to mind:

     What do these scientists mean by 'peer review'?
     How is it different in practice and function from 'peer
     What do we mean by 'peer review'?
     How do our interpretations compare with traditional
     What difference does the medium for scholarly work make? 
     How will scholarship and peer review be transformed by the

     If those are overriding concerns for this discussion, some 
     comments made this week on Rhetnt-L might serve as catalysts
     for the conversation...

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PeteS says, "and what is the difference between the "challenge"
 posed by e-communication, versus the speeding up of the peer
 review process, which i take to be a good thing?"
Eric [to david]: for my part, i have a hunch scholarship's most
 jarring shift in the move from print to net publishing is going
 to come with the effects on peer review

douglas says, "Query: why _is_ the peer review process blind? "
Eric [to douglas]: objectivity (which folks still seem to
 believe in)
MikeS says, "but pete, doesn't the blind part of blind review
 encourage unnecessarily harsh critique?  i know the interactive
 model *kairos* has developed drives some reviewers crazy ...
 but no one has been (obviously) mean "
Camille says, "Maybe our peer review seems more brutal because
 we focus on style (as Mick mentioned), which makes our writing
 more personal than the sciences' search for data"
beckster [to Eric]: I used to think blind reviews made it easier
 for folks to get good quality feedback...but I'm really
 questioning that now
beckster nods to mikes....thinks that the "dialogic" review
 Kairos uses is MUCH more beneficial....both sides feel a
douglas doesn't grace traci's comment with a response. And says
 to Eric, I know it isn't always (as I've experienced with
 _Kairos_!) but what I'm asking is what is the rational for
 _any_ peer review to be blind?
Camille says, "Doesn't blind peer review remove subjectivity?"
Mick says, "remove subjectivity?"
JanetC asks Camille, "Can anything remove subjectivity...and if
 so....would that be a good thing?"
Eric says, "i think the problem with blind review--and with any
 review in which reviewers remain uncredited--is that writers
 and reviewers are put in oppositional relation to each other. "
Mick says, "making reviews blind *allows* for MORE subjectivity,
 I'd think."
beckster [to Camille]: NOTHING removes subjectivity.  But I
 think that's what the aim was.  we were just naive enough to
 buy into that
booboo says, "Strikes me that most peer review constitutes
 opportunities for reviewers to blow their own horns and
 critical positions...rarely have I seen review comments that
 help the writer improve her position."
Eric says, "they might both hope for quality, but it seems (my
 impression anyway) that reviewers are loyal to the Discipline
 and writers are loyal to the topic at hand and to the audience
 Out There"

douglas [to booboo]: but if the peer-review process was made
 available, perhaps some of those reviewers would find it in
 their own best interests to do a good job (available to the
 end-readers, that is).

MikeS wonders why print journals are so derned nervous if
 on-line peer review can (ostensibly) be so easily rebuked and
 invalidated?  methinks (s)he doth protest too much.
JanetC wonders at a discipline which needs protextion...hmmm...mu
 st not be very strong on its own merit

Eric shows slide #4.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Suzanne Cherry:

     The question then becomes, how do we convince colleagues of
     the quality of our communities and communication? How do we
     prove ourselves? How do we receive validation? Those are harder 
     questions and ones I'm not sure I can answer.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

beckster [to Eric]: Based on my limited experience, I'd say so. 
 and it's a function of how specialized folks are, as well as
 the pressure for them to publish, etc.  as individuals rather
 than members of a community

Eric figures with RhetNet, we simply say that *conversations we
 find interesting count* and if traditional scholars don't
 agree, they don't have to play
Eric says, "that is, *participation in conversations* counts (in
 terms of professional development, if not advance)"
Mick says, "[to Eric] "Conversations" COnversations? What's this
 mean on your vitae? You hazve a plae called conversations?
 Tenure ... DENIED!"
douglas says, "Interactive pee-review seems like a good idea
 (and this goes on to address Suzane's auery as well) if the
 reviewers are recognised as "experts" in the fields and
 subjects they review, then they will be more likely to protect
 their reputations as such by giving constructive criticism, and
 the resultant paper will be percieved as being validated by the
 veritable seal of approval from those reviewers."
Eric [to Mick]: fine. don't want no stinkin tenure anyway if
 it's going to be that way about it
Mick .oO(pee-review?)
Eric says, "no wait. I can do better than that..."
beckster nods to douglas...THERE's the *ethos* that blind
 reviewed articles seem to have
Eric says, "I think what we're valuing is really the *same
 thing* that scholars have always valued. They don't call it
 conversation, they call it publication, but *that's what
 publication IS*"
Mick says, "you better do better than that eric -- lots of
 people in this room probably DO want tenure someday, i bet."
PeteS says, "but they *do* call it conversation ... its one of
 the most popular metaphors around for scholarship, eric."
booboo says, "Ah, but there's the crunch, they call it that and
 nod their heads until we who engage try to call it that too."
MikeS says, "long, drawn out, impenetrable, unbearable print
 based conversation ;-)"
Mick says, "But this, Pete -- this here, this MOO right now --
 this really is formatted like a conversation, juvenile
 pee-=review jokes and all.  This, I the Traditionalist Saith,
 Doth Not Counteth."
Eric says, "so what we can argue is that--as different as they
 may appear at first--scholarly conversations on the net are
 actually strongly rooted in scholarly conversations in print.
 they differ in speed, in convention, in citation, but they are,
 at heart, the same thing"
PeteS says, "taylor and erbin ... though ... even call MUDing
 and other e-forms a *responsibility* for scholars today."
Eric says, "so we create a conversational scholarly journal and
 call conversation publication. now we're even speaking their
 language :)"

Camille says, "So, I'm getting that collaboration (positive peer
 review) is to be equated with e-journals, whereas individualism
 (negative peer review) is equated with print journals.  I think
 this is what everyone is saying, but I'm wondering how true
 these bi-polar assertions hold."

Mick says, "Camille, I like the polarity you draw there, because
 it really supports the idea Tari brought up in the e-mail
 conversation ..."
Mick says, "That we, in talking about this stuff, sound
 *arrogant* -- like e-journals are *better* than print journals."
MikeS says, "each print convention is good at its own thing --
 print is a slow moving, fairly dependable form.  i'd like to
 kep it for what it's good for."
douglas [to booboo]: actually interactive peeR review can be
 instantiated in print journals--it just takes more work. And I
 haven't seen it done in either the humanities or the sciences.
Mick says, "they're different. they do different things. don't
 introduce the word "better" or the converstation stops dead,
 like at Victor's panel at the confernce last month."

Eric shows slide #5.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Mark Gellis:

     We can also use a little "blackmail." If any of them would
     be willing, why not get some of the really big names in one of 
     the more conservative areas of English studies, to publish 
     'e-version only" articles...for anyone in that field, an
     article by such a big name is a must, and it would force them to
     use the technology to get a copy. It would also be a strong
     argument in forcing them to accept e-publishing (via the credibility of
     the big name...if they accept it, it must be okay).

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Camille says, "But if e-jounals do not strive for improvement,
 won't they be the same as print journals only electronic?"

douglas thinks one of the main benefits of e-journals is seeing
 how *any* type of publishing may be different from the
 traditional models currently in use (and I use the word
 currently rather losely here).

Mick wonders about this concept: Eric and I briefly discussed
 teh idea of putting *this* MOO up for review with CCC or RR or
 some such. Knowing that, do you suddenly change your tone of
 contribution? (We would get permissions from all involved
 first, of course -- but the question stands)
douglas [to Mick]: would you edit out the scatalogical comments
 or leave them in?
MikeS would be *more* outrageous
traci says, "well, i wouldn't have said what i just said. i
 woulda just stayed quiet"
Mick says, "See! That's exactly mypoint. I made a pee-review
 joke.  Do we edit that out?"
booboo says, "NO~!"
beckster [to Mick]: undoubtedly, if we knew this was *destined*
 for print, the tone would change.....hey, we're rhetoricians....
 we understand about audience, purpose, etc.
Eric says, "and this can work to our advantage in more ways than
 one. what if you become known as a scholar who risks publishing
 in these weird e-journals. perhaps a department full of old
 school scholars will sail your CV into the circular file, BUT:
 would you want to work with that gang? wouldn't your interests
 be thwarted at every turn? wouldn't you have to wait for them
 all to retire before you could have fun? "
PeteS thinks it depends ... is it an article or a transcript?
Eric says, "NOOOOO thanks. I *want* to be screen out of
 situations where I would be screened out"
traci says, "i don't think i'd be able to write at all really"
PaulaP says, "PeteS it seems to me it would be more of a
 transcript than an article...."
JanetC says, "Ya gonna edit the life outta the conversation?
 Where does it stop?"

booboo [to Eric]: I agree, but I also feel that you can only
 change the system from within...if you're out, you don't have a
 say anymore.
Eric [to booboo]: I used to think that too. I'm no longer
Eric [to booboo]: I'm beginning to think that institutions only
 change in response to pressure from without. the people within
 are put to work enacting those changes, but they don't provoke
Mick says, "I'm trying to picture "writing" this for CCC. Would
 Eric's metniong of the interactive historigraphy need a
 footnote which explained it>? O an URL in the footnote?"
beckster [to booboo]: they have been published here and
 there.....but they are tougher to read in print than as they're
Jade_Guest says, "would those not used to this be interested in
 this transcript?  or would they find the "wading through" not
 worth it?"

Eric shows slide #6.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Albert Rouzie:

     Maybe the notion of competing with print doesn't get us
     where we want to go. We keep talking about how conversational
     genres like e-mail are different--hypertext too--from print.
     Competiton levels those differences when in fact the new media 
     are valuable precisely because they accomplish new forms of
     communication. Acceptance will be gradual, driven perhaps by citation, 
     participation, and maybe most of all, need for the knowledge 
     produced (and the process of production) by the new genres.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

beckster says, "my guess is that, if these types of things are
 destined for print, they'll need to be edited so that they are
 easier for non-MOOers to follow"
mday says, "the sense of freshness of the ideas as they happened
 and intertwined with other ideas, for one."
Amber_Guest says, "I find MOO transcripts very hard to read, and
 I don't think that the difficulty points out to anything
 particularly profound about the nature of the text."

Jade_Guest says, "if we criticize the internet for trying to
 push print classic on it, why are we trying to push print
 digital on print??"
Eric [to david]: there's too much of the moment here. taken out
 of its (real)time, the conversation is sapped of its native
 energy, which informs its meaning
Eric says, "same for putting it on the web, which we plan to do.
 still froze. still needs help."
Eric says, "I like albert's comment: value comes from need. when
 the knowledge produced and stored online-only becomes worth
 coming after, those in power will come after it and reward will

Claudine says, "wait a sec--as teachers, do any of you who teach
 in the moo accept transcripts as finished work?  I mean, isn't
 this a starting place?"
Jade_Guest says, "if we're trying to "market" what we do to
 benefit us, cramming it down their throats in a manner hard to
 handle isn't the answer.  packaging is important"
MikeS thinks there's a difference between on-line, hypertext
 writing and MOO writing.  MOO is more akin to conference
 discussions.  i don't know .... i don't know how much credit
 can be given to MOO scripts.  for instance, all the hours i've
 spent on tuesday cafe ... how could i count *that*?  
Eric [to Claudine]: I don't like the idea of revision as
 refinement. I'd rather we thought in terms of continuing,
 expanding, dissipating from here rather than turning around and
 fiddling with this particular bunch of words. better, I think,
 to keep after the ideas and let the words trail after us like a

Eric shows slide #7.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                Do not seek to follow
                in the footsteps of the
                men of old; seek what they


                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

douglas [to MikeS]: I put "particpant in the Netoric Project on
 my vita. I think it should count, ergo, for me it does.
beckster says, "I think we have to be careful NOT to claim it as
 more valuable than it is"
Mick says, "Douglas, c'mon. The people hiring or promoting you
 will decide if it counts. Not you."
MikeS says, "oh yeah, tuesday has been an ever-increasing source
 of inspiration.  and i know i'll have a special regard for
 everyone i've worked with at tuesday ... but are we doing the
 wrong thing by trying to get it recognized?  i mean, won't such
 acceptance just KILL the interaction?"
douglas [to Mick]: I have to decide that it's important first,
 or it wouldn't appear on my vita. And it's not the *only* thing
 on there--I just treat it as important.
booboo says, "No, we have to convince committees of the worth of
 whatever these things are, not establish equivalencies.  We do,
 however, you're right, have to speak their language somewhat."
Eric says, "in other words, we *must* break free of the shackles
 of print *convention* but we don't need to (and probably
 wouldn't want to) leave behind the broad social function of
 scholarly interaction. "
beckster [to booboo]: so are conversations at conferences, but
 no one claims those.  I'm not saying this is equal exactly,
 just that we shouldn't overstate it
mday says, "well, could be more valuable as it's all written
 down.  You can word process it and even run a search for key

douglas [to Mick]: but maybe if we edit this and publish in CCC
 or RR, then the PTR people may be shown its professional value
 and perhaps a few will start going (if you virtually build it
 -- and physically bill it-- they will come)
Mick favors archiving, sure. That was the impetus for Kairos a
 year ago.  But htat brings us back to peer-review ... the K
 stuff is peer reivewed and archived. This stuff isn't
 peer-reviewed ... and it's archived. a weird juxtaposing.
Eric says, "this stuff isn't peer reviewed???????????????????????
Eric says, "back to our original question"
                          |                      |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: | what IS peer review? |

MikeS [to douglas]: for the first few issues, i'm going to look
 at what has already been done, spontaeously.  then i want to
 visit out-of-the-way lists ... i think of it as a "best of"
 which requires me to troll and find the best...
Eric says, "I think everybody here is reviewing just as fast as
 they can, and since we're all peers...."
booboo says, "I'd like to define peer review or see it evolve
 into ongoing expansions of ideas (just like print) in different
mday says, "Claudine, will it always be an in-crowd?"
traci says, "this stuff IS peer reviewed, probably in a way
 closer to the meaning of peer review than blind reviews.  there
 is a giving and taking, feedback on ideas, requests for
 clarification and support.  this thing does a better job at
 peer review than many peer review seem to"
beckster [to Eric]: but we're not making evaluative comments
 that will result in textual changes
Eric says, "yeah, booboo: ongoing expansion of ideas. "
cath agrees w/traci
mday says, "neat traci!  In a way, we're reviewing each other as
 we go!"
douglas says, "as we are all technorhetoricians, we could
 workshop the transcript into a written and peer-revied essay
 (simultaneously accomplished) thus collapsing 2 steps into one)"
booboo says, "Peer review will always involve evaluation...ought
 to, also.  But it's how that evaluation is given/taken/shared/
 etc. that might change. "
Mick says, "I'm talking about peer review in the manner which
 the Old Trads will understand the term."
Eric says, "this is different that print in terms of
 conventions, not function"
mday says, "And I'm talking about reinventing notions of peer
 review and collaborative scholarship"
traci says, "we do evaluate.  we don't respond to comments which
 aren't 'valued'; we respond at length to those that we do value"
booboo says, "Some ideas on MOO and off aren't worth
 pursuing/expanding "
booboo says, "And the review process will take care of those."
traci says, "and it seems to me a nod is an agreeable evaluation"
Eric says, "the text doesn't sit still, so we can't rip into
 style and grammar and organization. we keep ideas in play.
 everything gets challenged or consented to. everything is
 negotiated. that's what peer review ought to be. a group
 working together to negotiate toward qualiity"
traci says, "i am not saying this is the same as traditional
 peer review"
MikeS [to Eric]: but it may be a long time before mainstream
 academia ets over its paper fetish
Mick says, "traci, you know i agree with that. but grumpy old
 traditionalist laffs in your face. if we start caliming *this*
 is peer-reviewed, we DEVALUE the term overall as we apply it
 other places."
beckster says, "again, though, the point of THIS kind of peer
 dialogue/review is NOT to alter existing text"
Eric says, "i hate to see us bow to the print conventions that
 have been misshapen by long habit"
Eric [to Mick]: thing is, it's not even a matter of medium.
 *this* is what peer review could and should look like in print,
beckster [to Eric]: but I wonder about the logistics/viability
 of this type of peer reveiw in print.  Yes, it might result in
 better end product, but it would simply take too long
douglas [to Eric]: I agree--but this medium is allowing us to
 experiment with what peer review *could* be in ways that we
 couldn't get away with in print (plus we get to make pee jokes)
MikeS [to Eric]: but i want to be able to read something, gt it
 over with, move on, and read something else.  transcripts such
 as this are *not* kind to readers.  what about just wanting to
 read a bit and move on?  is that readerly text eliminated?
Mick says, "I think we gotta choose our battles REAL carefully.
 Re-defining-re-valuaing a term like "peer reivew" is unwinnable
 if we're worried about seeing something "count""
mday says, "Maybe we needn't call it peer-review, however."
Eric notes that in the item from Edupage, the science scholars
 dismissed electronic threats to peer review, but allowed as how
 'open peer commentary' was ok withthem
Eric says, "so, mick, they may be closer to coming around that
 you might think :)"
mday says, "Why does it have to be "review"?"
MikeS says, "peer view?"
Mick ooohs! Peer E-value-ation!

Eric shows slide #8.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Tari Fanderclai:

     I find it kind of amusing that we're talking about print
     snobbery and elitism among the traditionalists. Don't we do 
     a lot of the same thing--suggesting that what they're doing is 
     outmoded and inferior and everyone should get online and learn 
     the skills we already developed? Heck, a lot of electronic 
     publications have more gadgetry than content, and a lot of them 
     are all but inaccessible with the equipment found on the desks of 
     so many academics, particularly in the humanities.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

douglas [to Eric]: based on what I've seen in print, I suspect
 that the science scholars dismiss electronic peer review
 (especially open peer review) because it would ultimately
 devolve into flame wars!
                          |                                             |
                          | tari, btw, sent her regrets. she wanted to  |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |  be here. but not bad enough to miss a trip |
                          |            to an island off maine           |

Mick says, "E-journals are often critiqued for valuing style
 over substance. THAT is a battle worth fighting."
Eric [to douglas]: I wonder, though, to what extent the tendency
 toward viciousness is a product of the current system? I
 suspect it is, myself
Eric [to Camille]: but what if review remains focused on ideas
 rather than texts, on continuing conversations and extending
 knowledge *together* rather than competing for 'scarce'
 recognition resources
Mick says, "Eric are you separating ideas and texts? how?"
Eric [to Mick]: yes. 'emphasis' is my knife. if the purpose of a
 text is to further a conversation, to keep an idea in play,
 that's different than if the text itself is the focus of
douglas [to Camille]: it depends on how well we keep in mind the
 idea that we are engaged in a profession and thus should be
 "professional" and contribute constructively to that "ongoing
 conversation" rather then hijacking the dialogue with flames
 (carnival, however, is not the same as flames, so I think the
 banter we engage in, when not destructive, is acceptable --and
 Bakhtin would love it.)
Eric says, "in print, too much weight lands on the text. space
 is so precious in terms of money and recognition that every
 text has to be as perfect as possible. "
Eric says, "in print, the text takes over the ideas. just like
 in the classroom, where grades take over for learning"
Eric says, "the comparison is no accident!"

Eric shows slide #9.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Nick Carbone:

     As we work in both print and pixels, if we cite the pixels
     in the print, then attention will be paid. When someof us are
     up for tenure, if that still exists down the line, and we
     point to how often our e-journal work has been cited, that'll
     build validity.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

beckster [to Eric]: you're denying any "poem" then, at least in
 the rosenblattian sense
Mick says, "eric, help me -- Text:Grades as Ideas:???"
Scott sighs.
Eric says, "I'm not familiar with the rosenblattian sense, but
 poems can exist in dynamic convesational environments. see
beckster thinks they can exist in the connection between a
 reader and a text, too
Eric says, "not text:grades exactly. publish-or-perish:grades as

traci says, "has anyone considered a citation index for online
 work? i know those exist for print journals and such...why not
 for online work? i mean you choose the sources when you have a
 citation index (you don't try to archive the world)."
Eric [to traci]: good idea! that's something ACW might ought to
Mick eyes The Daedalean Citation Index created and maintained by
 Saint Traci Gardner

Mick hmms eric's analogy which equates publich-or-perish with
 ideas. I thot one was positive and one was antiquted
Eric says, "I think I got that backwards mick"
Eric says, "should be: pub-or-die:ideas as grades:learning"

Camille says, "delivery is an important part of all
 rhetoric--electronic or print"
Eric wonders if that isn't conflating expansive rhetoric with
 style (not that they're unrelated): expansive substance
Eric [to Mick]: in print, ideas are compressed. the treatment
 seeks depth over superficiality. pack as much into those pages
 as possible. on the net, people negotiate, meander, follow
 tangents, return, refigure, talk about movies & pets, then get
 back to the point. lots of words. copious words. the substance
 remains, but is dissipated.

Eric shows slide #10.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Michael J. Salvo:

     *my* personal feelings are that through publishing _kairos_ 
     as best we can, looking at and maybe even influencing 
     (positively, or negatively -- ie, 'we're not going to do 
     *that*') other on-line publications, and then joining
     debates such as this, we will begin to develop some mores and
     traditions for on-line publication. and a big part of that 
     process is making mistakes, recognizing them as such, and then
     adjusting the process accordingly. it's a long, tiring, labor-
     intensive process -- and the end can't even be fathomed let alone
     seen. there may be no light at the end of this tunnel -- a
     publication of becoming (?).

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                          |                                               |
                          |   Just to remind everyone: This session is    |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |  publishable and will be published in RhetNet |

                          |                                              |
                          |   If anyone is interested in attempting to   |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |  shape it for print or for other net venues, |
                          |                   we can...                  |

                          |                                               |
                          | http://www.missouri.edu/rhetnet/pr_27june96. |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |                      txt                      |

                          |                                             |
                          | Me & Mick would like to thank you all very  |
Eric holds up a BIG sign: |  much for coming along tonight totalk about |
                          |                 this stuff!                 |


How would you cook it?

What thread or theme stands out?

What comments made your eyes go wide (in admiration or horror or a mixture of both)?

If you've read the peer review thread on Rhetnt-L, are there links you would build between it and this text?

From here (anchor word or phrase):

To there (file, by author/subject or URL):

To there (destination word or phrase):

From there (file, by author/subject or URL):

From there (anchor word or phrase):

To here: (destination word or phrase):


RhetNet home | Net/Texts | Peer Review

hits since 09 July 1996