On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, richard coe wrote:
->I would like to say that I have a real problem with the nominal phrase
->(terministic screen, enTITLEment) "opportunities to publish."
I've resisted saying anything about this because I don't want to whine. I
hate whining. And CCCC Online has been a fun project & has gotten perhaps
all the attention it deserves; however a nagging sense of desperation
pushes me to use such constructions.
In years past, I've tried to portray CCCC Online as an extension of the
*conversations* of the convention. That's the whole point, to my mind, of
putting some version of our presentations in a place where many people who
won't be at the event can reach them: It's to provide a basis for
*talking* to each other, whether at the convention or not.
And every year a very slim percentage of presenters take the time to
contribute something to that conversation. I expected as much the first
couple of years, but this is the *fifth* online version of CCCC. I don't
see interest in participating growing, and maybe that's due to my own
inept promotions or design, but I didn't know what else to do so, yeah, I
pandered to the Great God of Formal Print Publication.
->But I would like to think that we publish, especially in composition, in
->order to communicate, in order to influence our colleagues, in order to
->improve the quality of knowledge and the teaching/learning for which our
I would like to think so, too. But I feel a bit idealistic, even naive,
when I do. Fortunately, I don't mind being naive and idealistic. It does
get frustrating, though, when the entrenched power of the bureaucratic
hierarchy helps to dash my hopes for a free-ranging, lively, copious, and
Ah well, I hope y'all will forgive me. Had to get that off my chest.