 |
 |
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." Me too. 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 ->discipline exists. 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 stimulating conversation. Ah well, I hope y'all will forgive me. Had to get that off my chest. --Eric Crump