Paul,
Thanks for the clarification, the explanation of list serves as a COP and
MCA, LCHC etc. as COP's entering XCMA help somewhat, but open up other
questions as well.
I think xcma's object or politeness of communication needs to be found in
xcma itself not MCA, AERA, or the global activity system of list serves. I
guess in some ways I'm saying digging up info on the other list can be
fruitful but only indirectly. I have a hard time seeing how two list serves
with different histories can have any direct relation to each other.
Now, XCMA has / had an object that is closely related to other COP's like
MCA and the LCHC. I hear some voices saying that were diverting from that
object somewhat, and others saying like Mary recently did,
"lchc can not ever claim itself to be "inclusive" - a straw state anyhow -
as it is a discourse community based on the recognition of only a narrow
range of participatory forms, moreover, it seems to me not a productive
claim, because to the extent that it is falsifiable, it is easily
falsifiable."
I think both would be worthwhile places to take the discussion because it
situates the multilougue in OUR community of practice. The question I am
asking myself is, is using another listserv a way to recenter the discussion
or detour it. I think your intentions are very pure don't get me wrong, but
think that we need to focus on xcma - what makes it work, not work,
legitimate, de-legitimate.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:03 PST