xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
Paul Dillon writes:
>Mary, Judy, and Kathie made the suggestion "a week-long discussion of our
>practice/ our processes would be useful. "
>
>What interests me here is how interested xmca-ites perceive the
>message writer's style/practice. S/he clearly and directly contradicts
>the
>person to whom the message was directed and also asks "rhetorical"
>questions
>that perhaps could be glossed as "what you're saying doesn't make any
>sense
>and is just plain wrong!" In spite of this confrontation between
>positions,
>I find nothing personally offensive in the message. I'm wondering how
>others see it.
>
>
>Any thoughts?
>Paul H. Dillon
hey, Paul - i too don't see anything _offensive_ , yet i wish that
the conversation had gone in a different direction. and i guess that this
is because i'm thinking of how i see the xmca community.
i figure that we're a fragile community of practice - fragile in the
sense that within the larger work of academic discourse we're pretty small
- and as a result i see xmca as building up individual strengths - so
that rather than "directly contradicting" and inferring that "what you're
saying doesn't make sense and is just plain wrong" - i would much rather
see messages that focus on what works - what makes sense - and then
attempting to build on it. i write this because i see us as a community
of learning - that we've always had permission to put out half-baked
ideas - and that for any learning community, real learning comes out of
a supportive non-judgemental practice, rather than a practice that employs
rhetorical devices to point out deficits.
my thoughts only - i've always seen trust as a primary value in any
community of practice, and i don't believe that the tone of the sample
posting leads to trust.
phillip
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:02 PST