diane,
yes, perhaps you misunderstood,
no problem.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Diane Hodges <dhodges@ceo.cudenver.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: . rRe: reflection (on ending duels - still belabouring)
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
> >The only way I can interpret what Judy meant is to understand
> >"contribution" where she writes "interaction" since basically we don't
see
> >an interaction we see a contribution to ongoing threads of topically or
> >thematical related contributions, lets say about a topic Q.
>
> gee - i think for some of us there is an inter-active quality to
> discussion. or perhaps that is what some of us would be striving for, as a
> way to enable alternatives to the "post-my-lecture" contribution
> approach...
>
> >
> >Thinking of the cases where the issue arises (naturally , as pointed out
> >in
> >LBE Ch3, places where conflict, disturbance and contradiction arise) a
> >non-CHAT approach is simple: the test procedure would be,
>
> yes, thanks. but i also think a CHAT approach, as judy indicated, might be
> a way to think about ethics
> and our activities here, as a virtual community.
>
> did i misunderstand ?
> diane
>
>
>
> "my doctor says i wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if i would just keep my
> finger out of there. "
> Ralph Wiggums.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:06 PDT