DONE!

"A dialogizing rhetorical understanding of public talk assumes ìa nested domain of particularized arenas or multiple spheres populated by participants who discover their interests, where they converge or differ, and how their differences might be accommodated through adherence to standards of reasonableness and tolerance reflected in the vernacular language of conversational communication." (Hauser, 1999: 60-61.)

"This thread involved eight class members directly and three more by reference (11/15 = 73%), posting eighteen comments over four days. It begins with the authorís summary of the preceding eveningís face-to-face class session. In this post are some of the main points of discussion as well as information about group dynamics. The comments that follow are almost exclusively about content, with a very few about dynamics. Some of the face-to-face (FTF) dynamics mentioned in the summary are evident in the computer-mediated-communication (CMC) interaction (especially the use of humor and what was perceived as being ìourselves in full, not just performing our academic selvesî). The title of the thread, ìempirically fatî, was a phrase used during the class: it was ìa joke, of course, but one meant to show the kind of opinions that are NOT deliberative argumentsî. The assigned text for this class session was Democracy and disagreement: Why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what should be done about it by Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson (1996)."