In his discussion of the assessment of the student papers from the Geology course at UCSB, Bazerman describes the differences between the stronger and weaker writers. He writes, "The better rated papers, they found, had far more statements at all levels, with a substantial number of sentences at the middle epistemic levels to bridge between the most concrete and the most abstract...On the lower rated papers, however, there were fewer sentences at all levels, with particular absence at the lower or middle epistemic levels" (105). I interpreted this to mean that the students were glossing over the middle aspects of their discourse. By that I mean they simply relied on their instincts or first thoughts and failed to probe/inquire further into their thoughts and make connections with issues beyond the questions at hand. When thinking about the idea of glossing over the middle in the context of computers in language and rhetoric, I questioned whether computers contribute to this glossing over the middle, or asked in the opposite manner, how can computers be used to prompt students to engage the middle, the difficult sections of their discourse (I also want to ask these same questions of individuals outside of the classroom b/c it's not only English students we should focus on). In her article, Sam uses the phrase "technological trepidation." Is it this type of trepidation or fear that does not allow students/people to engage in the middle aspects of discourse, or is it something else? Is it the nature of the computer/Internet, or rather the speed of the computer/Internet, that has students gloss over the middle. For example, does the speed of typing plus the feeling/sense that one has to write quickly in order to be heard push students to gloss over the middle?

I know I'm asking a number of questions here, but I was struck by Vitanza's reference of the phrase the "Hoosier Rhetor" or the "Whatever being." When reading his article, I sensed the whatever being as someone who is unwilling (maybe that's too strong of a word) or rather who is not interested in engaging the middle, which again is the difficult area of discourse--the area where one has to consider the positives and negatives of arguments/thoughts as well as attempt to make connections or link up with other areas of discourse so as to continue the conversation. Are computers further entrenching the "Hoosier Rhetor" in her/his state of "whateverness" or are they prompting students/people to engage the middle, to push deliberation in the public sphere? The positive answer would be to say yes, that in fact computers do push people to engage b/c of the greater access and freedom that computers give, but would this simply be a reiteration of the hopes and promises (stated 20 years ago) of what computers could/would bring (but were never fulfilled in the idealistic ways once imagined)? Or, is there a less positive answer (I don't like how that sounds but...) to this question that we need to explore, an answer that asks us to rearticulate how "technology" positions the "Hoosier Rhetor" or "Whatever being?"