Amy's question requires us to make a number of definition decisions. First, we as ask to define what a "convincing case" would be. What is necessary for something to be convincing? Facts? Citations? Personal experience? We are also asked to define digital rhetoric. Then, Amy asks us to evaluate digital rhetoric's worth according to it methodological value. How does one evaluate a methodology? What differentiates it from method? Finally, Amy posits that a sound methodology would require its own course with corresponding title. Could a methodology have inherent value?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

This question asks readers to identify additional reasons (other than Warnick's) why politicians might not use interactive features on their sites. It almost seems to expect that readers would be able to identify other reasons, although this is not explicitly stated and is quickly left behind in favor of asking readers to determine which of Warnick's reasons is the "most reasonable or obvious ... for the avoidance." Both questions could conceivably be asked (and answered in a different way) for each election in which candidates have websites. In fact, one could ask the question about websites for local, state, and national candidates to see if there is any difference between different categories. Theoretically, the most sophisticated sites should be for presidential candidates (if only because these candidates should have the most money to spend on developing their sites), although this may not be the case.

The final question asks readers to consider other websites that might seek non-interactive designs and why they might seek those designs. The question is visually separated from the other paragraph, indicating that it also moves away from the thought processes and/or subject of the previous paragraph. It requires that readers rely on their own experiences with web browsing - which might not be fully successful if the readers have not had extensive experience with different types of websites or if the readers have differing definitions of interactivity than Warnick's. If they do have reasonable experience with web browsing and/or accept the Warnick definitions of interactivity, readers can make connections (intertextuality) between these sites that Warnick cites and sites with which the readers themselves may be familiar, potentially a very useful discussion.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

This question is basically a "yes/no" question with a chance for elaboration on the part of the answerer. Because of the dichotomous structure of the question, it presupposes a tacit agreement with the terms that Warnick via Burke sets (that parodic discourse is necessarily tied to identification/disidentification). However, by adding on "why or why not," the answerer is given the opportunity to deconstruct this relationship (between Burke's identification and Bakhtin's parody).

If I might break out of "analysis" mode for a moment, I think this is a great question. In fact, my first impulse was to work on answering it rather than analyzing it. Warnick's construction of this theoretical relationship is one of the strongest parts of her book, and it's one that I'm using in my paper. I was glad to read someone else pick up on this.

That said, I think to answer the question substantively, the reader would need to go outside the RO text to refer to the link that Brian has provided. It probably wouldn't hurt to consult the Burke text (A Rhetoric) that Warnick's been referencing, either. Brian's question asks the reader to be a fellow critic/researcher--it neither assumes a superior nor familliar tone. Basically it asks, "here's something I've noticed--do you think it works like she says?" In essence, there doesn't seem to be an assumed answer to his quesion.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

3. Instead of a question I figured I should post a small excerpt from one of my favorite poems; I wonder does anyone else see a connection with our reading?

“Mask of Anarchy” Percy Shelley, 1819

As I lay asleep in Italy
There came a voice from over the Sea,
And with great power it forth led me
To walk in the visions of Poesy.

I met Murder on the way -
He had a mask like Castlereagh -
Very smooth he looked, yet grim;
Seven blood-hounds followed him:

All were fat; and well they might
Be in admirable plight,
For one by one, and two by two,
He tossed the human hearts to chew
Which from his wide cloak he drew.

Next came Fraud, and he had on,
Like Eldon, an ermined gown;
His big tears, for he wept well,
Turned to mill-stones as they fell.

And the little children, who
Round his feet played to and fro,
Thinking every tear a gem,
Had their brains knocked out by them.

Clothed with the Bible, as with light,
And the shadows of the night,
Like Sidmouth, next, Hypocrisy
On a crocodile rode by.

And many more Destructions played
In this ghastly masquerade,
All disguised, even to the eyes,
Like Bishops, lawyers, peers, or spies.

Last came Anarchy: he rode
On a white horse, splashed with blood;
He was pale even to the lips,
Like Death in the Apocalypse.

And he wore a kingly crown;
And in his grasp a sceptre shone;
On his brow this mark I saw -
'I AM GOD, AND KING, AND LAW!'

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Those certain outcomes may not be entirely positive if the individuals seek to "escape" the tendency to do something that leads to them. This suggests a certain ambivalence on the author's part. On the one hand, this may be a "natural tendency" - something that's completely understandable. On the other hand, it's something we might need to escape.

(I don't think it's entirely possible to escape the tendency, however) :)

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?