Rhetoricalness?

This is the homework that is due today.  Since it was a lot, this post might get lengthy.  Just bear with me.

p. 113, RA #3

Compelling letter on the editorial page of the newspaper.

The letter I am choosing to use for this assignment is found in the Daily Athenaeum from 9/18/08.  It is entitled, "Owners of Blue Hole have come a long way"

Analysis: The writer, Scott Dobson, explains that when he was a student at WVU, he often went to the Blue Hole to swim and jump off the bridge.  He calls to attention the fact that people need to "police their actions", and that the owners of the swimming spot should not be held accountable for the foolish acts of students.

Issue: The Blue Hole swimming area has been deemed unsafe for WVU students to use, mainly because so many students have been injured while using it.  

Argument: This letter seems to define more than anything else.  Dobson defines the problem as the students.  The position that is being argued against is one of whether or not the owners should be prosecuted for all the injuries occurring there.  The writer attacks the students, even though he himself was one in the past.  This writer can achieve a common ground with others about this issue, but there will still be people, such as the students being blamed, who will not support what he says, and will not agree.  

I found this letter quite confusing, mainly because Dobson was calling current WVU students "stupid" while saying that he, too, went to the Blue Hole to swim when he was a student.  It confused me because I highly doubt he was calling himself stupid.  Normally, if someone calls him or herself stupid, he/she does not believe the statement and doesn't expect anyone else to believe it, either.  Also, it's in the DA. I don't have a lot of respect for the writings in the DA.  If you'd like to know why, I'll be more than happy to tell you.

Anyways...onward class!

The class that is right now

We put up things on the board that were added, appear in both, or dropped from both the freewrite and the first draft for this one guy's papers we are looking at.

Things I'm still not sure about:

I'm not sure that there are any questions that I still have.  I didn't have a whole lot of questions going into this, but the few I had were answered in the discussions.  

What do I feel sure of?

I think that I understand a bit more about the texts, and where to look to find how these texts changed.  I think that if I was given a topic in this packet to research, I could come up with lots of questions that I could find the answers to by using the ideas mentioned in class.

I really want to perfect my letter of inquiry.  

Weekendness, again...

As I've done before, I need to put up one thing I don't understand from class, as well as one thing I do understand.

The one thing I understand is the analysis of initiating texts.  For the most part, I understood what we were supposed to be looking for, and how that pertained to the exercise as a whole.

The one thing I don't understand is applying Kairos to writing.  I'm not quite sure I completely understood what we were supposed to understand from that.

Anyways...to homeworks!