I agree with Nancy.
The point is, you cannot teach children leaving apart the traditional way of
teaching in favour of technology alone.
After all, a computer is just a machine one can learn to use as they can
learn to drive a car.
But writing and reading properly cannot be left aside in the formation of an
educated person. I've seen children here - the sons and daughters of the
most recent teaching methods - getting to the age of 12 and still reading
sentences by following the line with their finger and eyes, like primary
Technology is something to be added to one's experience, besides the entire
essential and traditional basis.
It's sad to see one who cannot use a PC nowadays, but it's even sadder to
see one who cannot read or write properly. That would mean technology leads
people to non-education, being considered not as a mere means of
communicating and retrieving information but as the aim of education.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: (OT) Internet : an overkill ?
> You have a serious point that the internet and email have made many
> things possible (I have no idea how anyone co-edited before it, for
> example), but Vishvesh has a serious point also, and it is nonsense to
> call it nonsense. Surely you can improve on namecalling as a response.
> For example, I have seen an extreme increase in my students' failure to
> edit or even get the spelling of "Eliot" correct when the book is right
> in front of them because they compose on computers and are under the
> delusion that spell check and grammar check will fix whatever needs it.
> In fact, both introduce error. Spell check has no idea whether you mean
> fair or fare, were or where or any such distinction: it only knows
> (generally) if a word is a word, and often it doesn't even recognize a
> word. It once changed my intended "clitoridectomy" to
> "coldheartedness": morbidly amusing but not my intention. (And as I
> refuse to have it turned on, I was not doing the typing.) Grammar
> check, in the same typist's version, changed all my restrictive clauses
> to nonrestrictive ones (something an author chooses in most cases and
> not, therefore, something that a computer can determine unless it reads
> minds--and in this case changing the meaning of many sentences).
> So I do think there is an important issue here and not something to be
> summarily dismissed. It is nonsense to ignore the negative impact of
> email just as much as to reject it.
>>>> [log in to unmask] 12/20/04 2:29 PM >>>
> I hate this kind of nonsense. Stupid people will continue to be stupid;
> intelligent people will continue to be intelligent. The Internet is
> dumbing down those who wish to be dumbed down, and it has not "cheapened
> communication", whatever that's supposed to mean. Certainly, people can
> communicate more quickly, and as a result they sometimes--perhaps even
> often--rattle things off with less thought than they might invest in a
> letter. But if the quantity of nonsense out there is on the rise, so
> too is
> the quantity of good, intelligent writing. The Internet makes life
> for the eloquent just as it does for the less intelligent, and in the
> run the quality stuff will--in fact, already does--rise to the surface.
> you believe that there were no bad letters? That people never believed
> things "worth writing" which may perhaps have been rather unimportant,
> the grand scheme of things?
> Knowledge for all is not "vulgar and cheap"; it is useful, illuminating,
> life-improving. Those who wish to learn will find it ever easier to do
> while those who do not may at least have a little rub off on them.
> Incidentally, I'm not trying to argue that language and a care for it is
> important; I just take issue with the notion that the Internet is
> "making people stupid", when it is in fact doing anything but. I hear
> argument more and more often; indeed, I just finished reading the
> rather dull "eats, shoots and leaves" which moots the same kind of
> reactionary) idea that the Internet is some harbinger of intellectual
> The reality, which can be easily seen by quickly looking at some of the
> informative sites on the Internet, or by getting involved in some
> online discussions (such as, say, some of those that take
> place on this list), is that the Internet is a good thing even if it
> we need occasionally put up with a few nasty abbreviations or a little
> Of course, a certain subscriber (to another mailing list), who insisted
> randomly inserting apostrophe's in many of hi's word's, need's to be
> George Carless ... [log in to unmask]
> Words are just dust in deserts of sound