The ability of forums without a core group of posters to support the first and second

Using table 8.1 we will examine if the one quarter of forums that have a majority of replied to posts and are without a core group of posters can support either rational deliberation redefined or mixed discourses and modes of communication. Rational deliberation redefined consists of the following attributes: Rational debate,

speak. Mixed discourses and modes of communication consist of the following attributes: Rational debate, transformation, conflict, reflection, and personal experience.

Within table 8.1 we can see that Mixed discourses and modes of communication is not occurring in full, and the sample of forums mainly consists of rational debate, personal experience along with some reflection. The conflict attribute of mixed discourses and modes of communication will be dealt with later. Rational deliberation redefined is also not occurring in full and mainly consists of conversations which are rational, reciprocal and reflective. Here reciprocal means a shared mutual knowledge, that is to say one gains knowledge through the perspective of others. As these forums have a majority of two or more replied-to posts and the majority of threads within have differing opinions

(disagreement) they have been treated as reciprocal. It was also found that apart from three forums (Oxfordshire, Madison, and MTPleasantdc) all other forums in table 8.1 had digression occurring in at least one of their threads. The existence of the digital divide means that all forums within the World Wide Web have no equality of opportunity, thus all forums within the tables below have been treated as having no equality of opportunity for citizens to participate within.

Table 8.1

Forums without a core of posters - Mixed discourses and modes of communication

Forum Rational

debate Transformation Reflection Personal experience

Tomatopages Y Y Y Greenville Y Y Y Oxfordshire forums Y Y Madison Y Y StPaul Y Y Y onMilwaukee Y Y Y IWight Y Y MTPleasantdc Y Y Y Kildare/discussion Y Y Huntington- Babylon Y Forums without a core of posters -

Rational deliberation redefined

Forum Rational

debate Transformation Reflection Reciprocal Equality of opportunity

Tomatopages Y Y Y Greenville Y Y Y Oxfordshire forums Y Madison Y Y StPaul Y Y Y onMilwaukee Y Y Y IWight Y Y MTPleasantdc Y Y Y Kildare/discussion Y Y Huntington- Babylon Y Y

Y – Yes there is presence of attribute in thread. A blank space indicators no presence of attribute.

Figure 8.1 provides an example of both personal experience and rationality within a section of a thread from the St Paul forum (a forum without a core group of posters). Yellow highlighted sections indicate a participant using personal experiences and red highlighted sections indicate a participant using rational debate.

Fig 8.1

From: Date: 2007-03-31 08:28 (UTC)

I was out enjoying the nice weather last weekend and noticed significant damage to some trees on the banks of the Mississippi adjacent to the Xcel High Bridge plant. It appears that some beavers are trying to build a dam downtown with some huge trees. Does anyone know who's jurisdiction it is to protect trees along this stretch of river? St Paul Parks? Met Council? DNR? These are beautiful trees that have been destroyed and several others are significantly damaged. Others are likely to be next. I am not a beaver hater, but I would hate to lose these trees. I have see other areas nearby that beavers have killed almost all trees in the area - many of the trees were very large. If anyone has any ideas on who to contact, please let me know - I would appreciate it...

▶

From: Date: 2007-03-31 10:14 (UTC)

"Box Spring Beach" is Xcel property. For now! Mmwwaaaa-haa-haa-ha-ha!!! I know the trees you type of. It's sad, but what can ya do except plant more trees? (Speaking of which, dozens of young trees along Shepard Road have been ill-hewn by wandering motorists. Had they been full-grown trees, there would be quite a few new organ donors out there.)

Well, we could put stairs down to the beach, clean up the ton of garbage, and hang out down there so the beavers go to your side of the river. There's a lot of potential at that spot, especially when you consider the Island Station Lagoon and Nude Bluebirdwatchers.

I talked to the homeless people just upstream and they said they wouldn't mind a few more thousand campers next fall, as long as they take it easy on the patchoulli and bring plenty of 40's.

From: Date: 2007-03-31 12:52 (UTC)

I have not been to the site you discuss so I can't say for sure, but I would bet you're talking about cottonwood trees. While I agree it always seems a shame for larger trees to die, it really couldn't happen to a better tree. By which I mean...if those are cottonwoods, they are a floodplain species and grow really fast. They have been selected by flooding to grow fast and to expect great disturbance. They also have a dynamic response to herbivory. Say beavers girdle a large main trunk. The tree may well respond with a profusion of juvenile shoots loaded with herbivory deterring toxic chemicals. In any case, even if the main trunk dies, it then provides habitat value for countless other species--beetles, woodpeckers, mice, etc. Even when beavers do bring it down, it will create a niche for sun-loving species to colonize. It is also hard to imagine the carefully chiselled stumps left by beavers are not in themselves a desirable aethetic of a riparian habitat. Spend some time with those beaver-gnawed stumps, fingering the grooves they've left, wondering at why this tree rather than that, and it may turn out that beavers are as worthy of protection as the trees.

Riparian habitats are characterized by dynamism. These are not static, slowly successional zones. It would be probably be a mistake to protect trees from beavers without significant evidence that the beavers themselves were somehow perverting the natural function of this system.

From: Date: 2007-03-31 15:21 (UTC)

On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:54 PM,

> I have not been to the site you discuss so I can't say for sure, > but I would bet you're talking about cottonwood trees.

I was thinking the very same thing along with the fact that most other tree species that aren't adapted to emergent wetland get pretty stressed there. Still, if ******* thinks the beaver are a

problem, the DNR has a solution: "Population and management

"In its range, there are 0.6 beaver colonies (less than one) per river mile. During the winter, a beaver colony will include the two adults, their spring babies, and often year-old beavers. Minnesota has a regulated beaver trapping season, but there are not enough trappers to keep some beaver populations small enough to prevent problems."

Matthew must become a West Side trapper. Perhaps ****** will cover the East Bank. If you are uneasy about going into the fur business, the DNR also says this:

"The beaver is a renewable resource. In contrast, synthetic furs are made from nonrenewable resources, primarily petroleum." Now I'm not certain about any different trapping regulations within the city limits (you must be careful not to trap dogs, they say), but I think all you need is a small game license for $19, a trapping license for $20, your traps and snares, the rules, and you can help to stem the beaver menace from late October through mid-May (there is no daily bag limit). Now maybe someone from the DNR can clear things up after all my muddling.

From: Date: 2007-03-31 17:06)

Use of traps in the City of Saint Paul isn't as easy as getting a state license. In general, it is prohibited, except for household rodents, rats, moles,

voles, etc.

Beaver trapping on the Mississippi River in Saint Paul would be prohibited in most circumstances.

Here is the link to Saint Paul's law: http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/code/lc196.html

Councilmember Leonard Levine authored this ordinance in 1978 or so and it passed unanimously.

...was there when it was passed, actually!

8.1.2 The ability of forums with a core group of posters to support the first and