Blog (and class) Ground Rules

This isn't a response to Cory's post, but just a few ground rules so we all enjoy ourselves and discuss freely.

1. Talk about the text.
2. No personal history. If you want to dredge up volumes of stuff from WebMD about the effects of pot, alcohol, etc., that's fine, but no stories about what you (or your friends) did (or did not) do, feel, etc. (Why not? It just gets into a weird competition thing, and then all the people who haven't (or have) done, felt, etc. what you did get into these crazy arguments that have nothing to do with the text.) If you have stuff like this that you really need to talk about, ask Mr. K for suggestions about times/places/people to talk to..
3. No spoilers. Especially for this first entry (when nobody is supposed to have read past page 87 anyway), please try not to reveal ideas, connections, etc. that aren't strictly based in the readings so far. IJ is a little like a puzzle, and watching someone else solve a puzzle for you isn't a whole lot of fun.
4. No arguments about things that aren't supported by the text. We'll play the "Why did the author do this?" game since it's an essential mode of literary analysis, but please don't speculate about stuff that's not in the text.
5. Don't quote your classmates' in-class statements. Let them quote themselves, which is more accurate and won't get you in trouble. (So: "Could you blog about what you were saying in class today about Erdedy? I didn't quite get it" is okay, but "I disagreed with your statement that Erdedy is the Nietzschean Ubermensch" is not.)
6. Have fun. Really, I mean it.

== pjk