[CBW_Exec] New Logo

[Susan Naomi Bernstein]

Greetings to all,

I prefer the blue one with no squares as well.

Susan

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Marisa Klages <mklages at lagcc.cuny.edu>wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
> I also like the blue one with no squares.
>
> Marisa
>
> >>> Rebecca Mlynarczyk <rebecca.mlynarczyk at gmail.com> 08/17/11 11:05 AM
> >>>
> Hi all,
>
> I also vote for the blue and don't like the squares. But I would certainly
> be happy with this one--with or without squares.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Deborah Mutnick <Deborah.Mutnick at liu.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > I'm with Shannon on the blue logo but actually don't like the squares in
> > the "C". Design-wise, I think it would look better without--but am okay
> with
> > them if you all think otherwise.
> >
> > Great work!
> >
> > Deborah
> >
> > Deborah Mutnick, Director of Writing
> > English Department
> > Long Island University
> > 1 University Plaza
> > Brooklyn, NY 11201
> > 718.488.1110
> > deborah.mutnick at liu.edu
> > http://thelongestisland.blogspot.com
> > ________________________________
> > From: cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu [
> > cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu] on behalf of Shannon Carter [
> > Shannon_Carter at tamu-commerce.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:46 AM
> > To: Conference of Basic Writing Executive Board; tpeele at boisestate.edu;
> > cbw_exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> > Subject: Re: [CBW_Exec] New Logo
> >
> >
> > lovely! I REALLY like the blue, for some reason. Crisp, vivid, dynamic. I
> > like the reflection on the other, but it seems less legible and . . .
> well,
> > blue seems right to me. Love the dotted line connecting the C with the
> BW.
> >
> > Nice!
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cbw_exec-bounces at tamu-commerce.edu on behalf of J. Elizabeth Clark
> > Sent: Wed 8/17/2011 7:58 AM
> > To: tpeele at boisestate.edu; cbw_exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> > Subject: [CBW_Exec] New Logo
> >
> > i there,
> >
> >
> > How do you like these new logos? Can we decide on one of these, or would
> > you like additional choices (these are based on our last go around of
> > comments in June).
> >
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > J. Elizabeth Clark, Ph.D.
> > Professor of English
> > LaGuardia Community College--CUNY
> > e-mail:  lclark at lagcc.cuny.edu
> > Phone:  718.482.5665
> > www.jelizabethclark.com
> > >>> Thomas Peele  07/11/11 11:07 AM >>>
> > Thanks for this alert, Shannon. A comprehensive Wikipedia entry would be
> a
> > great, on-going project for graduate courses in basic writing theory and
> > pedagogy.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Shannon Carter <
> > Shannon_Carter at tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > > Hi, all--
> > >
> > > Hope your summer is excellent!
> > >
> > > Just wanted to share that BW is on Wikipedia now, which you may already
> > > know. Perhaps one of the EB wrote it! Yay! Hannah has been suggesting
> > this
> > > for some time, and I was so glad to see it!
> > >
> > > It's at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_writing
> > >
> > > Only thing is this: IT IS ABOUT TO BE REMOVED. OR MAY BE REMOVED.
> > >
> > > See--
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basic_writing#Synthesis
> > >
> > > REVISIONS NECESSARY, IT APPEARS. TOO ACADEMIC. Not yet within the genre
> > of
> > > "encyclopedia."
> > >
> > > I'd hate to see this happen. Anyone able to take this on?
> > >
> > > Here's what they need to happen (from url above)--
> > > This is obviously an essay prepared as if for some professional
> > > publication. It shows the typical patter of focus on a few specific
> > topics,
> > > rather than encyclopedic coverage: it deals with the work of some
> > selective
> > > figures, rather than the field as a whole ,citing almost entirely from
> > their
> > > writings. I presume it was copied directly from something published
> > > elsewhere, but even if it was written directly for Wikipedia, it is not
> > > encyclopedic. Almost the entire text was contributed by two editors who
> > have
> > > contributed nothing else, and two ips, both geolocating to the same
> > network
> > > in the Western US.
> > >
> > > The following needs to be done:
> > >
> > >    1. a considerable part of the treatment of the key authors needs to
> be
> > > moved to the articles about them individually, if not already present
> > there.
> > >    2. A range of secondary and tertiary sources needs to be consulted
> > >    3. all major theoretical and practical strands in the subject need
> to
> > be
> > > at least mentioned
> > >    4. a slightly wider range of external websites with resources on the
> > > subject needs to be listed.
> > >
> > > If nobody responds here, as is likely, I'll probably stubbify it or
> --if
> > I
> > > have a chance -- rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CBW_Exec mailing list
> > > CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> > > http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CBW_Exec mailing list
> > CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> > http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBW_Exec mailing list
> CBW_Exec at tamu-commerce.edu
> http://mailman.tamu-commerce.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbw_exec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/cbw_exec/attachments/20110817/2237c24f/attachment.htm