Chapter 3 argument, group two

This group argued that print text needs to be corrected and changed because it was defected. I really liked how they began with a dictionary definition because it helped to support their argument. I do not recommend beginning an opinionated paper with a definition, but for this purpose it was successful. The strong view that print must die definitely causes much debate, but they did manage to use valid examples to support their radical statement. I also like how they acknowledged new technology usually replaces old, and did not go to the extreme of saying always. The RIP format seems interesting because looking to the past, we see that it is very rare that anything in the past completely dies. There will always be those who choose to ignore the advancements in technology (such as those who refuse to purchase a cell phone, because a landline still places calls). I like how Bolter calls hypertext a remediation, not the death however. During their analysis, they said that "you can't rip the internet." With that statement, I would argue there will eventually be a way that for a majority of society replaces the internet even if they do not physically damage every computer. One aspect of their prezi that distinguishes them from the other groups is the fact that they chose such a strong argument. When writing my paper, I will likely take a strong stance on my argument, much like how this group did. As far as memorability, their prezi will stay in my mind more than some of the others (that I already forget), primarily because of their strong stance that was well supported.