🚀 go-pugleaf

Perhaps my review was too terse.  Partly this was because the paper was
misplaced in comp.groupware.  But even on its own terms, the paper is weak.
E.g.:

   Its whole idea of genres is overblown: for people trying to
   understand computerization issues, knowing the ``genre'' of a
   computerization book is like knowing the color of its cover --
   useful at times but quite secondary, really.

   Even assuming the idea of genres is important, why is the paper's
   classification better than any of the half dozen others that come
   to mind?

   Even assuming the paper's classification is worthy, everybody knows
   that writers have axes to grind; adult readers are used to taking
   writers' motivations into account.  Saying ``Look at the genres!''
   tells readers nothing they do not already know.

   Even assuming the paper's main point is novel, the paper does not
   justify its conclusion that social theorists and the like write
   ``discourses whose claims as valid knowledge are strongest'' and
   that only their jargon and abstruseness prevent wider acceptance.
   From the little evidence given in the paper, one might just as
   easily conclude that social theorists of computerization are ignored
   because they cannot predict their way out of a paper bag.