This is a common enough feeling (not about Publii, specifically; just the general concern for flexibility and control in static site generators), but when you pull back and think in terms of normalcy and import, it's another example of how most of what you read on the internet is written by insane people.

Almost no one submitting a paper for an assignment or to a conference cares about styling the way that the users of static site generators (or other web content publishing pipelines) do. Almost no one sending an email worries about that sort of thing, either. (The people sending emails who do care a lot about it are usually doing email campaigns, and not normal people carrying out normal correspondence.) No one publishing a comment in the thread here—or a comment or post to Reddit—cares about these things like this, nor does anyone care as much when they're posting on Facebook.

Somehow, though, when it comes to personal Web sites, including blogs, it's MySpace all over again. Visual accoutrement gets pushed to the foreground, with emphasis on the form of expression itself, often with little relative care for the actual content (e.g. whether they're actually expressing anything interesting, or whether they're being held back from expressing something worthwhile by these meta-concerns that wouldn't even register if happening over a different medium).

When it comes to the Web, most instances of concern for the visual aesthetic of one's own work are distractions. It might even be prudent to consider those concerns to be a trap.

glosses, in her assessment, were often added to assist book readers with foreign and obscure words

Kalir, R., & Garcia, A. (2019). Chapter 2. In Annotation. Retrieved from https://bookbook.pubpub.org/pub/o9er0rcp

I can't help but glossthe word gloss, [a brief explanation (as in the margin or between the lines of a text) of a difficult or obscure word or expression].

It also seems a bit like the following paragraph actually glosses over a more concrete definition of the word?

sfda

It seems like "self-aware feedback loops" are the key to repetition becoming practice, if I am reading this correctly. So the repetition is not necessarily the central feature, it is the self-awareness of the student that marks the difference in the value of repetition.

After last week, we can probably agree that "no"--it isn't. Vatz and Bitzer were talking inside the same "box," regarding the speaker, audience, and context as discrete parts, and the post-human is part of the movement which pushes us outside that box, wanting to argue that the parts are not, in fact, discrete.

Gloss: This is the thing Edbauer is pushing back against. She believes the critical conversation surrounding rhetorical situations is too rigid because--as she says below--"the social does not reside in fixed sites but rather in a networked space of flows and connections." Again, though, I would emphasize the word "flows" over "connections."

This is an excellent phrase, and a good encapsulation of Edbauer's idea

This seems like a good summary of the whole piece.

To be physically beaten is a set-back, but to have been verbally tricked by the monkey is a much threatening offense, because it has cut through his presumed power and revealed his vulnerabilities. This is the danger signifyin(g) poses, in that it exposes the game of signifying.

Hey, Nathaniel, did you . . . did you by chance want to talk about love in the context of this reading? I just got this weird, uncanny sense you wanted us to think about love when I noticed it written in all caps in the margins for the third? fourth? time in this text.

So to make that connection explicit, this is a good example of the problem Corder was trying to address at the end of his piece, in which an earnest attempt to work out steadfast and competing narratives must come from a place of love, or will otherwise result in dissatisfaction/danger/subjection of one narrative.

[I know this is brief, so feel free to build on this gloss, guys]

*And an argument results from other narratives impinging upon our own, when we can't build those narratives into ours.

This seems like a strange moment, but I think the point here is something like "women who make trouble are often called hysterical, but so-called hysterical women are those who are denied their right to fully exist and express themselves."

Gloss: a doctor gets their authority from context + space + experience + materiality, etc. It is the "+" that makes the doctor--the relationship between all of the factors that surround their "doctorness."

Heads up: This is the first in a long string of "we are not trying"s. He actually begins to explain what he is trying to do in the very last line on the page, and continues on the next page.

This is a confusing construction. Summary: purely rational argument is trying to appeal to a "universal audience," but the editors want to clarify that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca did not really believe that a true universal audience exists. Rather, a speaker imagines a universal audience (rather than one that already has a set of shared values that must be appealed to in a specific way), and then tries to make rational arguments that could appeal to the "universal audience" of their imagination.

I like the metaphor here; the phrase "alchemic opportunity" hints at both the promising possibilities that can come from such ambiguity, and also the danger of the process. In this case, I think the danger is those philosophers who (as seen in the opposite column of this page) become fixated with deconstructing a term lauded by the opposition because of it's ambiguity, while overlooking the ambiguity of the term(s) they embrace.

This is a really interesting invocation. It is accurate to gloss this as "we must rebel in the open, as Jesus would have wanted"?

Gloss/analysis: This is excellent phrasing in that it makes it clear that the churches have been acting upon women, implicitly rejecting the idea that women are inherently meek, subservient, or without opinion.