Please don't eat the daisies . . .

They may be members of someone's community of practice!  Who knew flowers were so busy?  After reading the Coda, I immediately set out
to ask the tulips I had bought for my wife from Wegman's how they felt about
the article.  They were aloof, actually,
and really no more responsive than my computer was when I asked the same
question of it.  In fact, the cursor just
sat there, blinking at me, as if it was waiting for me to tell it what to say
in response.  . . . All kidding aside, this
additional Wenger assignment did little to change my opinions of his work.  Perhaps it's just because I am relatively new
in my doctoral coursework, and haven't been exposed to many theorists on
education, but I wish there was a little more black & white.  If it's there, and I'm just missing it, please
enlighten me.  

Funny that Wenger starts out his chapter on locality focusing
on the same issues that we debated on Thursday about how to define community
(which, by the way, should have been sponsored by CATA for as much as we
focused on buses and bus drivers).  To
me, though, his definition was a bit waffley. 
"A community of practice can be defined by having the following 14 characteristics,
except when it doesn't."  He states that
the definition can be "stretched" to accommodate almost anything, which does
not contribute to our goal of creating a shared understanding of the term.   Like
Betsy, I'm still trying to figure out the big reveal here, the "and this is
important, because . . . "  Perhaps it's
coming in a later assignment.