Sam, <<Steve, Since I don't know you I am left with having to ask you about your intent.>> Forming? <<1. I paragraph one designed to pose a serious question or is it puposely obtuse to provoke comment?>> Note the logistical problem created by online communication. You haven't included my "paragraph one" in your message: in order to answer your question I would have to leave this message, find the message to which this refers, and so on. I assume you haven't proceeded this way in order to provoke me, but I have no way now of dealing with your question. Did you intend "purposely obtuse" as an insult? <<2. My first reaction to paragraph 2 is that it is condescending, was that your intent.>> I don't have paragraph 2 before me. Why do you ask such a question? <<3.the third paragraph is on point since some many of our group members have cited Tuckman and Paloff and Pratt as seminal in their work. Do you think that "groupness" in online communities is not understood and has been explained by innappropriate correlations.>> I feel that you are grading me, paragraph by paragraph. Was that your intent? I think "groupness" is a concept developed before the Internet created new possibilities for collaborative dialogue, and that it is possible that the attempt to apply analytical concepts developed for face-to-face "groups" may not be useful for these newer forms. Your message to me illustrates the point. Is it part of the stage of "forming"? "Storming?" None of the above? All of the above? Steve