As she read the contributions of the other discussants in her auto-confrontation, Judith reminded that she had no interlocutor for a real discussion. For example, her reaction to Rim’s contribution at Turn 7 (I agree with your opinion Ahmad that the teacher should be a partner) is: It seemed to me that it’s not enough articulated […] it means to say ‘yes’ to the main issue, but this is not enough […]. I felt that I don’t have any interlocutor with whom to argue. She compares her pace in her contributions to theirs to say: see how much I write [laughing]…I felt that they don’t move. Judith was interested in changing this situation: I tried again and again, as much as I could, to move things. She commented on her contribution at Turn 12 (We all agree. Is it possible?), that she linked with arrows of support to all previous contributions as ‘a bit cynical’. For her, the contributions of the others are like building bricks, and each discussant should bring personal contributions of high quality, original, and warranted: When you express only your opinion, without going deep into it, without explanations, without bringing citations, warrants to what you say […], it’s superficial, it’s to remain in ‘I think that’. It is then understandable that she is disappointed by the beginning of the discussion.
In spite of her disappointment, Judith continued reacting to her interlocutors and expressed her opinion with the hope that it would develop as a more interesting discussion in which she will have opportunities to explain her position. Differently from Ahmad, she put the responsibility for the learning in the individual rather than in the group. However, she thought that the discussion quickly became purposeless. To sum up, Judith did not see the discussion in the same utterly pessimistic way as Ahmad; she was worried, but although she perceived it as shallow, hoped to personally grab later on interesting ideas from her discussion. We will see that Fatima grasped the e-discussion very differently, in fact very positively.