Quote 1: “As Pope avers, it is “the same man” (or woman), healthy or ill, employed or not, at work or gambling, wild at sport or sensible in discussion, drunk at an election, good-mannered at a dance, reliable and amiable in the East End of London, but not to be trusted at the seat of the central government” ( Paragraph 20, Lines 1-4)

I found this small paragraph compelling because I see it as a poem in a way. Though it is one very long sentence, I read it as a poem. When I first read it I was confused as to what it was trying to say, since there are many things in here such as gambling, being drunk. However after reading a couple more times, I think it is trying to say that at the end of the day, just because one person acts very differently in different locations, it doesn’t mean they’re a different person. This relates to discourse communities through the fact that people can be in many different communities and act differently in them, but at the end of the day they’re the same person. To add some more, I think he makes a good point, I agree with the idea that someone can act differently in two different places and be the same person.

Quote 2: ” This expansion then is designed to recognize that a DC is not necessarily utopian in flavor; it also acknowledges that DC’s can flourish in darker worlds, such as those represented by Al-Q’aida, price fixing cabals, or industry pressure groups” (Paragraph 22, Lines 7-11).

I found this compelling because I was surprised when I saw the word Al-Q’aida in a piece about Discourse Communities. However, I then saw the point of putting a group like Al-Q’aida in here. The author is trying to say that Discourse communities aren’t always good, their intention or goals may not be safe to the public, they might be violent. Some Discourse communities can be an evil , I am sure that there are communities in the world where very inhumane things happen, especially on the internet.