This is an attempt to build a native hypertext form of the essay. Perhaps a better understanding of the essay can be achieved through subtle measures. Perhaps meanings are made clearer to the reader about the subject matter of the essay when s/he derives his/her own conclusions based on a real experience. The non-neutral signification of the link would be proven by the connections the reader makes as s/he considers the links and where they lead to; the effects as well as how the meanings and possibilities unique to electronic documents are created by the link would depend on the individual reader. Gather what you will.

INTRODUCTION (rEAD ONLY THE "INTRODUCTION")

Burbules argues against seeing hyperlinks in a superficial manner. In this paper, I would like to agree with, and argue in line with Burbules on the signification and non-neutrality of hyperlinks as well as discuss the ways in which they create meanings and possibilities that are unique to electronic documents.  

HYPERLINKS : THEIR SIGNIFICATION AND ITS NON-NEUTRALITY. (rEAD ONLY sECTION ON "wHAT IS A lINK?")

• Links engage thought.
• Links offer a glimpse into the writer's psyche.
• Links can influence perceptions.

HYPERLINKS AND THEIR CREATION OF MEANINGS AND POSSIBILITIES. (rEAD ONLY sECTION ON "wHAT ARE SOME DIFFERENT TYPES OF LINKs?")

oTHER POSSIBILITIES AND WHY LINKS ARE UNIQUE.

• Links are unsuitable for summary representation. They make presentations of arguments difficult. They are unique because they "remove" conclusions from hypertexts -- no other discourse tool does this.
• In a hypertext, with the use of hyperlinks, the hypertext writer struggles to achieve and maintain cohesion and coherence. Links are unique here because they render these elements of textuality irrelevant and yet the text, being a hypertext, can still be acceptable.

CONCLUSION

If this discourse is not acceptable i.e. it is lacking in cohesion and coherence, blame it on the fact that this is a hypertext, and perhaps, here, a very extreme form of it.

Writer didn't provide a conclusion. Never thought you'd click back here -- didn't the links lead you away from this piece? This being a piece in a hypertext form, it was not expected that readers would read linearly and actually get to this point of the argument.