My paper is about stability and instability; (so) in the name of stability, I'd like to begin to think about that eternally cynical question, what's really the point?, by thinking through two possible approaches to dealing with the problem of ordering the computer classroom. One approach is my playful call to order the room chaotically. But very few of us have the fortunate opportunity to initially dictate how the computer classroom will be configured. The problem in this case becomes how to work with the will to order on a practical, pedagogical level. And so I'll follow the advice of Deborah Holdstein in "I Sing the Body Electric" and advocate one way I worked with what was available to me ready-to-hand [!]. But the impracticality of my playful proposition doesn't negate the fact that it raises an important theoretical question for me. Both topoi under consideration--networking and linearity (instability and stability)--seem to have been in opposition within past debates, but my experiences teaching in the computer classroom lead me to believe that they might as well be interchangeable. Composition theorists such as Lester Faigley, Sharon Crowley, and Susan Miller have given ample consideration to the instiutional and ideological practices that construct student subject formation. Here, I'd like to stretch the question of student subjectivity across the will to order the computer classroom to argue that networking and linearity, just as notions of process and product, are equable ways of ordering and thinking about the world and thus equable creators of subjectivities.