Vainland

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

I have been enjoying the reacions to Dale's `outing'. My position is
simple. I don't give a toss who uses my public postings so long as i)
they use my exact words ii) it is clear that they are my words iii)
the way they are presented does not serve to mislead regarding the
context and import of the cited words. Jules has done all three. In
fact he has also asked me privately if it is ok to use private e-mails
between him and me *and* he gave me a draft to look at some weeks ago
since there is a fair amount of stuff from me in the book (I believe
he extended the same courtesy to others several of whose postings
appear in the book).

I don't care to consider the arguments pro and con the use of the
archive with reference to Jules. Not only do I think that personal
issues are not apropos here I also find Jules quite likeable on the
basis of our private exchanges and find the personal invective aimed
at him unfair, misguided and a little bit pompous. He's a writer. he
makes his money by turning his experiences into books and using
whatever materials come to hand. He's certainly no more a villain than
any other writer. But anyway, let's turn to the principles involved
here.

The last thing I want to have anything to do with is restricting
access to the list archive. I don't want people to feel that they have
to ask meor anyone else for permission to reference or use the stuff.
Why should they? When you post to the list you are essentially
shouting out your opinions in public. You have and can have (thanks to
the current server settings) no idea who is listening in to your
posts. Furthermore, you are posting it direct to the mail box of every
list member - that's pretty much an invitation to make and keep a copy
of your words. If you disagree with this ask yourself, do you think we
should all go to our private email folders and get rid of all posts
but our own? Oh and should we also edit out other people's words cited
in our own postings? Should I also get rid of the archive?

Why do you care about your words being copied and then employed by
someone else? Because you could have made money out of them? Because
you should have got royalties? Because you don't want someone to
repeat things you regret saying? You could still try to make money out
of the archive - write your own book (good luck, you will need even
more than Jules). If you want royalties I suggest you explain to Jules
why your 5 minutes farting around on the Internet as a way of avoiding
work/study merits financial reward whereas his spending several months
researching and writing up a book does not. And as for regrets, well I
am afraid it is a bit late to cry over spilled milk. I *can* tell
anyone I like about what you said on the list and I claim it is my
fundamental right to do so - this is the Internet, remember, a public
list, stuff that's in archives and backups across the world. I have no
qualms about regurgitating public postings and would regard any
attempt to stop me doing so as a severe infringement of my right to
discuss and add my comment to what is still history's most successful
exercise in open, free and unconstrained exchange of information and
understanding.

The only real worry I have is that postings can be used against the
best interests of the group and its members taken individually. I see
nothing wrong with the idea that people should stand or fall by their
own words. In which case I suggest that the key thing is not to stop
people using the material but to encourage them to use it fairly and
responsibly. Your words may be sitting on servers and backup tapes
accessible to users all over the world. How are you even going to know
if any of these people have stored and reused your words? well, at
least you can point to the archive, the `original' source material.
Jules has already done that on my behalf. He has quoted me accurately,
he has made it clear that these are my words and he has not surrounded
them with comment which misleads as to the nature of the dialogue of
which they form a part. Top marks.

I agree with (I think it was) Paul Mackin that a better book might
have been made out of the material available in the archive. But
that's not a choice on the menu du jour. I don't think the book is
without merit - it does, after all, provide a slice of list life which
though pretty trivial and of limited interest to most of us will be a
revelation to most non-Internet-savvy readers. And thank goodness that
slice takes Pynchon as its nominal topic rather than some of the other
subjects which might have been exhumed. Can you imagine how much of a
switch-off it would be to export the comp.ai Searle debate (still
going on and off after about 10 years) as an example of what fun you
can have on the Internet. Anwyay, I suggest that before anyone takes a
`principled' stand they collaborate with the enemy at least enough to
read the damned book. You never know you might even enjoy it.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.