http://www.wired.com/news/culture/story/3431.html

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

argus at dns.city-net.com writes:

> Andrew, I address you in specific because I respect your stance on
> the free nature of internet discourse.  Do you also acknowledge the
> integrity and reality of community and the distinct nature of the
> respect that has been amazing to encounter in this .net?  If you do,
> I cant see how you approve of Jules' violation of it. 

As far as I am concerned the most important issue here is freedom to
use the list (and more importantly to me the archive) postings. It
makes no difference to me if Jules book is a criticial and/or
biographical masterpiece or a brimming crock. The criteria I set out
in my posting to John M suitably qualify such use, to my taste at
least. If people could just forget the personalities involved and
consider this as a general question of control over both the right to
speak and the right to comment on such speech we would all get a lot
further forward - especially as most people have i) seen nothing of
the book and ii) have had little or no personal communication with
Jules, Dale et al on which to base the vicious assessments of their
characters.

> ps.  Grounds to get upset at me: myth of booj indiv consensus, misinterp 
> of Jules' project, over-reaction that could damage a fellow human, lack
> of real participation myself in P-L, romaticization of "community" etcetc. 

There's no need to get upset at all.


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