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

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

LBernier at tribune.com writes:

> What about when one of the personalities involved intentionally
> initiates said flame war to suit his own purposes?  My opinion of
> this whole issue is that Jules manipulated the situation to meet his
> own hidden agenda, so to call it free discourse is a misnomer.  It's
> a free economy, Jules can do whatever the hell he wants, but I have
> lost what little respect I did have for him.

I am not suggesting anyone should respect Jules (although I am
disappointed that some of those who have expressed disrespect appear
to have done so on the basis of rumour and limited communication - but
then I have never expected coherent behaviour as the norm,
particularly where multiway interactions in a social group are
concerned).  I merely want people to respect Jules' right to employ
the archive postings in whatever way he sees fit so long as he does
not use them to mislead or misrepresent.

As for who started it all I don't think it is an issue. If I were
stupid enough to get into a street fight with a drunk down in
Grassmarket I don't think I would deserve much sympathy if I ended up
in a police cell and could hardly complain if the my behaviour and
aggressive language was reported accurately in a news paper. Ditto if
I get in a flame fest in a public forum and it gets into a book.

I was very guarded when I first communicated with Jules and remained
cautious for some time until I had made a reasonable assessment of
what he was up to. I was very aware that others were being far less
careful and reflective when they responded to his first postings to
the list. I warned Jules that he was in for some such resentment but I
don't think he realized quite what I was talking about. And although
one can offer in mitigation that Jules did not hang out for a while
like every newbie should, regular posters did not hang back in
attacking and inflaming him on his arrival. A big tactical mistake and
a shame given what Jules and Chrissie might have had to offer. But
understandable given the circumstances and the obvious possibilities
for misreading of Jules' motives.

Personally, I think Jules joined the list because he found it fun and
a bit flattering to be the center of attention. In fact it was so much
fun that he had to force himself to sit down and get on with some real
work - you may or may not recall his comment on joining that he felt a
junkie who has just found an unlimited supply of smack. My impression
is that the book idea came at this point not before. And why not? He
loved the experience and thought others might like it too. He could
report it first hand weaving his own perceptions around a publicly
available record of the communications. And it could be published to
coincide with the release of the novel, meaning that he might even
make some decent sales. I find it hard to believe that Jules worked
this out as a grand scam in advance.A flame war with Mascaro woudl be
far less use to him than a decent set of interviews with Chrissie.
Judging by his writing career and by some remarks he has made I
suspect wanted to engineer something along the lines of a Playboy
interview which means that techno-babble and `net personalities' are
the last thing he would have tried to capture. Titillating stories of
sexual liasons, personality profiles of our favourite recluse,
clever-sounding references to literature would be far preferable (and
I think Jules tried unsuccessfully to drive the discussion towards
each of these topics). The fact that the result is not being published
in Playboy sggests to me that Jules was far from in control of the
dialogue. No, no conspiracy just a concatenation of misunderstandings
and consequent eruptions.


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