Jules deliberately misleads

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

Although this thread seems to be most thankfully at low ebb today, my server crashed 
yesterday just as I was about to send this reply, and in the spirit of leaving no sally 
unreturned, I include it for the record.  Please skip if you're not interested in the topic.

Jules wrote:

>At 02:25 PM 05/9/97 PST, <MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>>> All of John Mascaro's observations had prior review. Andrew gave me his
>enthusiastic carte blanche to use anything he wrote.
>
>>I think he unintentionally creates the impression that Andrew's carte
>blanche had my 
>>name on it too.
>
>This is a pretty far-out reading. Is this what they mean by deconstruction?
>Obviously, I meant Andrew's own work, not John's. The reason that I
>mentioned Andrew at all, is that he is actually the only person quoted in
>the book whose work might have had any significant commercial or academic
>value in the sense that Jester meant. That's why I specifically asked him if
>it were ok to use his material and he gave me full permission to do so.

Now Jules, baby, it is time to face up to this straight with no more slippery flimflamming 
about.  It's this kind of pathetically weak rationalization that gives--some--people the 
impression you have the integrity of a Felangi (sp?).  It's time that you admit that Dale 
told me my permission was needed.  And this occurred even before you asked Andrew for
 his.  I still have Dale's post, but since it is a private mail, I haven't used it.  Should I? (I 
am sure that Dale has given you permission to give permission for his private mail to be
 quoted).  You are hoist with your own petard here, bubba, because the question of 
*potential commercial value* is an obvious red herring.  Both of us were asked.  And the
 request had nothing to do with p.c.v. We were asked on the grounds that the material 
you quote is obviously outside the bounds of *fair use.*   Andrew had no problem with
 being in your book, as is his right.  I preferred not to be in it, as is mine.  Only when I tried
 to pass did the situation become what you now claim--that permission wasn't necessary
 

This fact is to my eyes the crucial nexus of the whole situation.  It is revalatory of your 
entire approach to the list and the people on it.  Now I know you have whupped Dale 
good and hard for being so naively honest as to admit he needed my permission.  But that
 slip occurred.  And you keep finessing it.

A few secondary points:
(1) you write:
>
 He did get an option, but it wasn't one that he
>wanted to exercise: I could have paraphrased his remarks. This would have
>given me full freedom to burlesque them as I saw fit.
<snip>
>It would have been FUN! And the book would have been even more biting. And
>John would be really annoyed, believe me.

Yes it is true that you threatened to pillory me if I didn't go along with your plans.  I am
 glad you are proud of that threat.  It is a very ethical way to treat people whose work 
inspired you to the astounding literary heights, soon to be even higher! you have 
attained.

(2) you continue:
>I also suggested to Dale that we encourage Mascaro to sue and then blow it
>up into a gigantic publicity smear: "UCLA Prof Sues to Censor Internet
>Book." Dale said he didn't want to do this because he is a sissy. These were
>his exact words: "I am a sissy, Jules, and I don't want to get in a fight
>because Mascaro is a tough guy from East Phillie and he might spit on my new
>bunny pajamas."

Well, I may sue you now as this is doubly libelous.  First, there is no such place as *East 
Phillie* [sic], and second, Dale's pj's have reindeer on them, not bunnies.

(3) you conclude
>And now John Mascaro is FAMOUS! Newspapers are calling him up and
>interviewing him about all this . . . . He's
>probably going to be my best friend who comforts me by taking me out on the
>town and introducing me to hot UCLA coeds while Pynchon and Chrissie are
>fooling around in the bushes. What more does this guy want?

Yes, it is true that a reporter from the LA Times contacted me.   (The article didn't run 
yesterday in the *Cutting Edge* Monday insert.  Look next Monday) And I wanted to talk 
to her as much as I weant to be in the book.  But I knew that if I refused you would make 
up all sorts of even more nasty things about me.  And, natch, the reporter tried hard to get 
me to say nasty things about you, like how you were naught but a grifter and a poltroon, 
but I resisted mightily.  I have been, throughout this ordeal darling, much much kinder to 
you than you either deserve or have been to me.  I know this will gnaw at your 
conscience, even more than the thought of who's fooling around w/ whom in the 
bushes.

But you got one thing right, bro,  I told all my beautiful women students about the book
 and they're just (insert emoticon of Rolling Stones soundtrack) dyyyyyyiung to meet you.
Show up at the staute of the Big Bad Bruin next Thursday.  Wear a disguise so I'll
 recognize you.  I'll be the one walking toward you with all of the naked coeds in tow.  If
 we're not there, prosceed without us, we'll catch up.

john m