UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 8

Re: Bruce Maccabee and UpDates

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 07:17:50 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:04:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and UpDates

>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu
>Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 11:37:06 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee and UpDates

>> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 06:08:18 -0400
>> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>> From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
>> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Bruce Maccabee and UpDates

>It is very nice of you to keep certain people up to date, especially
>those who do not have computers and I say that sincerely.  In that case,
>it seems more appropriate for you to intercede. However in Bruce's case
>he has a computer and an Internet connection,  he is able to reposnd for

Why is Bruce's case different because he has a computer?  Is that the
defining factor as to whether someone else can post a person's comments?
Errol's position in this is not clear, and needs much better clarification
if this is a "rule" that we are all to follow.

>> I don't know what Jean had tried to post (I've been trying to work
>> with both Jean and Bruce to make sure we don't waste bandwidth, and it
>> was mostly in his hand at this point), but as a list subscriber I
>> would state that I believe that it should have been posted if it was
>> relevent to the discussion.  I'm not sure how you are going to define
>> when a person should post on their own, or more importantly the
>> limitation to quotation that you will allow before that is triggered.

>Maccabee has the time to write a response to a paper I wrote 7 years ago
>AND the time to respond to the copyright paper but he cant find the time
>to participate in the list first-person?  I suugest that you and Jean
>quit running interfernce for Bruce and let him fight his own battles,
>fact to face.  He is a big boy now.

Whose running interference?  These was a discussion going on that pertained
to an issue that he was researching, and I forwarded you paper to him for a
comment, which I then forwarded on to UPDATES (sorry again about that
formatting Errol . . .<g>).  Until now, that has been acceptable on
UPDATES.  This isn't "running interference", bu information sharing.  When
information is restricted in an abitrary manner, one has to be concerned
about who is making that decision and how the personal beliefs of that
person are affecting the process.  I understand what Errol is trying to do,
but I think that his position is indefensible unless he can come up with a
"rule" that is clearly "objective", rather than "subjective".

>> The particular thread involved here is probably getting out of hand,
>> and obviously some of those involved are far too close to the subject
>> matter and should probably seek help (sorry, couldn't help it).  As a
>> list moderator, I would be concerned about those who post material to
>> the list and then threaten legal action when others quote sections of
>> it in their reply, claiming copyright violation.

>Maybe you should get your facts straight before you open your mouth.
>This has NOTHING to do with the paper on Copyright and Maccabees reply.

That's good, but it's just a thought.  BTW, I'm curious as to which facts I
got in error.

>> The explosive personalities involved in this genre could tie up
>> resources in a legal battle, and since this list is moderated there
>> is (I believe) greater exposure to inclusion in any legal
>> entanglement.

>This is another paper I wrote many years ago. When I (BB) discovered
>(just recently) that a paper I had written 7 years ago was posted on a
>website, I wrote to the webmaster and asked that it be removed.  It IS a
>copyrighted material, which I explained to him, and said I did not want
>it reproduced without permission.  He was most gracious and removed it
>from his website.

>I then found the paper reproduced in its entirety and a commentray by
>Maccabee intersperced. I have no problem with Maccabees commentary...he
>can write all day long about it as far as I am concerned...however, I
>have not given ANYONE permission to reproduce it in any form...or to
>discect it.  That includes Maccabee, UPDATES and UFOMIND. (And you imply
>Steve that I "should seek help" because I dont want my copyrighted
>materials abused?)

You are apparently the resident expert on copyright law, so I'm not
prepared to get into a legal arguement on this, but do have a few opinions
to share.

Anyone who posts anything to the Internet should understand that in a real
sense they have lost control over that document.  To believe otherwise is
foolish.  Your copyright demand is highly unusual, and merely makes it more
difficult for others to quote sections of it out of courtesy to the
subsequent reader of the commentary.  Wanting to control your material is
understandable, but most of those who post their articles don't raise the
copyright issue unless their material is abused.  Most consider reposting a
form of flattery, rather than take offense.  Most who post comments and/or
articles to the "net" understand that they are offerring it up to
commentary from the world, which includes picking it apart.  You have
chosen to impose restrictions that are unusual to the "net", and that has
now become a factor in how you are being perceived by those who don't know
you (myself included).

The paper that Jean had tried to post was indeed a rebuttle to comments you
had made previously, which (as you note) were published on the "net".  The
point being made was that you were not new to this topic, as at least one
person had thought on UPDATES.  It really had no direct relation to your
recent article,

I believe that I noticed a posting from Bruce on UPDATES a few days ago, so
I assume that the system is open to postings from non-subscribers.  He is
aware of the issues that have come up here regarding his material, and has
indicated that he will indeed be responding directly, paraphrasing your
article as needed to make his point.


Search for other documents from or mentioning: steve | c549597

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com