558 lines
29 KiB
Plaintext
558 lines
29 KiB
Plaintext
From LISTSERV@uacsc2.albany.edu Tue Jan 5 16:04:47 1993
|
|
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:03:17 -0500
|
|
From: Revised List Processor (1.7e) <LISTSERV@uacsc2.albany.edu>
|
|
Subject: File: "EJRNL V1N3-1"
|
|
To: pirmann@trident.usacs.rutgers.edu
|
|
|
|
_______ _______ __
|
|
/ _____/ /__ __/ / /
|
|
/ /__ / / ____ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ____ / /
|
|
/ ___/ __ / / / __ \ / / / / / //__/ / //_ \ / __ \ / /
|
|
/ /____ / /_/ / / /_/ / / /_/ / / / / / / / / /_/ / / /
|
|
\_____/ \____/ \____/ \____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \__/_/ /_/
|
|
|
|
July, 1992 _EJournal_ Volume 1 Number 3-1 ISSN# 1054-1055
|
|
There are 549 lines in this issue.
|
|
|
|
An Electronic Journal concerned with the
|
|
implications of electronic networks and texts.
|
|
2605 Subscribers in 38 Countries
|
|
|
|
University at Albany, State University of New York
|
|
|
|
ejournal@albany.bitnet
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONTENTS (Supplement to V1N3 of November, 1991):
|
|
|
|
Editorial: Electronic Time Travel [ Begins at line 51 ]
|
|
|
|
The Brent-Hering Exchange about Owning Knowledge [ Begins at line 102 ]
|
|
|
|
by Bob Hering and Doug Brent
|
|
Drexel University Faculty of General Studies
|
|
University of Calgary
|
|
|
|
Information - [ Begins at line 441 ]
|
|
|
|
About Subscriptions and Back Issues
|
|
About Supplements to Previous Texts
|
|
About Letters to the Editor
|
|
About Reviews
|
|
About _EJournal_
|
|
|
|
People - [ Begins at line 513 ]
|
|
|
|
Board of Advisors
|
|
Consulting Editors
|
|
[line 42]
|
|
********************************************************************************
|
|
* This electronic publication and its contents are (c) copyright 1992 by *
|
|
* _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give away the journal and its *
|
|
* contents, but no one may "own" it. Any and all financial interest is hereby *
|
|
* assigned to the acknowledged authors of individual texts. This notification *
|
|
* must accompany all distribution of _EJournal_. *
|
|
********************************************************************************
|
|
|
|
Editorial: Electronic Time Travel
|
|
|
|
This issue of _EJournal_ is an exercise in time travel. Doug
|
|
Brent's essay appeared in November '91. He heard from Bob Hering
|
|
soon thereafter. Their exchange got lost in electronic limbo and
|
|
didn't reach us until June '92. We're sending it out in July '92,
|
|
with a note about how you can re-live last November by sending for
|
|
issue V1N3. Even though it is being sent in 1992, the V1N3-1
|
|
designation aligns this issue with the "publishing year" 1991.
|
|
Whew.
|
|
|
|
We will now add a note to the abstract of the November 1991
|
|
essay, in the Contents file of our Fileserv, saying that there is
|
|
a discussion of its argument to be found in the July '92 issue.
|
|
|
|
Our electronic existence, that is, lets us telescope and overlay
|
|
and interpolate texts in ways that can't be managed by book-style,
|
|
codex publications. It would be possible, for instance, for us to
|
|
re-distribute V1N3 with both November's "Ownership" essay and this
|
|
July issue's follow-up exchange. That's easy to imagine, and it
|
|
might offer worthwhile convenience to many readers, especially to
|
|
recent subscribers who have perilously little context into which
|
|
they can fit this issue.
|
|
|
|
But from there it's only a small step, electronically, to an
|
|
editor's revision of the November essay in a way that reflects
|
|
both Bob Hering's reservations and Doug Brent's efforts in
|
|
rebuttal -- without acknowledging Bob Hering's role in the "new
|
|
original" essay. We could then file the altered issue in the
|
|
Fileserv and pretend that it had always existed that
|
|
way. [line 81]
|
|
|
|
That won't happen. One of _EJournal_'s obligations has always been
|
|
to provide authenticated copies --duplicate originals-- to academic
|
|
authorities who still need to use paperclips. So we will not tamper
|
|
with the "original originals," easy as it would be to do so. We
|
|
have already turned down one reasonable request to change a spelling
|
|
error. We have set up our archives (which are way back there, well
|
|
"behind" the versions in the Fileserv) as "read only," of course,
|
|
and we pledge that we will do our best to maintain the integrity of
|
|
those files. We may make a mistake, someday, but we operate on the
|
|
principle that what we send out will not be tampered with by
|
|
embarrassed time travellers. That's one reason for publishing
|
|
these supplemental discussions as separate issues, accepting the
|
|
risk of some confusion caused by the distribution of a Volume 1
|
|
("1991") issue in the middle of the Volume 2 ("1992") calendar year.
|
|
|
|
Ted Jennings
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Supplement to the Volume 1 Number 3 (November, 1991) essay by Doug Brent,
|
|
"Oral Knowledge, Typographic Knowledge, Electronic Knowledge: Speculations
|
|
on the History of Ownership"
|
|
|
|
Here, with their permission, is a discussion between Doug Brent and Bob Hering
|
|
on the subject of Doug Brent's "Ownership" article in our November, 1991 issue
|
|
(V1N3). Bob originally sent his comments to Doug personally, but it seemed to
|
|
him (and to the editor) that the difference of outlooks represents a
|
|
philosophical crux --not just between slightly left and right political views,
|
|
but (as the exchange will suggest) between two views of the relative power of
|
|
economics and technology.
|
|
|
|
Readers may want to turn their dialogue into a polylog; we'd be happy to keep
|
|
this thread spinning. You can send for the complete text of the "Ownership"
|
|
article with the following message addressed to the Listserver at Albany:
|
|
|
|
Address: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET
|
|
Message: GET EJRNL V1N3
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Brent-Hering Exchange about Owning Knowledge:
|
|
|
|
To: Doug Brent
|
|
Faculty of General Studies
|
|
University of Calgary
|
|
DABRENT@ACS.UCALGARY.CA
|
|
|
|
Subject: "Oral Knowledge, Typographic Knowledge, Electronic Knowledge:
|
|
Speculations on the History of Ownership"
|
|
[line 131]
|
|
-----Your Article in _EJournal_, Volume 1 Number 3, November, 1991
|
|
|
|
Please accept this message as a means of introduction. I am
|
|
presently an adjunct professor at Drexel University. I teach
|
|
graduate and undergraduate management courses as part of the
|
|
Management Division at Drexel.
|
|
|
|
I have a 35-year career background in the Information Management
|
|
industry and a long association with the Sperry Corp., subsequently
|
|
merged with the Burroughs Corp., into the Unisys Corp. I have a
|
|
strong interest in computing, telecommunications and information
|
|
management. My skills are specifically in the MS-DOS arena, with
|
|
proficiency in several business, financial, communications and
|
|
graphics applications.
|
|
|
|
Your recent article in _EJournal_ is very interesting and
|
|
thoughtful; I would like to offer my comments and observations to
|
|
you.
|
|
|
|
General comments:
|
|
|
|
The perspective you offer about knowledge ownership across the oral,
|
|
literate and cyberspace constructs contain important, clearly
|
|
delineated comparisons. In addition to the fluidity provided to
|
|
"text" through cybernetics, and the difficulties associated with
|
|
ownership, there are other issues to be considered: legal, right
|
|
to privacy, and corporate and public networking matters come to
|
|
mind, to name a few.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the key point you raise, as part of your conclusions, has to
|
|
do with economics. That area, linked with communal vs. individual
|
|
ownership, could be considered central to many societies and to the
|
|
systems or constructs devised to differentiate one developmental
|
|
phase from another.
|
|
[line 166]
|
|
A general observation is that, in my opinion, western societies have
|
|
evolved to the point of demanding individuality, which calls for
|
|
intellectual property, and that individuality can be associated with
|
|
value-added, economic independence.
|
|
|
|
Your observation that the "...merging of texts into new wholes which
|
|
are inseparable from their makers" (lines 614 & 615), could ensure
|
|
the downfall of the emerging cyberspace construct.
|
|
|
|
I will attempt to explain, in the specific comments below, why I
|
|
offer that consideration.
|
|
|
|
Specific comments:
|
|
|
|
In Section 2, on ownership of knowledge in oral societies, you
|
|
address the inseparability of creativity and performance in
|
|
transmitting knowledge. The "performance" aspect can be directly
|
|
equated to the "transmission or reproducibility" of the knowledge.
|
|
In that sense, the analogy to either the printing press or
|
|
cyberspace is common.
|
|
|
|
Even in oral societies, although knowledge was shared, each member
|
|
of the society had his or her specific role just as the teller of
|
|
tales did. The individuality surfaces in the sense of these
|
|
differing roles within the society, what you (or Ong) describe as
|
|
procedural knowledge.
|
|
|
|
I agree with your portrayal of knowledge ownership in literate
|
|
societies, (Section 3) with two exceptions, namely,
|
|
|
|
a) the "manuscript age analogy" -- the copying of these manuscripts
|
|
can be equated to that done by a Xerox machine, albeit a very slow
|
|
one. It was a mechanical form of reproduction, performed by humans
|
|
(both of which are now "fossilized"); [line 200]
|
|
|
|
b) the "romantic myth" (line 215) - while it is true that people
|
|
draw on the collectiv[Ae past (text or otherwise), certainly there are
|
|
instances that point directly to individuality, independent of past
|
|
knowledge. Names that charaterize independence such as Einstein, Da
|
|
Vinci, and Newton all demonstrated a creative originality that was
|
|
not dependent on past knowledge and substantiate the "myth." But,
|
|
in general, your point is well taken.
|
|
|
|
In Section 4, your reference to the "Boshwash Times," from Hiltz and
|
|
Turoff, stirs some comments. While the notion of a group Nobel Prize
|
|
is entirely conceivable, the suggestion that no member of the group
|
|
contributed more than any other implies communalism, socialism,
|
|
utopianism or just plain contrived modesty. The scenario begs
|
|
reality.
|
|
|
|
In Section 6, relative to copyright in cybernetic space, the
|
|
principal of copyrights can and should be maintained even though it
|
|
may be cumbersome. Stealing of intellectual property, text,
|
|
software, or concepts is not unique to cybernetics - it is simply
|
|
easier in this environment. A key factor is one of human choice, to
|
|
act professionally and responsibly. You seem to agree with that in
|
|
the context of "..acknowledging an original creator of an idea."
|
|
Contrary to your conclusion, that is the same as the claim to
|
|
ownership. It simply is not as easy as it was in "fossilized text."
|
|
|
|
I have great difficulty understanding your observation that when
|
|
knowledge enters electronic space, "..it seems equally natural to
|
|
surrender it." It is here that the use of cybernetic space for
|
|
advancing knowledge is at great risk. If safeguards are not put in
|
|
place to protect intellectual property ownership, economic factors
|
|
will dilute the use of this space significantly. Charging for bytes
|
|
and blocks of data (information) is completely independent of the
|
|
knowledge itself.
|
|
|
|
In Section 7, with respect to the Bolter paragraph, and the chaotic
|
|
state of electronic writing space, I can only suggest - so is the
|
|
entire physical universe as we know it.
|
|
[line 239]
|
|
With regard to your reference to communal knowing as optimistic, I
|
|
would humbly suggest that others would view that as a pessimistic or
|
|
negative outlook. You are correct that ".. the relationship between
|
|
economics and knowledge will be rearranged into new formations,...."
|
|
Again, in my opinion, if cybernetics, as a means of creation and
|
|
transmission, is to contribute significantly to human knowledge, the
|
|
value of the creation and the economic compensation to humans will
|
|
be as or more important than it was/is today.
|
|
|
|
I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated what your article portrayed and
|
|
the effort your article required. Many more educators, government
|
|
agencies and businesses need to do the same if this very exciting
|
|
new era is to come of age. I wish you the best in your current and
|
|
future endeavors.
|
|
|
|
Regards,
|
|
|
|
Bob Hering
|
|
Drexel University
|
|
HERINGCR@DUVM.BITNET
|
|
|
|
* * * * *
|
|
|
|
To: Mr. Bob Hering
|
|
Drexel University
|
|
|
|
Bob:
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your interesting, thoughtful (and flattering) response to
|
|
my article. I think that you put your finger on some extremely
|
|
important issues. The differences between our points of view suggest
|
|
two quite different responses to the possible future of cyberspace,
|
|
and reflect, I think, two different philosophies of our relationship
|
|
to technology. This makes the discussion really interesting.
|
|
|
|
Before getting on to what I see as the really important discussion,
|
|
let me clarify the two minor points you address regarding my
|
|
portrayal of knowledge in literate societies.
|
|
[line 278]
|
|
First, you disagree with my comment that "During the manuscript age,
|
|
the painstaking copying and illustrating of a manuscript was in some
|
|
respects a personal performance of knowledge analogous to the
|
|
performance of an epic poem or folk tale." You suggest instead that
|
|
manuscript copying can be likened to photocopying. I don't really
|
|
think so, simply because manuscript copying required the copyist to
|
|
handle each character individually with a loving care that--at least
|
|
until the twelfth century scriptoria made a business of it--was
|
|
often performed as an act of religious devotion. And although the
|
|
goal was to make the copy identical in *wording* to the original,
|
|
there was no thought of making it *look* like the original. Each
|
|
was typically illuminated in a highly original fashion that was not
|
|
necessarily copied from the source manuscript. It is this that
|
|
gives manuscript copying a different psychological texture from
|
|
photocopying, and led Ong to declare the manuscript age "residually
|
|
oral."
|
|
|
|
Second, you are not quite happy with my assertion that the idea of
|
|
the individual genius is a romantic myth. I would certainly agree
|
|
that the idea of the genius is not a myth. While some toil away
|
|
making minor improvements in the work that has preceeded them,
|
|
others such as the ones you mention make awesome leaps of
|
|
understanding, authoring Kuhnian "paradigm shifts" rather than
|
|
incremental advances. What I *do* see as a myth is the idea that
|
|
such genius stands alone. It is always a social genius, a rare gift
|
|
for taking the pieces of a puzzle that others have been forging and
|
|
turning them a totally new way so that they suddenly lock together
|
|
into a new configuration. It was Newton, I think, who said "If I
|
|
have seen further than others it is because I have stood on the
|
|
shoulders of giants." (If anyone out there can confirm the exact
|
|
source of this quotation, please pass it on--I've been trying to pin
|
|
it down for years.)
|
|
|
|
But enough of the minor details. On to the meat of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
You seems to agree to a large extent with my prediction that
|
|
ownership of knowledge will be more difficult in cyberspace and may
|
|
well disappear. But you disagree with my assertion that this could
|
|
well be a good thing. "It is here," you say, "that the use of
|
|
cybernetic space for advancing knowledge is at great risk. If
|
|
safeguards are not put in place to protect intellectual property
|
|
ownership, economic factors will dilute the use of this space
|
|
significantly." [line 321]
|
|
|
|
What you are saying, in effect, is that given the present economic
|
|
systems that have evolved, people will not continue to produce and
|
|
disseminate knowledge if their right to profit by it (that is, their
|
|
"ownership" of it, not just the polite acknowledgement that they
|
|
thought of it first) is not protected. If it comes to a choice
|
|
between cyberspace or profit, then, you argue that we will choose
|
|
profit. Only by protecting the right to profit from intellectual
|
|
labour can we protect cyberspace.
|
|
|
|
(I hope I am not mis-paraphrasing you here. I am not trying to set
|
|
up a straw man, for I think that this is a genuinely tenable and
|
|
respectable position; I am just trying to restate for clarity.)
|
|
|
|
You may well be right. The recent collapse of Communism seems to
|
|
make this view even more persuasive. A system in which direct
|
|
economic incentives for production were not in place resulted in a
|
|
stagnant economy, a bloated bureaucracy, and ultimately a lack not
|
|
just of consumer goods but of basic necessities. Human beings do
|
|
not seem well disposed to work (whether planting potatoes or
|
|
developing scientific breakthroughs) for the good of their souls.
|
|
|
|
The only way you could be wrong is if the theory of transformative
|
|
technologies states correctly the immense and unstoppable power of a
|
|
communications revolution. McLuhan asserts, and Ong develops more
|
|
thoroughly, the claim that when communications media shift to the
|
|
extent they did when the alphabet was introduced, everything
|
|
else--social systems, economics, consciousness itself--is dragged
|
|
along with the shift. This may create short-term economic crises,
|
|
but ultimately the economic system, like everything else, must
|
|
adapt. This does not mean that the entire capitalist system will
|
|
collapse in ruins; I think that in general capitalism is too strong
|
|
and in the long run too useful (yes, I said useful) to be
|
|
washed away.
|
|
[line 356]
|
|
This only means that the concept of private property will not be
|
|
applicable to knowledge in the rather crude form that either
|
|
copyright of hard-copy or pay-per-byte electronic systems has thus
|
|
far allowed. Ownership of knowledge is gradually becoming
|
|
untenable.
|
|
|
|
This is a very strong form of technological determinism, but it
|
|
works only on a massive scale. It does not assert that this or that
|
|
little wrinkle in the technological ether is inevitable -- we can,
|
|
if we like, reject certain forms of technology -- but it does assert
|
|
that some types of global shifts in communications style are
|
|
inevitable in the longer term. (Try to find a society that has
|
|
successfully resisted literacy once introduced to it.)
|
|
|
|
According to this theory, then, if it comes to a choice between
|
|
cyberspace and profit, we will not have the option of choosing
|
|
profit -- at least, not forever. Eventually the cyberspace
|
|
environment will force an entirely new way of thinking about
|
|
knowledge production. You hit the nail on the head when you call
|
|
this concept, illustrated by Hiltz and Turoff's collective Nobel
|
|
prize, "communalism, socialism, utopianism." It is indeed
|
|
communalism; that is exactly what I am arguing for. And it may well
|
|
be utopian, if you mean by that "a good state of being that cannot
|
|
be achieved in today's world." If you mean "a soft-headed view of a
|
|
future that could never occur," well, I must respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
|
In short, then, we have three possible scenarios:
|
|
|
|
1. We manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in cyberspace,
|
|
and cyberspace continues to exist within the present economic
|
|
system. (I argue that this is unlikely because the nature of
|
|
cyberspace makes it too difficult. You argue that it is unlikely
|
|
because the nature of economics makes it too difficult. But
|
|
whereas you think that this would be a positive outcome, I don't.
|
|
Here you and I assign opposite values to the same possible
|
|
outcome.)
|
|
[line 393]
|
|
2. We do not manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in
|
|
cyberspace, and cyberspace never develops its potential. (You
|
|
argue that this is possible because the nature of economics
|
|
prohibits communal knowledge on anything but a relatively local
|
|
scale. Neither of us likes this possible outcome much, as both of
|
|
us like the possibilities afforded by the cybernetic revolution.
|
|
If we didn't, we wouldn't be sharing this piece of cyberspace right
|
|
now.)
|
|
|
|
3. We do not manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in
|
|
cyberspace, and the capitalist system, *at least as it applies to
|
|
information exchange,* must adapt or die. (I argue that this is a
|
|
likely, or at least a possible, outcome, and also that it could be
|
|
a good one. Here again we assign opposite values to the same
|
|
possible outcome.)
|
|
|
|
I suppose it would be possible to assign this difference of opinion
|
|
to a left - right "ideological" dichotomy, because I seem to
|
|
support capitalism more reluctantly than you.
|
|
|
|
But I don't think our differences are ideological, let alone
|
|
"political." What we have put our finger on in this
|
|
exchange is the difference in how much we believe in the transforming
|
|
power of communication technology versus the staying power of the
|
|
present economic system. My Utopian vision depends utterly on
|
|
McLuhan, Ong and Heim being more right than wrong. The entire
|
|
scenario painted in my "Ownership" article is nothing more than the
|
|
detailed working-out of their theories as applied to a particular
|
|
aspect of knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Actually, if the truth be known, I am not absolutely sure that they
|
|
really are more right than wrong. But I sure hope so. I find the
|
|
idea of communal knowledge in cyberspace to be truly exciting.`
|
|
|
|
All the best,
|
|
|
|
Doug Brent
|
|
Faculty of General Studies
|
|
University of Calgary
|
|
DABRENT@ACS.UCALGARY.CA
|
|
|
|
[ This exchange in Volume 1 Number 3-1 of _EJournal_ (July 1992 supplement to
|
|
November 1991) is (c) copyright _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to
|
|
give it away. _EJournal_ hereby assigns any and all financial interest to Doug
|
|
Brent and Bob Hering. This note must accompany all copies of this text. ]
|
|
[line 439]
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
------------------------- I N F O R M A T I O N ------------------------------
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About Subscribing and Sending for Back Issues:
|
|
|
|
In order to: Send to: This message:
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to _EJournal_: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET SUB EJRNL Your Name
|
|
|
|
Get Contents/Abstracts
|
|
of previous issues: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET GET EJRNL CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
Get Volume 1 Number 1: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET GET EJRNL V1N1
|
|
|
|
Send mail to our "office": EJOURNAL@ALBANY.BITNET Your message...
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About "Supplements":
|
|
|
|
_EJournal_ is experimenting with ways of revising, responding to, reworking, or
|
|
even retracting the texts we publish. Authors who want to address a subject
|
|
already broached --by others or by themselves-- may send texts for us to
|
|
consider publishing as a Supplement issue. Proposed supplements will not go
|
|
through as thorough an editorial review process as the essays they annotate.-
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About Letters:
|
|
|
|
_EJournal_ is willing publish letters to the editor. But we make no
|
|
predictions about how many, which ones, or what format. The "Letters" column
|
|
of a periodical is a habit of the paper environment, and _EJournal_ readers
|
|
can send outraged objections to our essays directly to the authors. Also, we
|
|
can publish substantial counterstatements as articles in their own right, or as
|
|
"Supplements." Even so, when we get brief, thoughtful statements that appear
|
|
to be of interest to many subscribers they will appear as "Letters."
|
|
[line 474]
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About Reviews:
|
|
|
|
_EJournal_ is willing to publish reviews of almost anything that seems to fit
|
|
under our broad umbrella: the implications of electronic networks and texts.
|
|
We do not, however, solicit and thus cannot provide review copies of fiction,
|
|
prophecy, critiques, other texts, programs, hardware, lists or bulletin boards.
|
|
But if you would like to bring any publicly available information to our
|
|
readers' attention, send your review (any length) to us, or ask if writing one
|
|
sounds to us like a good idea.
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About _EJournal_:
|
|
|
|
_EJournal_ is an all-electronic, Matrix distributed, peer-reviewed, academic
|
|
periodical. We are particularly interested in theory and practice surrounding
|
|
the creation, transmission, storage, interpretation, alteration and replication
|
|
of electronic text. We are also interested in the broader social,
|
|
psychological, literary, economic and pedagogical implications of computer-
|
|
mediated networks. The journal's essays are delivered free to Bitnet/ Internet/
|
|
Usenet addressees. Recipients may make paper copies; _EJournal_ will provide
|
|
authenticated paper copy from our read-only archive for use by academic deans
|
|
or others. Individual essays, reviews, stories-- texts --sent to us will be
|
|
disseminated to subscribers as soon as they have been through the editorial
|
|
process, which will also be "paperless." We expect to offer access through
|
|
libraries to our electronic Contents and Abstracts, and to be indexed and
|
|
abstracted in appropriate places.
|
|
|
|
Writers who think their texts might be appreciated by _EJournal_'s audience are
|
|
invited to forward files to EJOURNAL@ALBANY.BITNET . If you are wondering
|
|
about starting to write a piece for to us, feel free to ask if it sounds
|
|
appropriate. There are no "styling" guidelines; we try to be a little more
|
|
direct and lively than many paper publications, and considerably less hasty and
|
|
ephemeral than most postings to unreviewed electronic spaces. We read ASCII;
|
|
we look forward to experimenting with other transmission and display formats
|
|
and protocols.
|
|
[line 511]
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Board of Advisors:
|
|
Stevan Harnad Princeton University
|
|
Dick Lanham University of California at L.A.
|
|
Ann Okerson Association of Research Libraries
|
|
Joe Raben City University of New York
|
|
Bob Scholes Brown University
|
|
Harry Whitaker University of Quebec at Montreal
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Consulting Editors - July 1992
|
|
|
|
ahrens@hartford John Ahrens Hartford
|
|
ap01@liverpool.ac.uk Stephen Clark Liverpool
|
|
crone@cua Tom Crone Catholic University
|
|
dabrent@acs.ucalgary.ca Doug Brent University of Calgary
|
|
djb85@albnyvms Don Byrd University at Albany
|
|
donaldson@loyvax Randall Donaldson Loyola College
|
|
ds001451@ndsuvm1 Ray Wheeler North Dakota
|
|
eng006@unoma1 Marvin Peterson University of Nebraska, Omaha
|
|
erdt@pucal Terry Erdt Purdue Calumet
|
|
fac_aska@jmuvax1 Arnie Kahn James Madison University
|
|
folger@yktvmv Davis Foulger IBM - Watson Center
|
|
george@gacvax1 G. N. Georgacarakos Gustavus Adolphus
|
|
gms@psuvm Gerry Santoro Pennsylvania State University
|
|
nrcgsh@ritvax Norm Coombs Rochester Institute of Technology
|
|
pmsgsl@ritvax Patrick M. Scanlon Rochester Institute of Technology
|
|
r0731@csuohio Nelson Pole Cleveland State University
|
|
ryle@urvax Martin Ryle University of Richmond
|
|
twbatson@gallua Trent Batson Gallaudet
|
|
usercoop@ualtamts Wes Cooper Alberta
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
University at Albany Computing Services Center:
|
|
Isabel Nirenberg, Bob Pfeiffer; Ben Chi, Director
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Editor: Ted Jennings, English, University at Albany
|
|
Managing Editor: Ron Bangel, University at Albany
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
University at Albany State University of New York Albany, NY 12222 USA
|
|
|
|
|