Re: Posting from other resources

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Sat Oct 07 2000 - 20:59:37 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Why I don't reject ID"

    Reflectorites

    On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:20:35 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:

    FJ>I had not read the posting rules. And since I assumed that it was ok to post
    >references and short excerpts of work found online I never thought about
    >these issues. I would like to hear the feedback of the people on this group.
    >Should references be limited to the links only? Or can one also quote limited
    >exerpts when appropriate for the argument?

    [..]

    IMHO the original cross-posting rules:

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    One final item about protocol: it is a breach of privacy,
    good manners, and possibly copyright to republish something
    someone says in one forum elsewhere -- especially if this is
    done with the intent to take advantage or embarrass someone for
    a possibly hasty comment.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    applied to when this Reflector was a private moderated List run by Phil
    Johnson about 6 years ago. This is clear from the previous paragraph:

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Everyone should feel free to sound off, but the discussion
    should at all times be courteous and nobody should feel
    badgered or harrassed. I don't expect that to be a problem,
    but I will step in as moderator if needed to maintain a
    constructive tone to the discussion or cut off repetitive
    discussions that may be boring to some of us.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    The Reflector today is like a mini-Talk.origins and all its discussions are
    archived on the web, and its earlier posts still being able to be `hit' by search
    engines.

    It is my view that cross-postings from the Reflector, in the essentially
    unmoderated semi-public form as it exists today, is OK provided it is not
    "done with the intent to take advantage or embarrass someone".

    I am a strong believer in the original `freedom of information' ethos of the
    Internet. Therefore I regard my own postings to the Reflector as public
    property and I don't mind in the slightest if they are copied elsewhere. The
    only caveat I have is my email address not be copied, but only because I
    would not have the time to respond to a lot of posts from a different forum.

    I have in the past on rare occasions cross-posted messages from this List to
    the other List I am on for comment or advice. The existence of the Calvin
    Reflector is well-known to most (if not all) subscribers to this other List, so
    I cannot see there is any real problem. Especially since I could do it even
    not as a member of the Reflector from its webbed archives.

    As far as I am concerned, if someone doesn't want his/her posts cross-
    posted, then they should have an explicit copyright notice at the bottom of
    their posts. Just saying they don't like it is not good enough because new
    members would not be aware of what they had said in the past, and as FJ's
    example shows, they may not read the rules.

    If the rules are going to be enforced then they *all* need to be enforced,
    including those about the moderator stepping in an terminating
    discourteous, destructive and boringly repetitive posts. These are a far
    greater problem and indeed will probably bring about the demise of the
    Reflector itself in the not-to-distant future.

    But if the rules are going to be enforced, they would need to be updated to
    reflect this List as it *now* is. Also they should be read and agreed to
    *before* admission to the List is granted.

    Steve

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This is typical of the way in which neo-Darwinism can 'explain' many of the
    observations of nature (I say 'explain' in quotes because, convincing as the
    bear story is, such explanations are really post-hoc rationalizations rather
    than true, known, reasons for what is observed)." (Leith B., "The Descent of
    Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.16)
    Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 17:20:39 EDT