Wooooosh 2: you missed a crucial point. The criticism was lodge b/c Doug initiated the critique of bourgeois consciousness in the first place.
Wooooosh 3: List owner is a technical title, not a legal one. Individuals own the copyright on their e-mail, if you want to get rilly rilly bourgy about it. Individuals have legal and moral rights as regards what can be done with their mail. And that's a Good Thang, since some of the things that men have said on this list would make their wives pretty disturbed, I'm sure.
"If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
"False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them. Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of."
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Now, Doug has an implied license to do what he will with those posts, including taking up shelf space at Google as a way of creating his brand identity, garnering subscriptions to the newsletters, selling his books, getting solicitations to speak and write. Very bourgeois of him and something that is supported by every member of this list, as far as I know.
All anyone asked is that some moral rights are respected: a request that e-mail addresses be munged so that robots don't pick them up and mail us spam, and that some of us have at least some plausible deniability and a modicum of privacy from quick and dirty searches on google.
At 03:56 PM 3/16/02 -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
>If _I_ were the owner of the list, the next post complaining about
>archival practices would be the last post _that_ person sent to the
>list.Until after a successful insurrection, or in special cases such as
>boycotts or picket lines, as far as I'm concerned leftists have a
>perfect right to all and sundry bourgeois privileges.
>Carrol
>Kendall Clark wrote:
>
> > Unlike porn, the point of neither the Bible nor slasher movies is to 1)
> > sexually arouse (primarily) men, and 2) to provide a source of
>masturbatory
> > and sexual fantasy material. Neither slasher movies nor the Bible are
>likely
> > to lead to sexual fetishization, either; erotic material seems very likely
> > to do so -- though I don't know of studies to suggest that, I think it
>makes
> > rough prima facie sense.
all i can say is: you are wrong and miles is right about the research.
violent, objectifying eroticism does is encourage men and women to be more receptive to the idea that it's okay to rape and abuse women. non-violent pornography, even if it is seriously objectifying women's bodies, doesn't have these effects.
At 03:22 PM 3/16/02 -0800, Miles Jackson wrote:
>I have to say I don't get how people can have such a casual disregard
>for scientific research that challenges their preconceptions. "Studies
>will prove anything": so we don't need to keep track of rape stats?
>poverty?
And you'd think that being so urbane would make them more open-minded to that sort of thing, too!