- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

re: censorship
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

jon noring said: > Michael Hart is on moderation, > as most of the others on TeBC. unless something has changed recently, the headers clearly show michael's posts have had to be "approved" before posting. except for the occasional new subscriber, nobody else's headers show such "approval" was required before the message was posted. whether this enforced moderation constitutes "censorship" or not depends on how we choose to define the word. but my best guess is that michael feels that his voice is being silenced... and of course i've been _banned_outright_ from jon's listserve, for many years now. he will tell you that's because i was "rude" or some such nonsense. everyone knows it's because he wanted to silence me, because my comments gummed up his hype machine. -bowerbird

4 5

Apologies
by Michael Hart 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

It would appeare that Jon Noring's fix of my subscription came through effective at just about the same time I was writing my comments about that. So. . .my apologies. . .and my thanks. . . . Michael

1 0

'Lasker's Manual of Chess.'
by tom arnall 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

I am interested in creating a Gutenberg book of Emanuel Lasker's 'Lasker's Manual of Chess.' If anyone is interested in helping me scan the book, please let me know. Also, the copyright info in my copy of the book states that the book was originally published in 1932. Does this mean that the book is still protected by copyright law in the US? Tom Arnall north spit, ca

3 2

re: [gutvol-d] re: censorship
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

frank said: > The very idea is shocking!! ;) got a good laugh out of that, did you frank? well, i'm glad... ;+) -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] branko
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

greg said: > Branko is a lovely fellow and active volunteer. > But no, he doesn't speak for PG or DP. nobody ever said he did. no volunteer does. but his actions now certainly reflect -- badly -- on both d.p. and p.g., since he has in the past touted his alignment rather obviously, having written entries about d.p. and p.g. at teleread and various other places around cyberspace. but hey, if you don't care, i don't care either... -bowerbird

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] branko
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

jon said: > What changes did Branko make to your comment? well, i usually don't respond to jon noring on this listserve, because noring, on his own listserve, censors michael hart. (interesting how one censor steps up to defend another...) but i'll make an exception in this case to give this answer: you don't know what was changed, do you? and isn't that the way that it _always_ is when someone rewrites history? *** josh said: > In other words, leave DP out of it. > We don't want to get involved. i don't blame you! i wouldn't wanna be involved with someone rewriting history either... but nonetheless, there branko is, touting connections to d.p. and p.g., and then redoing my blog comments. -bowerbird

2 1

bowerbird is totally unrelated to p.g. and d.p.
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

josh said: > You've claimed connections to PG and DP both in the past. nope. i am totally unrelated to both, thank you very much. i love project gutenberg -- well, mostly michael hart -- as _the_ premiere cyberlibrary and shining example of unlimited distribution, and i hope that some of my work helps to further the cause. i'm also happy to give p.g. my gift of constructive criticism. but i'm not connected to p.g. nothing i say or do should reflect positively or negatively on project gutenberg, not in the slightest way, shape, or form... i also respect distributed proofreaders greatly -- well, the brainstorm (and hard work) of charlez franks that created a great example of distributed collaboration, as well as the _many_ volunteers who give so willingly and generously of their time and energy to the cause -- and i'd be happy to give my gift of constructive criticism to d.p. as well, but d.p. doesn't seem to want it much. :+) further, nothing i say or do should reflect on d.p. either. i'm sure everyone knew this -- my independence is clear -- but i'm quite happy to repeat it out loud just for the record... indeed, if i didn't think larger issues were at stake here -- including building infrastructure for our cyberlibrary and the best practices workflow for digitizing p-books -- i wouldn't bother giving my gift of constructive criticism here and other places in cyberspace. but there is a need... -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] branko
by Joshua Hutchinson 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bowerbird(a)aol.com > > greg said: > > Branko is a lovely fellow and active volunteer. But no, he doesn't > > speak for PG or DP. > > nobody ever said he did. no volunteer does. > > but his actions now certainly reflect -- badly -- > on both d.p. and p.g., since he has in the past > touted his alignment rather obviously, having > written entries about d.p. and p.g. at teleread > and various other places around cyberspace. You've claimed connections to PG and DP both in the past. You reflect badly (in my opinion) on both organizations. But just because you spout flaming idiocy on a regular basis, it isn't PG or DP's place to "silence" or dictate your behavior on a completely unrelated forum like TeleRead's blog. The most we could do is silence or dictate behavior here or on DP's forums. This isn't to say Banko is or is not fully justified in what he edited. I don't know the circumstances nor do I care, since TeleRead is NOT AFFLIATED with PG or DP and therefore what they decide to do is their own business. Josh

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] branko
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

josh said: > Why would things happening on an unrelated website > concern conversations on DP? why? because the same parties are involved! and because branko represents himself over there on the teleread blog as being closely related to distributed proofreaders _and_ a volunteer with project gutenberg. is it in the best interest of these entities to have someone associated with them be responsible for editing writing from someone against the explicit stated will of that writer? i would think not... my guess is that it would send _shivers_ down the spine of michael hart to have project gutenberg being portrayed as big brother rewriting the history books. talk about being "untrustworthy"! we are on a very slippery slope here, and remember, it always starts with something "innocuous", which people encourage you to "sweep under the rug" as "unimportant". -bowerbird

4 3

re: [gutvol-d] branko
by Joshua Hutchinson 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

> ----- Original Message ----- > > my guess is that it would send _shivers_ > down the spine of michael hart to have > project gutenberg being portrayed as > big brother rewriting the history books. > talk about being "untrustworthy"! > What sends shivers down my spine is that PG or DP could have any say whatsoever in how an unrelated entity runs their business. Luckily, it does not. Editing of your content is beside the point in this case. What I object to is the insinuation/demand that PG/DP take some sort of active role in someone else's business. I know I'd be extremely upset if TeleRead tried to dictate to me what I can or cannot do on DP. I can only assume they'd be equally offended if I tried to boss them around. In other words, leave DP out of it. We don't want to get involved. Josh

1 0