I found the following message in my last round of mail:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question that comes to my mind is why would anyone who had any
genuine concern about PCP, for any reason whatsoever, and especially
for narrow, self-serving, self-aggrandizing reasons as exemplified by
your concerns about "significant copyright and subscription issues",
put any impediments whatsoever, in the way of the widest possible
dissemination of the ideas of GAK. You didn't originate those ideas.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am having a very difficult time building a satisfactory construction
of this text. Did anyone else have the same dind of difficulty???
What prompts the writer to use terms such as NARROW, SELF-SERVING,
SELF-AGGRANDIZING. Is a reader to assume that this harangue is aimed at Bob
Neimeyer? -- since the the last sentence addresses "you?"
I am sure that Bob is fully capable of working with this kind of
message, and perhaps I should go on searching for my own suitable way of
construing the text.
Nevertheless, since I am still unable to develop a reasonable
anticipatory construction, in that I would need to make attributions I do not
enjoy making; I will point out that the lack of such terms, in the postings on
the PCP net, has been very satisfying to me. On some of the other nets, such
terms seem to be de rigeur (sic! My French stands to be corrected).
Aside from wishing to encourage cautious use of some of the terminology
in the message, I would like to suggest that the writer might take the time to
get some information about copyright laws!!!!
Jim Mancuso
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%