Re: Robert A. Neimeyer's post re: cruising the WWW
Thu, 13 Apr 95 06:28:06 -0400


Thanks again for your thoughtful reply and your apparent attempt to
help me with public civility. Thanks, but no thanks. I have no wish
to construe my posts in terms of civility, but I don't mind if that's
what you prefer. What I would prefer instead, is to redirect this
thread toward what I regard as more important and substantive issues
relating to the publication of PCP related ideas on the internet,
i.e., issues of who paid, is paying and will pay, for the internet,
who should profit from its existence, how should it be used, what
percentage of the World's population live in countries who even have
copyright laws, whether PCP is for everyone in every country or just
those living in a few countries, whether the internet should be
hamstrung by archaic practices (current copyright laws) arising out
of narrow, self-serving, self-aggrandizing concerns, and so on.
After responding to some of your specific recommendations and
comments, I have included what I regard as the most important
statements in my earlier post wherein I invited the on-line PCP
community to construe two posts in the most superordinate way that is
meaningful to them. I construe these two posts as in stark contrast
with each other in terms I think have implications for the future of
the internet generally and specifically for high quality
publications, like Robert A. Neimeyer's fine Journal. I am
interested in what other thoughtful, concerned persons interested in
PCP think of the content of the two posts I included in my earlier
post--specifically, what superordinate constructions they might
employ to distinguish the two.

Joe Whitehurst

First, your comments and my replies:

> This last bit is, as far as I'm concerned, pure defensive
> intellectualisation. You choose to focus on my words "anything but"
> and build on it a load of old cobblers depending on a contrast
> between construct and concept which I'm sure you realise is
> irrelevant to the intent of my last communication.

My first two sentences of this post address this comment. JW

<rep:>Am I missing something?

> You bet. The need to summon up the grace to apologise to Neimeyer
> for the unwarranted attack on his hard work with the Journal.

My first two sentences of this post address part of this comment. I
would add, I did not attack either his Journal or his hard work.
I publically shared my construction of his construction of the issue
of delaying the on-line availabilty of his fine Journal until
significant copyright issues were resolved. What I would have liked
more, is for Robert to have said something like this: "I'm trying to
find a way to make my Journal available on the internet immediately
while the community of publishers work throught all the difficult
issues surrounding dragging archaic laws into the global electronic
community. I really don't know how long this might take or what the
ultimate outcome might be, so we will continue offering
subscriptions, while, at the same time, we put the Journal on-line.
In the future we may have to charge to access this Journal because
publishers must make profits to keep on publishing. Meanwhile, we
will continue as best we can--ON-LINE." JW

> Fer chrissake, most of us (all right, me for one!) have made
> mistakes in our communications on the 'net, and have said "Gulp!
> Sorry, I blew it!" I think you should. And then if you go to the
> Barcelona conference and we meet face to face, I'll feel stupid for
> pursuing you on this issue for so long and we can get
> pissed together. Yes?

Yes, if I were able to go to Barcelona. If you visit the '96
Olympics, I would be delighted to buy you, your friends and other
PCPers dinner at one of Atlanta's finest.

> ******
> ****** Relevant excerpts from Post #1 from Robert A. Neimeyer
> ******
> [snip]
> >"I look forward to the day when the whole journal will be
> >on-line, but there are significant copyright and subscription
> >to be dealt with before that will become an eventuality." I had
> >intended the statement to be controversial, just a realistic
> >recognition that virtually all publishers (including Taylor &
> >Francis, the publisher of JCP) are moving in the direction of
> >electronic publishing cautiously. Because they have to at least
> >break even in a financial sense to stay in business, most
> >are derstandably reluctant to put the content of their books and
> >journals on the internet until copyrights and some form of
> >subscription system has been devised. Steps in this direction are
> >being made by a few of the more technologically oriented journals,
> >however, and I am confident that others will follow.
> [snip]
> *********
> ********* Relevant excerpts from Post #2 from Brian Gaines and
> ********* Mildred Shaw
> *********
> [snip]
> >
> > The nice thing about WWW is that is very open and egalitarian. We
> > don't intend this to be THE PCP page but rather one of many, all
> > cross-linked. Any PCP group can put up material on the Internet
> > which reflects its own approach and applications. So, the next
> > step is for everyone to send us the url's of any
> > material they have up so that this page can be linked to others.
> > In the short term, those who do not yet have web sites can send
> > a note of any organizations or meetings that should be added to
> > this page. We can also add papers in electronic format to the
> > archive (we have already done this for the Boose/Bradshaw
> > sent to us by John Boose).
> [snip]
> > In the long term, it is best if as many groups as possible
> > maintain their own WWW/ftp/gopher sites. The Internet is a nice
> > arena in which to publish what you like with no heavy hand of
> > publishing bureaucracies!
> [snip]
> > We are designing the systems such that they can be used by other
> > programs as services, as well as by end users. This is an
> > aspect of the open client-server environment that the web
> > It supports world-wide collaborative research. For example, one
> > group can put up an analysis program, e.g. a principal component
> > agent, and another group can put up an elicitation system that
> > that agent for analysis. There is tremendous scope for
> > loosely-coupled community research.
> snip]


The greatest empiricists among us are only empiricists on reflection:
when left to their instincts, they dogmatize like infallible popes.

James, 1896