 |
 |
Hi Candice I received that impression from the old mailbase site, but it's not that important, what does matter is that simply we agree that for now the archives be locked, sort out the rest in days to come. Can't say much more coz of something I just encountered going over the road to the shops, saw among others that is, as well as had my face breathed over with, O my God, that our world here is sinking to that, I could just cry right now. Best Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 9:36 PM Subject: Re: sheltered archives or the freedom to speak rabbish > on 8/11/01 1:32 PM, david.bircumshaw at [log in to unmask] wrote: > > > One of the things that nobody's mentioned is that, as I understand, the > > Poetry Etc archives are _not_ permanent, they disappear after two years, > > unlike for example BritPo, which desires to preserve itself for all eternity > > (the mind doth boggle), so all our nuggets and outpourings will, as those > > chimney-sweepers, come to dust. > > I think you must be mistaken about this, Dave, and wonder where you got > that information (the two years bit especially)--? When we recently updated > the Poetryetc welcome message, we kept the links John had provided to the > two sets of Listbot archives we had under the two list names (Poetryetc and > Poetryetc2) necessitated by Kru-Poet's recurring assaults of the late '90s > (which reminds me to check with Listbot on the status of those archives > after Aug. 20th), and I confirmed with Jiscmail that John had also arranged > for our Mailbase archives to be incorporated with those we've generated on > this server. (And of course they're protected by copyright, Erminia.) > > I'll certainly raise this question along with the one about search-engine > accessibility that came up yesterday as people continued to respond to my > invitation to express their views on the issue of keeping the archives > closed to non-members of the list. Their temporary closing is already in > force, so there's nothing to debate. I wasn't really inviting debate on the > issue of permanent closing either, but just wanting to take the temperature > of the list in hopes of determining the parameters of its comfort zone for > as many listees as possible--including lurkers, who may be made rather than > born as such. That's a good reason not to let an exchange of views > (concerns, questions) become a debate, which, in suppressing or repressing > someone's point of view by fair rhetorical means or foul, risks an > inaccurate temperature reading of the list as a whole. > > As is obvious by now, there is a wide range of experience and knowledge > among us about the circumstances of our virtuality within the much wider > realm of cyberspace where we're trying to create a comfortable yet > stimulating arena for the discussion of poetry and poetics. The question is > not so much how safe we are from any one kind of intrusion, disruption, or > exploitation (of our work--re copyright--or our persons--re identity theft), > but rather how safe (secure, comfortable) we feel to carry on those > discussions--the bottom line for all such lists as we comprise. Poetryetc is > also somewhat renowned for having already survived cyberterrorism, and it > behooves us not to repress that memory and fail to learn from that > experience. The recent waves of Haptime and Sircam attacks, though > generalized enough to allow us not to take them personally, also constitute > cyberterrorism, which is simply a fact of cyberspatial life now for all of > us regardless of our individual personal experiences with it (or lack > thereof). > > Let's continue to exchange opinions and air concerns until everyone who > wants to be heard has been and at least a vague outline of Poetryetc's > comfort zone comes into view. That means avoiding admonitions not to think > too hard about the archive question, for example, and more generally > avoiding a tone or stance of derision toward anyone's fears, especially for > lack of familiarity with cybercriminality or personal experience as a victim > of it. > > Thanks, > > Candice >