stories/davidson.html
Dear Mr. St. Clair,
Hi. You have posted one of my messages to the Smith2004-discuss Yahoo Group to your web page. http://billstclair.com/blog/stories/marsprice.html Although I was not able to access the page directly, Google maintains a cache of your page:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:jORYJT3dJloJ:billstclair.com/blog/ stories/marsprice.html+&hl=en
I'm curious that you've chosen to post my words to your web site without my permission. Given that my e-mail address is available from the active web link following my signature in the post, I'm a bit curious why you didn't choose to contact me.
It is also something of a mystery to me why you think messages posted to Smith2004-discuss are yours to reprint as you see fit.
Regards,
Jim
==================================================
Message-ID: <8fbe874a05052205221d6ad88e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 08:22:55 -0400
From: "Bill St. Clair"
Mr Davidson:
Hard to say why I did that a year and a half ago. I guess I liked it,
and wanted to make sure it didn't get lost. I usually ask people for
permission to post their writings. Guess I neglected to do so that
time. I apologize.
Would you like me to clear the page and post an invisible link to it
from my weblog so that the cleared page replaces the old one in
Google's cache? I can't promise anything about Google's cache, but
that method has worked in the past.
I see that you've chosen to make it a public matter without waiting
for me to have a chance to respond privately. Bad mojo. I will wait
for your response to this message before I say anything on-list about
it other than "I am talking with Mr. Davidson about this off list".
Chill.
-Bill St. Clair
==================================================
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 20:35:05 -0500
Subject: Re: curious page
From: Jim Davidson
Dear Mr. St. Clair,
I suggest that you do exactly as you please. I've had to deal
with the existence of that page on the web owing to a nasty
editorial about it written by someone else:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/373/1
> permission to post their writings. Guess I neglected to do so that
> time. I apologize.
Very well, I accept your apology. However, given your untoward
action in posting the page without consulting with me, nor with
the owner of Smith2004-discuss@yahoo, you can hardly feign surprise
that I've gone ahead with contacting that discussion list about
this matter, can you?
> I see that you've chosen to make it a public matter without waiting
> for me to have a chance to respond privately. Bad mojo.
Really? It would appear that sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander. Perhaps I am expected to behave to a higher standard of
ethical practice because I am at least aware of ethical matters.
I think people should expect to receive that which they dish out.
If you don't like the taste, then don't feed it to others.
> Chill.
Yes, precisely. Chilling. A chilling effect on my willingness
to respond to invitations by my friends, in this instance Randall
of RandallSquared to come to a discussion list and respond to
some inquiries. I followed up on Randall's invitation because I
have previously participated in discussions on Smith2004-discuss
and I thought the people on that list would be trustworthy
people.
I did not expect to have my post copied onto a private web log
without my permission, I did not expect to be contacted by one
of my business associates who works for a space-related non-profit
in Houston, and I did not expect to see my words linked from
another web log identifying them as a paranoid conspiracy theory.
Rather, I expected that the people who participate in Smith2004-discuss
would be decent, liberty-minded individualists who would respect
my property in my words.
It is certainly true that I am sensitive about my property in
my words, that I am sensitive about my relationship with discussion
forums, and that I am somewhat agitated when I feel that my
expectations have been thwarted, frustrated, ignored, or that
I have been led to believe one set of things only to have another
set of things transpire. In the beginning, it was this very
frustration with the behavior of people in government, and with
the behavior of people who get licenses and participate in
state-mandated oligopolies (pilots, lawyers, doctors, CPAs)
that led me in the direction of libertarianism.
Naturally, it has been a similar frustration with people who
identify themselves as libertarians but behave like statists,
or try to mix the two conditions by having (e.g. pilot's)
licenses while espousing libertarian views that has prompted
me to be more consistent - what others call more extreme -
in my views.
Regards,
Jim
http://indomitus.net/
==================================================
Message-ID: <8fbe874a05052219106d25d153@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 22:10:06 -0400
From: "Bill St. Clair"
On 5/22/05, Jim Davidson
Strange that you haven't yet become accustomed to speaking truth to
power being interpreted as "conspiracy theory". I thought you'd been
in this business long enough to recognize one of the most common way
to shut people up. I re-read your post, and it was apparent why I
saved it. It was so obviously true, that the powers that be would
never let anyone put thousands of pounds into orbit, that it bore
remembering.
Anyway, it doesn't please me to leave your article up or take it down.
It really doesn't matter to me. But it will require work to take it
down, so since it doesn't appear to matter to you, I won't bother. If
you change your mind, ask, and I'll take it down.
> I did not expect to have my post copied onto a private web log
> without my permission, I did not expect to be contacted by one
> of my business associates who works for a space-related non-profit
> in Houston, and I did not expect to see my words linked from
> another web log identifying them as a paranoid conspiracy theory.
> Rather, I expected that the people who participate in Smith2004-discuss
> would be decent, liberty-minded individualists who would respect
> my property in my words.
Hmm... You posted on a public mailing list, membership in which is
open to anyone who asks, and you expected your writings to be private?
Strange.
I mirror things because I think they are valuable, or entertaining. I
do it to honor the author. I'm sorry you took it otherwise.
In response to your post, Tom Knapp, the owner of the
smith2004-discuss mailing list, has made these matters clear to all:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smith2004-discuss/files/smith2004-discusspoli=
cies.txt
From now on, anything posted to smith2004-discuss, unless it
explicitly states otherwise, or is copied from somewhere else that
already assigns a copyright, is assumed to fall under the Creative
Commons Attribution License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Personally, I expect anything I write or say to be public knowledge,
unless contractually agreed to be private by all parties involved. If
I wouldn't shout it from the rooftops, I keep it to myself. Especially
on the internet.
-Bill St. Clair
==================================================
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 23:17:12 -0500
Subject: Re: curious page
From: Jim Davidson
Dear Bill,
> Anyway, it doesn't please me to leave your article up or take it down.
Then as long as you aren't going to be pleased, why not take it
down, and please me? Please.
> Hmm... You posted on a public mailing list,
No, I posted on a private mailing list, the *posts* of which
list cannot be seen by non-members. Thus, my words were
composed for a particular audience. You happen to have been
part of that audience.
Does that mean that I want my words to be presented to a more
general audience? No. Should I expect my words to be taken
without my permission and used anywhere, by people who may
wish to suggest that these words make me seem kooky? Sure.
But, I should not expect that conduct from someone who
espouses a libertarian viewpoint.
> membership in which is open to anyone who asks,
Yes, and membership is solicited within libertarian communities,
since the site is about an LP candidate for president.
> and you expected your writings to be private?
Bill. I expect people who espouse the philosophy of liberty
to be consistent in their treatment of property. If you had
written those words, you'd be free to do with them as you please.
Since you didn't write those words, it should have occurred to
you to ask me whether I wanted them placed where people who
were not members of that discussion list would be able to see
them.
> I mirror things because I think they are valuable, or entertaining. I
> do it to honor the author. I'm sorry you took it otherwise.
Yes, that's interesting. And, it sounds great, excellent, like
a service. It enters into the realm of being a disservice when
you don't ask my permission to post my words to a different
audience.
I wrote my words for the purpose of being read by a particular
audience. In a somewhat private space set up for people who
are already clear that the government is a maniacal entity
determined to bind them into servitude, it is appropriate to
say things that, in a more general setting would sound a bit
odd.
So, thanks for putting my words out where they can be lampooned.
As I say, doing so has had a chilling effect on my participation
in private discussion lists. I don't trust you with my words,
so I won't post them to lists where I find you a member. Which
pretty much makes you a fuckhead, in my lexicon.
>> From now on, anything posted to smith2004-discuss, unless it
> explicitly states otherwise, or is copied from somewhere else
Right. So, now I have to go onto that list and delete all my
posts. Great. Thanks for adding to my workload.
> Personally, I expect anything I write or say to be public knowledge,
> unless contractually agreed to be private by all parties involved.
Well, that's pretty. Now you've met someone else that doesn't
make your horridly stupid assumptions.
> If I wouldn't shout it from the rooftops, I keep it to myself.
Thank you for again chilling my expression.
> Especially on the internet.
And, especially around fuckheads like you, who have no sense
of discretion, propriety, or respect for private property.
The fact of the matter is that any written word is copyright
by the author under common law. The addition of "copyright
2005" doesn't have to be there. The law says it is all
copyright by the author, the moment it is printed.
Which is one of those nuances of private property that I
don't expect a fuckhead like you to understand.
Understand that by calling you a fuckhead, I am inviting
you to have no further communication with me, because I
am so pissed off about your behavior.
Free yourself,
Jim
==================================================
Message-ID: <8fbe874a050523030849d04dca@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 06:08:16 -0400
From: "Bill St. Clair"
On 5/23/05, Jim Davidson
I'll interpret that as a request. As promised, I have removed the
contents at http://billstclair.com/blog/stories/marsprice.html. I
intend to post a link to that now-empty page in today's edition of my
weblog, which will hopefully cause it to disappear from Google's cache
sometime in the not-too-distant future.
> So, thanks for putting my words out where they can be lampooned.
> As I say, doing so has had a chilling effect on my participation
> in private discussion lists. I don't trust you with my words,
> so I won't post them to lists where I find you a member. Which
> pretty much makes you a fuckhead, in my lexicon.
Fuckhead, eh? Sticks and stones and all, but now I will post our
entire discussion to the smith2004-discuss list. I would have been
happy to not say another word about it. Had you truly accepted my
apology, you would also have left it at that.
Goodbye, sir.
-Bill St. Clair
