3.831 correctional remarks (76)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Tue, 5 Dec 89 20:07:59 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 831. Tuesday, 5 Dec 1989.
(1) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 17:43:38 EST (12 lines)
From: unhd!psc90!jdg@uunet.UU.NET (Dr. Joel Goldfield)
Subject: "Austria = Australia?"
(2) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 18:21:03 EST (6 lines)
From: unhd!psc90!jdg@uunet.UU.NET (Dr. Joel Goldfield)
Subject: "Recent chaotic submission"
(3) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 9:50 GMT (34 lines)
From: PARKINSON@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK
Subject: decorum
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 17:43:38 EST
From: unhd!psc90!jdg@uunet.UU.NET (Dr. Joel Goldfield)
Subject: "Austria = Australia?"
Wait! I'm confused. Did Stephen Clausing really want AustrALia after
all or have David Bantz and David Nash answered a different geographical
network question? I've been reading all about how to write to colleagues
in Australia, but read at the end of David's note about Stephen's relatives
or friends of relatives in Austria....
Just trying to keep things straight...,
Joel Goldfield, Plymouth State College
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------18----
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 18:21:03 EST
From: unhd!psc90!jdg@uunet.UU.NET (Dr. Joel Goldfield)
Subject: "Recent chaotic submission"
Didn't we read the same poem in 1988? I seem to recall a whole discussion
on amusing English pronunciation. --Joel Goldfield
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------46----
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 9:50 GMT
From: PARKINSON@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK
Subject: decorum
In the middle of a long session cleaning out my HUMANIST mailbox
(a veritable Augean stables of accumulated verbal diarrhoea)
I came across a spiteful note from one Roland Hutchinson
(PhD student in musicology, according to his biography)
which I cannot allow to pass without a smart slap over the wrists.
In the process of informing the readership that a colleague had used a
Mac to replay digitized speech and music at a musicology conference
(which is interesting but hardly world-shattering), he continued with a
gratuitous account of how the presentation was used as a "hatchet job on
the credibility" of the "pet project" of another musicologist, using
what purported to be extracts from broadcast interviews; the "poor man"
was apparently "hung out to dry with his own words". The project in
question was the reconstruction of Beethoven's Tenth Symphony, which
must rank as a major musicological event, whatever one's views on the
result. If it had not been important, it would not have generated the
media coverage which his assailant seems to have taken advantage of, in
what strikes me as a cynical and unscholarly fashion. I find two things
about this particularly reprehensible. Firstly that HUMANIST should be
used to broadcast slurs on un-named but recognisable third parties who
are not members and therefore cannot reply. Secondly, and more
importantly, that this kind of conference "paper" should be associated
with Humanities computing. It can hardly have escaped thinking
musicologists that the *real* research was done by traditional means,
while the computer fraternity could only manage a "very effective" piece
of journalism, and an ill-mannered one at that.
Stephen Parkinson
Taylor Institution
Oxford University