e-mail as evidence

[RACE ---]

interesting digest last night.

first, it seems to have some connections with previous threads about the
*necessity* of reading evidence in debates.  the analytical arguments
grounded from e-mails might not be acceptable if they aren't _EVIDENCE_.

second, primary research skills should be applauded.  Sometimes i wonder
how many students know what a footnote is.  cycnial crumudgeon comment.

third, the technology involved is exploding the traditional notions of
publishing and public domain.  Former Evanston Wildcat Ben Attias
teaches a graduate course which covers this and other interesting issues
at <http://www.vcsun.org/~battias/class/454/fall97/syl.html>  To put
collective heads in the sand will not eliminate the changing climate of
what constitutes publication.

fourth, case-by-case is an interesting notion --- but it seems to
require some sense of drawing lines.  The question of interpreting what
constitutes contextual violations is usually a case-by-case evaluation
and yet there is some community sentiment to inform or predict which
evidence is acceptable, which isn't and what consequences to accept from
various points along the path.

david rhaesa
salina, Kansas