TAXACOM Digest - 12 Mar 1996 to 13 Mar 1996

[Joe Laferriere]

> Date:    Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:47:34 +0000
> From:    Julian Humphries <jmh3 at CORNELL.EDU>

> > From:          Joe Laferriere <josephl at CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>
> >
> > He said "change," and I should have used the same word in my own message.
> > My whole point is that change is inevitable, but progress is not. The
> > underlying assumptions behind all the proposals I've seen is either that
> > everything will stay the same as it is now or that it will continue to
> > make the kind of progress we have seen over the last few decades. The
> > former is impossible, the latter possible but not inevitable.
> >
>
> But the point is your message missed the point and nothing you say
> above impacts on Jim's or Peter's statements.  You may not like it,
> you may not call it progress, but change, as you say, is inevitable
> and our profession has dealt poorly with change in the past and seems
> to continue to do so today.  Was getting rid of the "fireman" on
> trains progress?  I don't know, but I do know the job is gone.
>
> Nothing about any of the arguments relevant to electronic publication
> depends on "progress" as much as they do on a shift toward electronic
> forms of communication (good or bad) in all aspects of life.  The
> point of all of your arguments against our own communication
> methodology moving forward are moot unless you believe there is no
> risk in counting on the collapse of civilization.  *Relying* on no
> change (or progress or whatever) seems a most foolhardy strategy.
>
from Joe Laferriere

Boy, did you ever misunderstand my previous postings. I agree with your
last statement wholeheartedly, and am baffled as to why you think I would
disagree with it. My entire point is that yes, chanage is inevable, but
unpredictable. We should not rely on blind faith that the information we
are producing is so valuable that somebody somewhere will inevitably
preserve it and make sure it continues to be accessible. Rather, we must
take steps to ensure that thus will in fact be the case. I support the
comments made yesterday by Sharkov, Yanega, and especially Clark about
the need to make safeguards before plunging blindly into uncharted
waters. The is not at all the same as saying one should not proceed. Yes,
we should proceed, but wisely, so our descendants 100 years from now will
not curse us as foolhardy. This is what I have been saying all along.