5 ms·

Thanks for responding with that clarification. I'd like to clarify, in turn, that my original post was intended more as observation than accusation. No maliciou

by prvc 6y ago

Thanks for responding with that clarification. I'd like to clarify, in turn, that my original post was intended more as observation than accusation. No malicious intent imputed! One thing I would like to add, that I think we would both agree on, is that regardless of everyone's exact motivations and the actual causal chain of events, the post is still, de facto, part of the miasma of publicity for the series. Anyway, I appreciate your work, and that of archive.org.

textfiles 6y ago
I think there's been a discussed theory that if something gets public attention, and people respond to it, even if they're not intending to, that they're contributing to the promotion of that item. That goes back many decades. I don't mind that discussion but I definitely don't want people thinking in any way we got money to write the entry; we simply put into a formal entry that we've had this for a while. A popular awareness of something we do helps a non-profit, so we'll clarify the context of it. I think we're both in agreement the more people know of our work, the better.
- prvc 6y ago
  >I definitely don't want people thinking in any way we got money to write the entry Certainly; archive.org has been singularly beyond reproach in that regard.