... Let me present another view. Scholarship is not about vanity; it's about the ideas. Things that are relevant to an idea can come in many forms -- letters, songs, poems, conversations between spouses or a public speech. It could come from a diary or a movie. The trouble comes when we fail to be cognizant of the kind of source material that falls within our scholastic purview. What is said in an e-mail may not be the person's "considerate views" for a variety of reasons. We all know havoc that can come from the ease of the medium and from hip shooting in general. At the same time, we also know that relying only upon formally published material is too stuffy (formalistic). It betrays everything we know about the virtues of understanding premises and propositions by using historical context, biography, portrayal, social context and whatnot. And so, perhaps this is the answer: e-mails may indeed become scholarly relevant, but they only ever amount to a quick and cursory sort of thing. If someone were to cite to X's e-mailed position, it should never be regarded as his or her considerate view, without more, and it should always be dealt with by the person using it with qualification (apologetically). You should, in short, be able to apologetically use any e-mail, if it was truly relevant to the scholarly issue, and if, in text, you remind the reader of its inherent contingent value.
One other nothing. I hope we all agree that "aristocrat ethics" should be avoided at all cost. Surely no one would propose a veil of secrecy around their emails because of a concern for vanity or for club status. Sometimes I think we misunderstand what the true ethic is here: the pursuit of truth/perspective and the need for intellectual discourse. So long as you use the email apologetically -- recognizing its contingent status -- it's okay to use it if doing so is relevant. Sent from my iPad On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:21 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: I'm the moderator only for conlawprof, and Eugene may have a different suggestion for the religionlaw list, but may I strongly recommend that list posts not be quoted, and positions taken on the list not be attributed, without permission of the poster. I think that is a matter of courtesy, and it's also been our custom. No one can control what non-members may do with the archives, but we are a kind of community. The poster also may have made the point somewhere in print; if you ask, they could give you the reference to cite, which provides multiple benefits. Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
