4.0403 Follow-ups: CP/M to DOS; Network Access; Sledd (3/95)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Wed, 22 Aug 90 15:29:06 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0403. Wednesday, 22 Aug 1990.
(1) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 10:16:34 CDT (20 lines)
From: Norman Hinton <SSUBIT12@UIUCVMD>
Subject: CPM to DOS
(2) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 21:06:32 EDT (11 lines)
From: John Unsworth <JMUEG@NCSUVM>
Subject: Re: 4.0397 Network Access for Colleges and Individuals
(3) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 12:00 PDT (64 lines)
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 4.0395 ... Jim Sledd
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 10:16:34 CDT
From: Norman Hinton <SSUBIT12@UIUCVMD>
Subject: CPM to DOS
Public Brand Software, a shareware firm in Indianapolis, has a disc for
CPM to DOS which allows you to read CPM discs on most PC machines and
clones and dowhatever you want with them. The disc does not include
EVERY CPM appkication, but the PBS catalog specifically mentions
"Kaypro 11/2/2x/4/10/Pro-8" models.
The disc costs $5. If you want to register it with its authors, there
is a further charge, explained on the disc itself.
It is PBS # UX13.1 . The address is Public Brand Software, P.O. Box
51315, Indianapolis, IN 46251, or you czn call 1-800-426-DISK and use
Master CArd or Visa. (there is also a $5 shipping charge.)
I know people are wary about shareware, but I have used quite a lot of
PBS software over the years, and they are quite reliable. They ship
the day after your order is received.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------18----
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 21:06:32 EDT
From: John Unsworth <JMUEG@NCSUVM>
Subject: Re: 4.0397 Network Access for Colleges and Individuals (4/156)
About David Sewell's remark that Compuserve can only handle mail up to
50,000 characters, it should be noted that this is a bureaucratic and not
a practical limitation: it applies only to individual customers, not to
corporate accounts. It might be a service to the general public for Compu-
serve subscribers to complain to the management about this limitation.
John Unsworth
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------214---
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 12:00 PDT
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 4.0395 Why "computers"; Jim Sledd (2/74)
To Clarence Brown: First to thank you for your simple, clear
explication of what it was you learned about poetry from Sledd. It is
a touching and poignant story. I like its truth. Second: to observe
how history and these times have boulversed, so to speak, the entire
weltanschauung of Sledd's and yours notion of the thing you are talking
about. Alas, today, not only the minority and ethnic will not be
condescended to because of their inferiority in respect of the origin of
their poetic words, but will demand that the poem itself can ONLY be
read an d understood as a text expressive of the social warfare
currently endemic here there and everywhere, almost, but not quite, not
yet, a situation Hobbes defined as our natural and orginal state. A
Black poem, a Chicano Poem, a Chicana Lelsbian poem exists to be read
ONLY as the projection of the (objectively defined) subjectivity of the
author. That this is being made a general principal of in tellectual
life (if not yet cultural life) may be deduced by any casual scanning
of the titles and short descriptions of the books being published by
almost all the University Presses these days, except the most
conservative and elite, say U Cal and Harvard. If you ask the young
new Ph.Ds if they believe the things they have written, many will
confess that they do not, I would guess, but have been of course coerced
and terrified into their theses topics, or have done them lemminglike,
because they need jobs. sometimes I think it is not serious endeavor;
sometimes I think it is mauvais fois; sometimes I think it is voulu;somet
imes I think it is practical and also fanatical and also
self-hypnotized; somet imes I think it is part of the unexamined life
adrift on the trends of the times; sometimes I think it cowardly;
sometimes I think it prudential. But always, always I think, it can
come to no good at all. But that is our brave new (academic) world.
Sometimes I wonder if that is one main reason today that we are
discounted as a serious enterprise by the powers (the scientists and
technologists) on our campuses. I can understand that; but it hard to
be condescended to by behavioral psychologists (pace BF Skinner, pace),
by political scientists, and worst of all by the law profs, the BusAd
profs, the sociologists, who are not so bad as they are simply usually
lacking language per se with which to communicate, apart from their
categories. Just consider the regard, anywhere, Harvard, etc.,and the
rest, that is extended to the Romance languages and the cultures and
histories they represent! But now I am getting into fouled waters. Far
from where I began. To return: when I discuss and read from the work of
a Gwendolyn Brooks, a Sterling Brown, an Al Lee, a Nikki Giovanni, in
the Am Poetry lecture course, and there are a few Black students there,
I am amused to see the anxious glances cast in their direction (from
behind them of course) by the other you ng students, who are what used
to be called Anglos, and are now in the latest Calif Statistical Survey
I filled out called "Euro-Americans." Even to read and discuss their
poems aloud, superficial explication and reference to social status and
origins and conditions, is to cause great fear that I may offend and miss
tep. We are heading for silences in the classroom. I plow ahead, since
the Blac ks and others are usually quite delighted to see such works in,
say, the Norton anthology! You may be aware of this where you are? I
think you would need to be in a place like UCLA to see the whole
picture before you...since our students represent the choicest of the
State's high school kids, the top 12%. But, the point behind this is,
that it is certainly today not poetry, but Negro, etc. poetry one
discourses on, and the same goes for fiction of course. It has its
positive side too, for the novel, say, because it is a popular form of
literature, unknown to the POETICS, and we can appreciate that Bernard
Malamud could not have written ROGER'S VERSION, and no Jew could have
written THE SCARLET LETTER, to say the least, or THE GOLDEN BOWL.
Enough of the obvious. What else is email good for? Kessler at UCLA