[Peace-discuss] Public i article

[C. G. Estabrook]

Bob quotes accurately my recent message to Brian (cc to Bob), but he 
omits what went before.  (And his conflation of this matter with an 
unrelated issue at WEFT I can ascribe only to personal animus.)

AWARE was contacted on 3/12 by Brian Dolinar, who wrote, "We're planning 
an anti-war issue of the Public i for April ... Can anyone in AWARE 
contribute an article?"  I volunteered, and on 3/22 sent him an article 
with the following note: "Brian-- The article is appended.  I am happy 
to give publici permission to publish it as it stands or with cuts 
and/or changes approved by me. I would not want it published with cuts 
or changes that I haven't approved.  Regards, Carl"

Brian and I in fact discussed two rounds of cuts and changes, one 
substantial, and I sent him a final text with his proposed changes on 
3/23.  Two weeks later, I heard casually that Bob (not Brian) had cut 
out a paragraph about the Clinton administration that he didn't like.  I 
wrote to Brian to remind him of the conditions under which the piece had 
been submitted: "Brian-- ...I'm disturbed by a passing comment I heard 
about editing the current public i, for which you have a piece from me. 
  As I told you, I'm willing to have the piece published either as it 
stands (after the revisions I sent you) or with revisions approved by 
me, but not otherwise. I trust the casual comment I heard about 
unauthorized changes in the piece is mistaken. Regards, Carl"

Brian replied "I've passed your article over to Bob due to being so busy 
with police issues. Bob - please make contact with Carl @ article." 
There was no mention of the conditions and I did not hear from Bob, so I 
wrote to Brian (cc to Bob), "Fine, so long as he understands that the 
public i does not have permission to publish the piece with changes or 
excisions that I have not approved.  I take this matter seriously and 
will sue for damages an editor who violates the clear conditions under 
which I submitted the piece."

Regards, CGE


illyes at uiuc.edu wrote:
 > I didn't cc Carl's exact threat to the list last night. Here it is:
 >
 > "the public i does not have permission to publish the piece with
 > changes or excisions that I have not approved.  I take this matter
 > seriously and will sue for damages an  editor who violates the clear
 > conditions under which I submitted the  piece. --CGE"
 >
 > As I said yesterday, I think it Carl has submitted a fine article
 > except for one paragraph that needs some work. I've edited articles
 > that I disagree with (with isn't even the case with this article
 > overall) with no complaint from the author. This threat is sufficient
 > reason to reject the article, and an insult to the Public i editorial
 > process.
 >
 > I had hoped to talk to Carl at the Main Event yesterday, but didn't
 > see him. I now see that it would have been a waste of breath.
 >
 > I was with Randall and a bunch of supporters including Carl trying to
 > do something about Randall's banishment from WEFT. Carl's comments to
 > the board included a threat to sue! I cannot imagine how Carl thought
 > this would help Randall's case..... This is all too weird for words.
 >
 > Bob