Anyone who takes the time to read all 1,100 words of Stevan's rejoinder
will be able to see the degree to which it depends on non-sequiturs and
non-responses.  These strike me as so obvious that there is no need for
me to waste SERIALST bandwidth with a point-by-point response.

However, I do want to respond, very briefly, to his most serious
distortion of what I said: by no means have I said anything that could
be construed (by a serious reader, anyway) as a call either to "narrow"
or to "empty" the definition of OA.  On the contrary: my whole objection
to Stevan's definition is that it's too narrow.  I also think it
essential that we recognize the fact that there is not yet any one
perfect definition accepted by all who have a stake in this issue.  To
make that observation is not to "empty" the term of meaning, but rather
to approach the term in a rational (rather than religious, not to say
fundamentalist) way.

----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand@unr.edu