vision2020
Response to Gens Johnson
Gens, I think I'm a living example of the points you made in the message
you just sent. I am changing my opinion (a little) on the value of keeping
archives, because you're right, we can change our mind with time through
dialog, and yet someone could take a quote from any date in the archives
and try to hold us to it. But that brings up another point -- can anyone
quote from the archives if they attribute the quote to the person and date?
I know the newspaper folks subscribed have said they will only publish our
views if we send a copy to the paper as a letter to the editor. Sending
the copy is what puts it in the public record, not making the statement on
the list. I feel quite safe in posting to the list and knowing it won't be
published any place (or will it? am I being naive?)
I need more dialog on this. Maybe we are too quick when we look only at
the censorship issues. True, the archives are the history of the
development of our ideas, and they can be sorted by author so we can trace
that development. Is that enough to justify keeping them? Maybe. I still
lean toward keeping them, and I definitely feel if we keep some we keep
all, or we delete all, but my mind is now opening to other considerations.
Thanks for initiating a new thread.
Kathleen
At 09:39 PM 6/3/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>
>>Maybe I've got the wrong idea about what this list might be...I have been
>>hoping for a forum for people to test-ride their ideas with the benefit of
>>hearing from thoughtful people if there are more merits than problems with a
>>new way of looking at a local problem...but
>>
>>I see two problems with the list working this way with even the
>>re-configurations suggested. One problem is that for responsible
postings it
>>seems that we need to do away with anonominity, asking for personal
>>accountability by requiring a real name. Fine, by itself, but we are also,
>>through our archives, making all comments permanent and public. In a
>>conversation, people advance opinions, react to opinions offerd, and modify
>>their own stand. After some conversation, most no longer would stand my the
>>original opinion advanced without some modification.
>>
>>Any of my half-baked ideas which I would hope to refine through dialog on
the
>>list now appear as permanent and public record of "my opinion". I'm simply
>>not brave enough for this public history of the evolution of my thinking on
>>any particular topic.
>>
>>I stated when we considered the invitation to archive our correspondence
that
>>I felt it would inhibit commentary. I have certainly found that it has
>>inhibited me in contributing to the list. At the time, the comment was made
>>that it was foolish to think that any electronic correspondence was
private or
>>as ephemeral as the spoken word. I would certainly agree, but I still feel
>>considerably less exposed in a conversation on a listserv to which one must
>>subscribe in order to read, than on a web-page readable by anyone, anywhere.
>>
>>I am for eliminating the archives and requiring subscription to the list in
>>order to post to it, or to read it. There is something to be said for the
>>committment one makes to a list when one agrees to wade through all the
>>message headings that show up in one's mailbox (!). I also think there is a
>>certain hubris in thinking that what is posted on Vision2020 is so important
>>that it deserves to be read by everyone or anyone.
>>
>>I have patiently waded through all the messages posted here for the past
>>several years, and commented only when I felt I might add something to the
>>discussion. I also felt that other readers of the list would extend the
same
>>courtesy. But with so many of the good conversations apparently
continuing as
>>"private conversations", the spam, and the lack of "privacy" through
archiving
>>messages, I'm feeling a little frustrated.
>>
>>I truly believe that archiving messages on a publicly accessible web-site
is a
>>big source of the problems this list is having right now.
>>
>>Gens Johnson
>
>
>
>
Back to TOC