vision2020
Re: Response to Gens Johnson
I too have been rethinking my position on the archives, especially after what Gens
Johnson wrote. Unfortunately I have not come to any conclusions, but here are some
of my conflicting (and continously evolving) thoughts:
*I cannot handlekeeping all the posts I might be interested in, so I like the idea
that there is a centrally located archive where I can look up old messages or
follow threads I missed. I tend to be an information hound - there have been times
I could not find information I needed- and I have trouble with not being able to
find information that I did not save from vision 2020.
*I agree that such thoughts and comments usually are not the final word. And,
although I do think a lot about what I say, have I edidted it as much as I would
if I were sending it to the newspaper? I am not sure I have. I do not want to be
held to exactly what I said (or mis-said) in my post.
*I do think there is a value in discussing diverse opinions, and in allowing
ourselves and others to evolve in our opinions. Does having our posts on an
archive prevent this?
I am not sure. Thanks for the discussions.
Melodie
Kathleen Warren wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Melodie Armstrong
108 S. Howard
Moscow, ID 83843
arms@moscow.com
883-2668
Back to TOC