Re: Response to Gens Johnson

[Bill London <london@wsu.edu>]

KW et al--
	regarding quoting 2020 posts in print by local newspaper reporters....
	I do NOT assume that my statements will not be used in print...
	To restate without the double negative.  I think that your statements
might be printed in the newspaper without you giving your explicit permission.
	Case in point--(possibly, anyway)....Rebecca Huntington wrote a very
insightful article on Vision 2020 and the censorship issues we have been
wrestling with (appeared in Thursday 6/4/98 Lewiston Morning Tribune).  She
quoted a posting from John Teeter, and I assume did not reach him for
permission.....
	Like using a community bulletin board, or soap box, once you say it, I
don't see how you can control it.
	BL




At 10:03 PM 6/3/98 -0800, you 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>