This is from a note on the list May 15:
>Many of you have had a lot to say about Mary Jane Gaughan's letter
>posted to the web site.
Then there is a reference to "America's Most Wanted" to "investigate
what was happening here in Moscow." I have searched the archives and saw no
previous
letters that "many of you" could refer to.
Who is Mary Jane Gaughan, and when and where was her letter posted to what
Website? There are no Gaughans listed in any of the towns, small or large,
in the community phonebook.
Up to the last month, Vision2020 has been real people who live in the
community, or past residents (than you, Kenton for your continued interest
and involvement), and if someone has had a really interesting or
controversial, or what we might feel is not informed, perspective that
might need further discussion, we have names of people we can call for a
meeting, give them other names or offices for resources to check, etc.
In short, we have been open in giving our full names and the addresses of
legitimate community isps.
Suddenly we get notes from obviously anonymous writers using .writeme.com
and .notme.com with "gussie" "cookie" (attached to jane@notme.com).
I'm wondering if I'm alone in feeling that no matter what right they have
to vent whatever agenda they have, with a justifiable cause or not, none of
us should feel we have to engage in discussion on their topic nor should we
tolerate being castigated for being apathetic or lukewarm. If they are
community members and have reason to remain anonymous they might at least
explain. Otherwise, to me, they could just be list surfers (and I've tried
enough lists to find that listsurfing and venting anger is a favorite past
time of a small number of verbal cyberfans). There are plenty of lists with
anonymous participants where topics are discussed in the abstract, and
anger is exchanged with incredible intensity. Correct me if I'm way off
base, but Vision2020 was started as a community forum and reason and
courtesy were implied (may even have been expressed) conditions for
participation. Action and follow-up were also implied, if not expressed,
expectations. For the most part, I think our discussions have followed
both conditions.
Kathleen Warren