All the notes of caution are legitimate.

Nonetheless, I feel that the proponents of review by owners are still
not considering the ramifications of real life and real people.  They
are assuming that a subscriber caught in an embarrassing situation has
posted something inappropriate.  But a list often functions as a way
to solve problems and make inquiries.  A person can describe a specific
situation (without naming people or places), yet that situation could
be recognized simply because another subscriber happens to know the
individual making the post.

Yes, someome could pull it up from archives, etc.  There are risks in
every action we take.  But as a subscriber, do I not have a need to be
able to assess those risks for myself?

Ask yourselves:  If you were interested in a list and every person on
that list were subscribed under "conceal," would you have serious qualms
about joining the list?   In "review=owner" aren't you imposing a "conceal"
on each and every person?

And what about "scan?"  Review=owner eliminates the scan option.  A
scientist posts something about bioremediation and a few weeks later
I read something which connects.  I can't remember his whole email
address, but remember a snatch.  So I scan the list so that I can
contact him about it.  I can no longer do that, so must send the info
to the entire list if it is to get to him - assuming he is still sub-
scribed (which I cannot know).  If he is not still subscribed, I have
wasted my effort.

All I'm saying is that there are aspects to review=owner which ought
to be given serious consideration.

                                  Trista