Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:58:55 -0400
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, C wrote:
> 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.
Sure. But if you are open and honest and *respectful* about it, you
shouldn't need to worry whether a certain person reads it. If you only
want a select few to know about the situation, then send the message
private email.
>
> 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.
Nope. All you need to do is search the archives.
Ione
-- Ione L. Smith, DVM -- Department of Comparative Medicine --
-- University of Tennessee, College of Veterinary Medicine --
==================================================
http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/SVME.html
The Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics
http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/ethics.html
for all sides of the AR/AW/anti-AR debate
http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~ilsmith/stereo.html
the stereotypical behaviors database
==================================================
I am always willing to learn, however I do not
always like to be taught. -- Winston Churchill
|
|
|