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