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