 |
 |
hi all At 11:21 1999/08/06 -0500, darwin wrote: >I agree that private messages should be keep private. We all assume >the risk of receiving private correspondence since our e-mail address >is there for everyone to see, as it should be.... there was quite a bit of concern expressed about privacy when john cottingham first opened up his website with the most recent pd list messages on view on the world wide web as it turns out in the current situation our former list-member seems to be 'watching' the list and using it to gather info ammo and addresses which sits very uneasily with both barb and me but we have done nothing yet to address that concern if that site did not exist a disgruntled ex-listmember or any non-subscriber for that matter would not have had such an easy time doing what david has done >Some of it has been very good that I have received. I have >found the best way to respond to attacks is to totally ignore >it. I don't give the attacker the satisfaction of a response. >"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never >hurt me!" It's his or her problem, not mine. If we have this >attitude and don't go on the defensive every time we think >someone is messing with the chip on our shoulder (we all have >one or two), the world would be a much better place. Some people >just like to argue for the sake of arguing, but not being very >good at debate, they fall back on attacking the other debater... that is very good general advice, darwin, except that this list is not meant to be a 'public' forum for example no-one can obtain a list of members and their addresses except the owners someone who feels vulnerable and in pain and who comes here for support and solace at our open door invitation deserves a bit more assurance of privacy from the outside world don't you think? >I disagree that if I feel I have been attacked, then I have been >attacked. That assumes that I will always interpret the words in >the way intended, and all of you know that there are misunderstandings >and the same statement can mean one thing to one person and another >to another... i know, and i appreciate that there is definitely a feminist slant to my view on this subject based on rape and sexual harrassment issues in a situation like this i would hope that the 'three strikes' concept would narrow the field considerably, no? viz: if you write to me "whatever" and i write back and say stop it and you write to me again and i write back to you and say stop it again and you write to me again... at that point could we not agree that the sender is committing an offense regardless of the content of the "whatever" message? >It also assumes that we are always of sound mind, >but I won't go there! very very wise of you, i'm sure! janet those dishes just keep piling up janet paterson 52 now / 41 dx / 37 onset snail-mail: PO Box 171 Almonte Ontario K0A 1A0 Canada website: a new voice <http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/6263/> e-mail: <[log in to unmask]>