Dennis: An interesting and thought-provoking answer. This
Internet business has all sorts of nuances to it that I am
just beginning to comprehend. Words have the power to wound
and I try to be judicious in my use of them, but I tend to
jump in feet when I perceive injustice or abuse.
Which is not to say that all my perceptions are accurate,
but anything I have written/posted was done in the spirit
of veracity and done without malicious intent. Enough said.
Carole H.
--- Dennis Greene <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Carol,
>
> > Fair enough. One more question, and then I will cease
> and
> > desist. What is your opinion of 'going public' with
> abusive
> > E-mail? Carole H.
>
> This is not a question that lends itself to a brief
> answer - however I'll do
> my best to keep it short.
>
> In the first case many of the people complaining of
> having their private
> mail exposed to public scrutiny are not people I would
> normally think of as
> being abusive. However there is no doubt that on
> occasion truly abusive
> e-mails do arrive from whatever source and need to be
> dealt with.
>
> It seems to me that the correct response to abusive email
> is to set your
> mail options to not take messages from that sender. I
> find myself wondering
> why anyone would put up with receiving such offensive
> mail when the means
> exists to stop it arriving. Just what is the motive for
> 'going public' If
> it is to shame the person into desisting - a more
> efficient means exists as
> mentioned above - If it is to 'expose' the person to
> public scrutiny so that
> everyone can see 'what kind of person they are' this is
> 'tactics' aimed at
> gaining support from the list and the 'going public'
> should be seen in that
> light and judged accordingly.
>
> This 'exposing the bad guy' excuse has another facet to
> it. Some long while
> ago two people on a list I subscribe to had a public
> falling out. I happened
> to be on good terms with both and followed the
> disagreement with interest.
> One of the parties suddenly started to send out a series
> of off list emails
> addressed to some 20 or so listmembers in which they set
> about a systematic
> and vitriolic character assassination of the other party.
> If we accept that
> the bad guys must be publicly exposed then I would have
> been within my
> rights to reprint the letters. As it was I responded to
> the worst of them
> with a detailed counter argument and was promptly dropped
> from the list
> receiving the mails.
>
> The experience left me with a much reduced respect for
> the offending party
> and a somewhat jaundiced view of their public persona.
> What would have been
> gained by 'exposing' this person to the rest of the list
> - what could the
> full list membership achieve that setting my preferences
> to exclude that
> person could not achieve. Perhaps you could argue that
> the list has a right
> to know what its members are truly like - this is a
> dangerous argument - and
> one which Big Brother would surely agree with.
>
> Dennis
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
