 |
 |
Dennis your reply is right on the mark as usual. I have set my "Message filters" to delete the incoming mail of about 15 people who constantly post things that are idle chatter or of no interest to me. As a result of my mail volume being considerably reduced and the percentage of interest (IMO) being greatly increased. If once in a while of of these people does post something of value (a rare occasion), I catch it in the replies of other people on the list. Bob Chapman Dennis Greene 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