U2 wrote:
I can't seem to find Gary's initial letter to Dale on the board. I hope this wasn't a public disclosure of a private email to score political points. Can someone point me to Gary's post to Dale so it all makes sense. Thanks, steve
Oh, please. Poor "Gary" has been outed! Now everyone know what "Gary" wrote to Dale. Poor "Gary"! Let's all go over to Gary's house and give him a hard time...if we can figure out which "Gary" of the million or so there are in the world. It must be the one who plays the whistle and doesn't like socialists!
U2 wrote:
Is that posted? I'm really trying to find out if a private email was distributed to the board. Seems personal interaction has a few expectations, even today.
If I send an angry letter to John Leo of US News, and he prints the thing in his colum as a letter from "Scott in New Jersey," has my privacy been violated at all? No.
If you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper, you shouldn't be surprised to see it printed. That's the point of sending a letter to the editor. If the editor doesn't use your full name (e.g., "Gary," or "Mike from Indiana",) then you shouldn't even expect the paper to contact you at all before printing it.
U2 wrote:
Is that posted? I'm really trying to find out if a private email was distributed to the board. Seems personal interaction has a few expectations, even today.
If I send an angry letter to John Leo of US News, and he prints the thing in his colum as a letter from "Scott in New Jersey," has my privacy been violated at all? No.
If you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper, you shouldn't be surprised to see it printed. That's the point of sending a letter to the editor. If the editor doesn't use your full name (e.g., "Gary," or "Mike from Indiana",) then you shouldn't even expect the paper to contact you at all before printing it. Caj
Good general point Caj, I was uncertain regarding the expectation angle and asked a simple question I thought was clear. I also thought it was appropriate. The editor of US News and World Report was your choice for a comparative? Interesting analogy, seems to really raise the bar for board standards. It wasn't immediately apparent to me that Gary intended his letter be posted to the board. Seems that if he intended that, he would have posted it to the board. That still appears the case. Just asking a question, it wasn't asked out of spite, but I have an answer. best steve
Excuse me if I don't see the problem. It's not like "Gary" expressed something private - (s)he was talking politics. It isn't even like the expressed sentiments are unheard - just try walking down a city street.
If you send an email, how many times have you seen it forwarded to everyone in some ones mailing list.
To me, this is much ado about very little.
And someone would have to be pretty uptight to be embarrassed by being a Republican – or is that just a Texas take on the thing?
Any email sent to me is MINE to do with as I choose. . .including post it on my front lawn, repost it to a public board, or shout it from the the heights.
Now would someone PLEASE send me the glowing commendations I so deserve?
Remember, you didn't get the tiger so it would do what you wanted. You got the tiger to see what it wanted to do. -- Colin McEnroe
don wrote:If you send an email, how many times have you seen it forwarded to everyone in some ones mailing list.
To me, this is much ado about very little.
And someone would have to be pretty uptight to be embarrassed by being a Republican – or is that just a Texas take on the thing?
The wide distribution of private email is really the point I was asking about. Sorry you didn't get that. Thanks for weighing in, even though you don't get the point, and even though it's over something so minor. That means a lot to me. :roll: I didn't give a rat's ass about the political affiliation of the poster. That was someone else's concern. And I don't think it's "just a Texas take on the thing." That's something only Texans would consider.
My own feeling is that it's best to err
on the side of treating e mail messages to
me as private--unless it's absolutely plain
that the sender would have no objection.
I suppose that if I were
the editor of some newspaper it might
be different. Best
U2 wrote:Can someone point me to where Gary initially posted this to the board? Dale? You didn't. Did you?
U2 wrote:Is that posted? I'm really trying to find out if a private email was distributed to the board. Seems personal interaction has a few expectations, even today.
U2 wrote:Good general point Caj, I was uncertain regarding the expectation angle and asked a simple question I thought was clear. ... Just asking a question, it wasn't asked out of spite, but I have an answer. best steve
Aaaahhhh! Dissonance!
P.S.
Dale, please don't publish that email I sent you. It was a joke. I wouldn't even think of doing that with a gerbil. Honest.
U2 wrote:Can someone point me to where Gary initially posted this to the board? Dale? You didn't. Did you?
U2 wrote:Is that posted? I'm really trying to find out if a private email was distributed to the board. Seems personal interaction has a few expectations, even today.
U2 wrote:Good general point Caj, I was uncertain regarding the expectation angle and asked a simple question I thought was clear. ... Just asking a question, it wasn't asked out of spite, but I have an answer. best steve
Aaaahhhh! Dissonance!
Bloomfield wrote:
U2 wrote:Cleverly put Bloom. Do you think there is, and/or should be an expectation that emails exchanged between two individuals are private?
Yes and/or no.
Bloom - I knew you'd appreciate dissonance if anyone would.
jim stone wrote:My own feeling is that it's best to err
on the side of treating e mail messages to
me as private--unless it's absolutely plain
that the sender would have no objection.
I suppose that if I were
the editor of some newspaper it might
be different. Best
I agree Jim. That's why I started out asking a question. It's yet to be directly answered, but I have an email to Dale. It will be posted shortly.
Last edited by U2 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
