Making public a private correspondance

[Stanley A. Gorodenski]

The problem I see in publicly posting messages that were received
privately is not so much that one should not send something that one
would later regret.  Rather, a private message is most likely sent in a
different context, and thus could give an out of context impression that
is damaging if then subsequently posted publicly.  

Stan


> 
> Janet,
>    I have no problem with answering questions, providing data and
> generally helping. I do have problems with selective messages that
> cannot be aired in public. I believe that one should not send a
> message to someone that one would later regret. I am not in the gossip
> chains - I guess this is why. I believe in plain dealing. I am not a
> politician - I despise the usual ethics involved. I can be a diplomat
> when it does not involve political issues.
>    I don't really know what all the fuss was about. The communication
> was far less offensive than many I have seen on other lists. It was
> not labelled private!
>    The list referred to is -
>                                         leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> 
> - and I recommend it highly.
> .................Chris Durden
> 
> At 09:08 PM 6/13/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> > Chris,
> > Since I have not read any of the butterfly related articles in the
> > NYT I don't know anything about the discussion occurring on the
> > other discussion group.  I do know that although anyone can get into
> > your e-mail messages or listen to your cell calls, most people don't
> > do this.  Although anyone could open your mail and read it, it is
> > still not an accepted practice to do this.  I felt that it was
> > appropriate for Don to send his message to you off the list since
> > this type of discussion is not appropriate for posting on
> > Tex-butterflies.  He made the attempt to make his disagreement with
> > a private thing and you took it back into the public arena.  This,
> > as you can see, has opened the discussion to response from other
> > members.  I believe that you are correct in that Tex butterflies is
> > not the place to start and argument over collecting versus observing
> > only.  I only felt that you should have left your response to Don's
> > message to you off Tex butterflies.
> >
> > I hope that this will not cause bad feelings.  I have appreciated
> > reading your other messages to Tex butterflies, and I hope that if I
> > ever figure out how to set up a web page for posting some of my
> > pictures, that you would be willing to help me with ID problems or
> > other information.  I have only had a computer for 3 months, so I'm
> > new to this too.
> >
> > Janet Rathjen
> > Houston, TX
> > J_Rathjen at msn.com
> >
> >
> >      ----- Original Message -----
> >      From: Chris J. Durden
> >      Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:43 PM
> >      To: Janet Rathjen
> >      Subject: Re: Making public a private correspondance
> >
> >      Janet,
> >          I am sorry if you think I was out of line. I thought Don's
> >      message was
> >      harshly worded. I took the message to be criticism of my post.
> >      I do not
> >      believe in private criticism which feels like covert sniping. I
> >      really do
> >      not see anything in the message that would cause embarrassment
> >      to the
> >      writer unless he has a different kind of circle of friends and
> >      associates
> >      than I do. If someone sends me a message and requests that I
> >      keep it
> >      private, I honor that request. If someone sends me an e-mail
> >      message I know
> >      that anyone with moderate computer skills can read it if they
> >      want to.
> >      E-mail messages are not private any more than are cell phone
> >      conversations.
> >      When using these media one should be careful not to use
> >      language that would
> >      cause later regret!
> >          My post was merely an alert that we might be about to enter
> >      a
> >      collector/watch-only diatribe. I wanted to avoid this as that
> >      discussion
> >      has been going on ad-nauseam on leps-l, as a result of the NYT
> >      article.
> >          Am I missing something here? If I am please clue me in. I
> >      have only
> >      been a net and e-mail user for a little over 2 years now.
> >      ............Chris Durden
> >
> >      At 12:24 AM 6/13/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >      >Chris,
> >      >
> >      >If you feel you have to post this message to Tex Butterflies
> >      for all to
> >      >read, go ahead.  I felt you should know that private
> >      correspondence should
> >      >be kept private!  Don sent you that note off list to you
> >      personally and it
> >      >should have been kept off list.  You don't need to air your
> >      disagreements
> >      >with one person with everyone on the list, and you didn't need
> >      to
> >      >embarrass Don by posting his private message for everyone to
> >      read.  Please
> >      >keep the list messages about butterflies and not private
> >      business.
> >      >
> >      >Thanks,
> >      >
> >      >Janet Rathjen
> >      >Clear Lake City/Houston, TX
> >      >J_Rathjen at msn.com
> >
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------ For
> subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl