Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unm-la.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!dspo!unm-la!jay From: jay@unm-la.UUCP Newsgroups: net.news,net.followup Subject: Re: Posting Correspondence Message-ID: <259@unm-la.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 13:01:02 EST Article-I.D.: unm-la.259 Posted: Thu Feb 28 13:01:02 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 02:57:44 EST References: <257@unm-la.UUCP> <286@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <162@dmsd.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Los Alamos Lines: 34 Xref: watmath net.news:3205 net.followup:4573 > To post an alternate view -- there is nothing any more "private" about > email correspondence than a direct posting. If you say something in a > "private" email message that you wouldn't say in a group of 100 strangers > you are crazy or don't realy believe what you say. It should be assumed > that the receiver has the RIGHT to summarize EMAIL replies to the net on > any topic. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I guess I should have been more specific (tr verbose) in my original question. If someone posts an article seeking responses, there is probably an implication that mailed responses will be summarized or quoted in a followup. I assume that, lacking a specific request by the sender to *not* do so, there is also an implied consent to such publication. Anyone disagree? That, however, isn't the question I intended to ask. I meant to ask about the publication of private correspondence from one individual to another which was not initiated by a public request for responses and, presumably, with no corresponding implication that the reply is intended for publication. > So - from my view point - if your uncomfortable with someone else hearing > any trash you put in some EMAIL message -- don't write it in the first place. > If you do feel strongly enough to write something -- then you had better > be PROUD of it if ends up public. In private correspondence, I often assume some common understanding of context between myself and the recipient. In broadcasting, my assumptions are likely to be quite different. In either case, I try to say what I mean in a way that will be understood by my audience. It's hard to do that when I don't know who the audience is. I like to know when I am in a room with 100 strangers. Pride isn't involved. -- Jay Plett {{ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax, lanl}!unm-la!jay