From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:26:27 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <17618@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
>(Ronald Bense) writes:

>You are only succeeding in explaining why people would WANT to see it,
>Ronald, not why they should be ALLOWED to see it. Just because people want
>something doesn't mean it should be allowed. That's a lynch-mob mentality.

I thought we already discussed the lynch-mob thing. You know, its where
a group of people have decided that a person is guilty (sometimes on
flimsy proof, sometimes not) and chase him down, tie a rope around his
neck and proceed to hang him from a tree. Showing a letter doesn't fit
into this category, although it did chastise Kevin a bit. BTW, if I
went to Susan's house and Kevin had sent this letter in written form,
would you have a problem with Susan showing it to me? If so, you're 
on another planet.


>>You never stated anything about the posted email, indicating you were
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Keegan please note
>>not morally outraged at this occurrance, giving implicit approval to
>>the post. However, you showed deep, moral outrage at Susan's post. Why?

If you'd taken this out of context, it might have supported your point.
However, your point is that you did not defend Kellmeyer's post, but
your rabid denunciation of Susan's post indicates that you implicitly
supported Kellmeyer's post, which can be considered a defense, in the
context that you're the one ranting and raving about people breaching
email confidence. (the only one, I might add, even welch didn't press
this issue) Further points to your hypocrisy follow.

>Oh, that's an easy one:

>        A) There was nothing particularly embarrassing or damaging about
>           Keegan's email (relatively speaking, of course)

Oh, so it's OK to post Keegan's email, which wasn't threatening/obscene,
but the explicit language of welch's email had to be kept quite, IYHO.
Sounds like a double standard to me.(read hypocrit)

>           some passing, unemotional references as article "intros", Keegan
>           hardly seemed to even NOTICE the fact that his mail had been posted
>           publically. In fact, at one point he criticized Kellmeyer for
>           keeping certain discussions private that, in Keegan's opinion,
>           should have been conducted publically (??). Sounds to me like tacit
>           acceptance, or, to use your term, "implicit approval"...

Keegan's acceptance has nothing to do with the fact that you accepted
the posting of private email. Now you say posting private email is wrong.
Period. What gives? Smells of hypocrisy to me.

>        C) Because of past email-confidence abuses, I think a good case could
>           be made that Keegan has forfeited his right to reciprocal email
>           confidence. For myself, I hold in confidence all email that Keegan
>           has ever sent me, but I would not necessarily hold third parties to
>           the same code of conduct wrt Keegan. You abuse it, you lose it!!

I'm sure Keegan would like to see this verified, and so would I before
I believe a word of what you say, regarding Keegan, Susan, and anybody
else you've been slamming (or attempting to in an annoyingly weak manner:)
over this innane subject that pretty much everyone else has dropped.

As for painting yourself into a corner, are your shoes covered yet?
Called for a ladder or helicopter yet? That's the funny thing about
being adamantly wrong evently you wind up in a corner and there is only
one conclusion to be made: OOOOPPPSSS!

Ron