From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 05:15:34 GMT

In article <18093@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>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. 

Which is an apt metaphor for what's happened to Welch, I'd say.

>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? 

Of course not, that's not a PUBLIC broadcasting.

>>>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, 

Whoa! Time out! There's a HUGE gap between "not denouncing" and 
"supporting". It's called "ambivalence" or "indifference". I never supported
Kellmeyer's actions, implicitly or otherwise. At WORST, I'm guilty of 
indifference.

>>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.

Precisely. The public posting of Keegan's mail was highly unlikely to 
provoke a mass emotional reaction. Posting it was much more forgiveable
than in the case of Welch's mail.

>Sounds like a double standard to me.(read hypocrit)

It's not a double standard. It is merely a wise consideration of the
EFFECTS of an action. The effects in the case of Keegan's mail were not
likely to be negative at all.

>>           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. 

You're playing fast and loose with your terms again. I never "accepted"
Kellmeyer's behavior. Kindly refrain from mischaracterizing my position.

>>        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, ...

He would be a fool to deny it.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion