From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 17:50:45 GMT

In article <17618@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <29229@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan J
>>r) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar29.034742.25606@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag (Kevin Darcy) wr
>>ites:
>
>>>the full content of the message kevin refers to is available to
>>>anyone who would like to see it and who requests it via email.
>>>nowhere in that message is there any criticism of kellmeyer for
>>>posting.
>
>>But you did modify the noun "email" with the adjective "private", did you not?
>
>>Why is your email "private", but Welch's isn't?
>
>It is. Just because anyone (everyone except you and welch) supported
>its posting, does not make it not private. The content, however, made
>its disclosure a neccesity. Being told that something occurred, say
>an accident, is not the same as seeing it, except that most people don't
>recreate an accident :). 

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.

>The email could easily be shown, and it allowed
>everyone to make their unbiased opinion about it, whereas being told
>about it would allow Welch to defend himself by saying that she misinterpreted
>his meaning, etc.

You are arguing completely counter to historical fact, Ronald. The contents
of the email *WAS* described in general terms prior to the verbatim posting,
and I don't recall seeing Welch claim "misinterpretation". This hypothetical
scenario over which you are expressing so much concern and Angst therefore 
*was* a definite possibility within a certain time frame BUT NEVER ACTUALLY 
CAME TO PASS. I'd rather deal with realities than possibilities, thank you 
very much, and the reality is that Susan breached email confidence.

>[...] email post, etc.
>
>>Please point out the part where I supposedly defended Kellmeyer's
>>confidence-breach (?). You've completely lost it this time, Jimmy.
>
>>                                                                - Kevin
>
>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?

Oh, that's an easy one:

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

	B) Other than a reference to email privacy in one Subject: line, and 
	   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"...

	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!!

								- Kevin