I am not sure that [delete] is the same as the law of two feet. Deleting a message erases it from the record, creating the impression that it never happened but does not mean that the absence of learning or contribution is occuring. A session participant cannot request his or her contributions to be excluded from the session record because they don't want it to be available to all.
Another issue will be the replies that contain the initial message. Are they also to be deleted because they contain something that someone does not wish to be archived? Does the whole conversation have to disappear to eliminate references to some contribution or other? That feels like space closing to me. There is a difference between saying things that we later regret, saying things that we intend for a limited audiance and saying things for the whole world to hear, I know. In the heat of the conversation I'm not sure any of us is realy clear as to who we intend our words for. It reminds us to be careful. I am also reminded of the injunction to be harmless in thought, word and deed. I am one of those who belive that our very thoughts have an energy that adds, for better or worse, to the global mind of humanity and that deletion or limitation of access makes no difference in the great scheme of things. Really hard choices are given to really good people. Well done one and all. Shay > I think of my online list serv communications on a par with verbal > communication. Things I post online are akin, in my thinking, to things I > say with my voice in face to face conversations. I do not control my > words > once they are verbalized and I do not control my thoughts/ideas once they > are posted. We can come up with many structures to attempt to control > how > our ideas/words/thoughts are interpreted by another. . . but no matter > what > structures we adopt, the mercurial quicksilver reality of ideas will > remain > ephemeral. Even if we privatize the archives of this list, something I do > not think we should do, we will not control the combustion of thinking or > the context of another person's use of our ideas. I don't quite think of > open space as a technology. . . I think of it as an explanation for how > things actually work, as opposed to the illusion that form and structure > could control the nature of reality. If open space is a good explanation > of > how things work then efforts to privatize thinking is, in the very big > picture, and in my humble opinion(IMHO), absolutely futile. > > Given my beliefs about the nature of reality and the relativity of time > and > space, I don't think it matters if the archives for this list are open or > closed BUT I have a suggestion. Would it be possible to give people the > ability to delete their posts? A delete function might give people a > different sense of safety on this list. . . and such a function would be, > IMHO, akin to the law of two feet. > > _________________________________________________________________ > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! > http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ > > * > * > ========================================================== > osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, > view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, > Visit: > > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html > * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html