At 07:34 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote:
and this is cross posted here becuase?
Thanks for asking. The Vortex list is, in my opinion, a group of fairly
enlightened and aware group of individuals who have an interest in CMNS and
free speech.
Here's the background:
I do not have a problem with
Oh ! Beautiful, beautiful Texas( Vortex) , where the deer and the antelope
play...
where 'nary is heard , a discouraging word...
Richard
I appreciate all of the critical and thoughtful remarks make on this Vortex
list. It is a valuable resource.
Steve
I think this dispute is overblown, and kind of silly on both sides.
I see no harm in Krivit discussing leaked messages. The messages do
not seem particularly important and I can't imagine why they are
secret in the first place.
On the other hand, the CMNS people can set any rules they want,
Jed, I think you and Steve miss the main issue here. The discussions
held on CMNS are not secret, but are private. Suppose I invite a
group to my house to discuss cold fusion with the understanding that
the discussion would not be made public. Would it be right for an
uninvited person
Haiko Lietz wrote:
Non-public mailing lists are an obstruction of
free press? In Germany we have a code for different types of information:
1: You may use the given information naming the source.
2: You may use the given information without naming the source.
3: You may not use the given
Edmund Storms wrote:
Jed, I think you and Steve miss the main issue here. The discussions
held on CMNS are not secret, but are private. Suppose I invite a
group to my house to discuss cold fusion with the understanding that
the discussion would not be made public. Would it be right for an
So, if I understand you correctly, privacy has no rights in the US nor
on the internet. I'm not talking about secrets. This is a false
issue, a straw-man Steve created. I'm talking about being able to
discuss science without having to worry about whether parts of the
discussion will be
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this dispute is overblown, and kind of silly on both sides.
I see no harm in Krivit discussing leaked messages. The messages do not seem
particularly important and I can't imagine why they are secret in the first
There is not even a semblance of privacy on the internet, even in
so-called private groups. I suspect it is so stated in the Google
groups agreement. Every thing you have posted, site you have visited
and girl you have virtually fondled is traceable to you via your
unique ethernet identifier:
Edmund Storms wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, privacy has no rights in the US nor
on the internet.
No, I meant that as a practical matter, an Internet discussion group
is a lousy place to store secrets. This is like keeping your cash
money in a box on a busy street. Electronic
Terry Blanton wrote:
There is not even a semblance of privacy on the internet, even in
so-called private groups. . . .
It is soon to be so in all of reality. You can walk from one end of
London to the other and never leave big brother's eye today. Soon it
will be true everywhere.
Privacy
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:18:24 -0800
To: michael.mckubre-sri.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Freedom of Information and Open Science
Steve; you are obviously monitoring this thread through a second
agent. I would ask both of you to stop. In the event
and this is cross posted here becuase?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Steven Krivit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:18:24 -0800
To: michael.mckubre-sri.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Freedom of Information and Open Science
13 matches
Mail list logo
