[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[jayjg]

On Nov 29, 2007 3:41 PM, The Mangoe <the.mangoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, they're private. The words aren't synonyms.
>
> Private, however, implies secret-- or rather, that secrets are held
> within what is private. Otherwise, what's the point?

No, private implies not public. It's no secret what people do on the
toilet, but that doesn't mean they want anyone watching them do it.

Secret has a whole other implication, of cloak and dagger
skullduggery, illicit behavior, etc. That's why the word was
persistently and consistently used, especially by some of the main
conspiracy pushers. That's also why some others on this list were
careful to use the word private. Let's not play games here, we both
know that "private" and "secret" have different implications; it's
unseemly of you to pretend otherwise.