On Nov 29, 2007 4:09 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, jayjg wrote:
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.
Sitting on the toilet has no information content to keep secret, and thus
can be private without being secret. However, if something is being kept
private by hiding information, then it *is* secret.
So information can never be private, only secret?
Most people don't know
who's on the list,
And why should they?
what's discussed on the list,
The only way they could know *everything* that is discussed on the
list would be if they had a copy of every single e-mail. And if you
mean they don't know what *in general* is discussed there, I'm pretty
sure the scope of the list is on the enrollment page.
which five people agreed
with the block,
Hello, Relata Refero!!! You see, people are *still* claiming that the
list approved that block!
or even what the content of the email posted there
was.
Again, why do they need to? As pointed out before, the contents of the
letter are not necessarily all, or even some of the reasons Durova
blocked !!. The matter is before the Arbcom, she's resigned her admin
bit and apologized, and her private correspondence is frankly, none of
your business.