On Nov 29, 2007 4:09 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@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.