[78-L] Net privacy and integrity (was: The Christmas Songs)

[Kristjan Saag]

Thanks, Mike, for your effort to sort things out. Those were sensible words 
and I agree with most of them.
However, what we're talking about are really two kinds of integrity. The 
first one is the right for everyone to remain anonymous on the list. It 
could be George W Bush or Vera Lynn lurking, and they should be able to do 
so. But I agree: those who prefer to play that game should avoid being 
provocative. Confrontation is necessary sometimes, but an open fight is more 
honest than anonymous attacks. Fortunately those provocative lurkers tire 
quickly, and are easy to recognize. They've never worried me on this list.

The other type of integrity is a more delicate matter. It has to do with 
respect for other members' ideas and opinions, even their idiosyncracies and 
temperament. To some extent it's a family affair, as you say - especially 
for those of you who know each other personally. This gives a greater 
freedom to joke and jest, within limits as well.
I do appreciate this familiar tone on this list; that's one of the reasons 
I'm here since 1999. But even in a family I expect certain rules of 
conduct - etiquette, if you wish. One such thing is: never attribute 
opinions, thoughts, hidden motives to the other guy. It's up to him to 
express his views and thoughts and explain his motives. Just as it is for 
you to express your own. That's to respect integrity.
Another thing is: be careful to generalize from group belongings. All Irish 
aren't Catholics, all redhairs aren't Irish etc. It's up to the Irish  and 
redhairs to tell you what they are, just as you may or may not disclose your 
beliefs and hair colour. That's to respect integrity.
We all err in these matters, I'm afraid. When I do, please complain.
Kristjan

> Kristjan -- I am sorry if my comments have upset you.  As you know, we
> have a relationship on the list among most of us where we feel free to
> disclose a lot of info about what we do, what we have done, and what we
> think, both professionally and personally.   It does help that many of
> us know each other personally or have met, but even those of us who have
> not actually met are all welcome to be part of the 78-L Family, so to
> speak.  We know a lot about each other because many of us don't hold
> back.  Many years ago this list became more than just a simple Q&A
> service, but if someone just has a question they are more than welcome
> to ask it and get our answers and our help and advice.  Getting involved
> in discussions here generally means getting involved with us, because as
> has been discussed many times here, we are people, and we are more than
> just a living discography.  Maybe we occasionally go a little overboard,
> but we feel we are family, and family sometimes have widely divergent
> personalities.  I didn't realize my little "digs" would upset you.
>
>
> I do find interesting your mentioning of "net privacy and integrity" and
> then mentioning the use of our full names.  Many years ago, long before
> even I joined this list, it became traditional that we generally
> identify who we are.  When this specific subject came up on ARSC-List a
> couple of months ago it was agreed that since many of the members use
> that list professionally it should be expected that people identify
> themselves.  The 78-L is different, and there is a greater mixture of
> non-professionals in the membership, but looking thru the postings of
> the past month I see only three people who do not identify themselves
> with first and last names either in their "from" info, their email
> address, or their message signature, but I think that one of them did
> discuss their identity this summer when asked, and there was a political
> issue in his country.  (A couple of others have used fuller
> identifications in the past, like "Spats" just signs as "Earl" but
> EVERYBODY knows that this is Earl Oken!!)  I think that many of us
> believe that knowing who each other is, is our protection, but when
> someone who will not identify themselves just dives in and leaves a bomb
> and leaves, that lessons the security and integrity for the rest of us.
> They know who we are, but we do not know who they are.
>
>
> On the net (and in life) there are two levels of trust in people based
> on whether or not we know our identities.  When you look at commentaries
> and articles on the web on legitimate news sites, the articles and
> commentaries are signed by known persons.  We know who they are and what
> their background is.  But then below the article come an endless string
> of anonymous reactions and comments.  These people feel they can say any
> damn thing because they are anonymous.  I don't think we want that on
> the 78-L.  When reading those news sites I can judge what to consider
> from the article by the signed author, and I also know that the
> multitude of anomymous reactions are WORTHLESS.  This also tends to be
> true here.  Additionally, having our identities known is an insurance
> against being impersonated without detection.  On the blogs there are
> always trolls who falsely use the known handles of regular posters to
> stir up trouble.  We don't want that here.
>
>
> Again for newbies and lurkers, I am not talking about asking questions
> or seeking advice, but when diving into discussions I think we would
> really prefer knowing who we are conversing with.  Ron can help, but we
> don't want things to dissolve into that level.  Blogs prove that
> anonymous posters can sometimes feel brave enough to post anything, and
> it would be better for us that listers don't feel reckless.  Net
> privacy?  This list is somewhat like a clothing optional nudist colony.
> Now don't get me wrong, I do NOT wish to see any of you naked (well,
> maybe Andrea . . . ) but most of us are out in the open with our
> identity visible to all.  You can come in here without taking your suit
> off, but if you interact with us we eventually might get a little bummed
> out that we've shown you ours and you haven't shown us yours.  We
> haven't yet gone the extra step requiring nudity in disclosing your
> identity, but don't be surprised when we look upon with suspicion what
> you might have to hide.
>
> Again, my apology for upsetting Kristjan.  I hadn't realized it would.
>
>
> Mike (real name) Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [78-L] The Christmas Songs
> From: "Kristjan Saag" <saag at telia.com>
> Date: Sun, December 20, 2009 11:06 pm
> To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
>
> I wrote:
>>And I've co-arranged a Leroy Anderson 100 year memorial concert in
>>Gothenurg in January where the conductor was happy to exclude
>>"Sleigh Ride", just because nobody wants to hear Christmas Songs in
>>January.
> ---
> Mike Beal wrote:
>> Sounds like he was TALKED OUT of performing it, not that it was his idea
>> to not perform it. You were probably very persuasive and that his
>> happiness might have been more to end the discussion!
> ---
> I'd suggest you calm down a bit, before this gets out of hand.
> A couple of days ago you dubbed me a Christian, although I've never
> expressed any religious views on this list.
> Now you're telling me how a concert programme in Gothenburg was set,
> implying that I was overly persuasive etc.
> I admire your knowledge in matters of record collection, production,
> reproduction, cleaning, packaging, tasting, filing, playing and a
> thousand
> other aspects, and I guess we all do, including yourself. But that
> doesn't
> make you omnipotent. And it definitely doesn't put you in a position
> where
> you can throw around wild guesses about other persons' religious beliefs
> or
> conduct.
> That gets close to violating net privacy and integrity, which we all
> should
> be able to enjoy on this list. Including Tom, BTW, whose decision not to
>
> mention his second name is none of your business either.
> Kristjan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l