email correspondence

[Larkin O'Kane]

> Above what Elis writes about it being a past ruling, I think it might not
> be a bad thing that it is not considered official correspondance. I have
> seen many missives that were extemely reactionary that have been sent on
> the net (including my own at times) that if thought out would have been
> more constructive. People still have a tendancy to think of themselves
> as distanced from what they write and send on the net (though this is
> changing).


I agree Lorraine, if you are talking about group discussions like we 
have on the various lists. I don't think that we should necessarily 
condemn individual/personal email. There are problems with it, most 
certainly but there are problems with any means of communication. 
Even face to face communications are likely to be missunderstood. And 
I have had to appologize more than once for engaging mouth with brain 
in neutral. I am a lot less likely to do so when I have to type up 
the correspondence.  

Will you and Sir Kief be coming down to "A Day In Scotland" this 
weekend?  Ooops, you have "Defender of the Fort" this weekend. [How's 
that for getting in plugs for both events? <gr>]

Later,
Larkin
===
If you have a friend you trust well,    | Lord Larkin O'Kane
        go often to see him;            | Trelac, Ansteorra
for brush and high grass will overgrow  | Charlie Cain
        the road on which no one walks  | San Angelo, Texas, USA
-- Havamal                              | larkin at webstar.net