I don't see any benefit from making the list public. If anyone wants to
contact subscribers to flownet, they can just broadcast the message via
In a sense, flownet is a newspaper comprised only of letters to the
editor, without an editor.
On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Let me clarify what I meant when I referred to "outing"- this was a poor
> choice of words and I did not mean to imply that people needed to be active
> participants on the flownet. I simply
> meant that I have over 100 email addresses of our mutual colleagues and
> wondered if they should be in the "public domain". I certainly do not
> want to discourage subscribers by making them feel exposed in anyway.
> I will refrain from publishing the list.
> On 20 Jan 1997, Joseph E.
> Zaweski wrote:
> > --- You wrote:
> > Is this something that should be shared? What are the benefits of the lurkers
> > being outed? What are the cons?
> > --- end of quoted material ---
> > I don't see any real benefit for listing all the subscribers. Some people may
> > just want to monitor the talk and may feel uncomfortable enough to unsubscribe
> > if we expected them to respond and they may be the people who truly benefit
> > from the talk sessions.
> > If someone wants to personally respond, they can always look up that person's
> > address under the header.
> > Joe
> Steven J. Knight BSc. RVT
> Vascular Diagnostic Laboratory
> Surgery Health Care Service
> Fletcher Allen Health Care
> 1 South Prospect Street
> Burlington, VT 05401
> (802) 656-8827
> In alliance with the University of Vermont