> Obviously, a mailing list is not a court hearing. Imagine, if you would > a court hearing tanscript where the prosecutors words were all removed. > I don't mean a sealed case, but one tht is open for public revie. but > the prosecutors words have all been removed. > > Or, one where the name of a key witness has been changed. I don;t mean a > witness under the witness protection program, but say some doctor that > was called as an expert witness. However, the name has been changed. > > Now you have no idea what was going on, and no way to do research on the > people involved.
_no_ idea? _no_ way? > Some mailing lists are technical in nature (or at least charter) and > while sometimes heated personal debates go on, topics have a tendency of > coming back around. It is good to be able to point back and say ``this > was discussed alrady, the thread begins <here>.'' That kind of history, > that kind of reference is _ruined_ if a participant decides to have his > participation removed from the archives. Threads are not thourough, definitive discussions of an issue. Nor are they a complete transcript of all the discussions that took place among the thread-particpants. For example parallel off-list discussions. Nor does reading comprehension take place with out interpretation. Because of this, removal of content does not trigger a qualitative change in the thread, as the label "pristine" would imply. The thread does end up with less content. The thread may end up in a state where it takes more effort to get what one wants from it (or it may end up impossible). So what? Even with an unedited thread, getting what you want from it takes effort and is sometimes impossible. Best, Mike -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
