On Oct 4, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Steven Krivit wrote:
Ed,
You would demonstrate your intention to communicate without
hostility by refraining from suggesting what you think I do or do
not understand.
Rather than continue a polemic with me, perhaps you would be so kind
as to explain to me your view as to why you think it is beneficial
for the CMNS list to be, by default, protected from the media?
First of all, the CMNS list is not protected from the media. The media
can, as I explained previously, learn of anything that is said. If a
reporter wants to publish anything, he can do this and we cannot stop
him. You, on the other hand are not the media and you are not any
ordinary reporter. You are trying to help the field. In addition, you
have important friendships and relationships in the field based on
trust and respect. When you propose to act like an ordinary reporter,
you damage that trust.
As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a
requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For
example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is
wrong without that information being made public. Such public
disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of
support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns
addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. On the
other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my
work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my
faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but
the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a
group provides.
But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but
you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its
flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross'
problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. An
ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad
range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other
hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a
small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced
approach.
I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm
being hostile. Normally, I would send this as a private response,
since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to
me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to
people who find this exchange unimportant.
Best regards,
Ed
Thanks,
Steve
At 12:06 PM 10/4/2008, you wrote:
Steve, let me make myself completely clear without any hostility
being
intended. The CMNS discussion is considered by the members to be
private. Although I and everyone involved agrees, there is no way
this
intention can be enforced, a fact about which you do not need to
remind us. In addition, the site is not closed to the press. Anyone,
yourself included, can join if they agree to the rules. The rule is
that nothing will be published without permission. You or anyone
could
seek permission and no doubt get such permission if they were trusted
by the person from whom permission was requested. In other words,
nothing is secret, nothing is being hidden, and the press can get
involved if they use a little common courtesy.
In your case, you say you will not abide by the rules, you resigned
from the group, and then had other people send you the discussion. In
addition, you insist that the group is attempting to interfere with
freedom of the press. This approach simply shows that you do not
understand the situation and want to continue a confrontation.
If instead, you had said that you understood the wish and need for
privacy, even though it is unenforceable, and would request
permission
to publish any of the discussion, then the issue would have
dissappeared and you would be welcomed into the discussion. No doubt,
most people would then give you permission to publish their
discussion. Ludwik has gotten permission on many occasions using this
approach.
I hope I made clear why you got the response you did. The issue has
nothing to do with any hostility or any lack of your support for the
CNMS community. The issue is ONLY about your stated attitude about
publishing the CMNS discussions without permission.
Regards,
Ed
On Oct 4, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Steven Krivit wrote:
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:33:29 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: Steven Krivit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
At 07:34 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote:
and this is cross posted here becuase....?
Thanks for asking. The Vortex list is, in my opinion, a group of
fairly enlightened and aware group of individuals who have an
interest in CMNS and free speech.
Here's the background:
I do not have a problem with McKubre and there is no message of his
at this time that is of interest for me to publish. This thread was
not initiated from anything to do with McKubre and I'm not sure why
he jumped into the thread with a call for tighter information
control.
I'm not sure why Storms has jumped in and is casting aspersions
about me. Storms' hostile statements are unfortunate and puzzling,
but that is another matter, the present matter has nothing to do
with McKubre and Storms.
This thread was initiated by a posting by Marissa Little to the
CMNS list, not McKubre.
I engaged with the Little's (Scott and Marissa) of Earthtech
International in response to information that they sent to the CMNS
community via the CMNS list. This thread had to do with their
"failure to verify" the excess heat claims of John Dash. I engaged
in a few message exchanges with the Little's copying Dash and
McKubre. I included McKubre because I consider him a world-
respected expert in calorimetry.
Haiko and Ed seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I have some
misplaced interest that is un-supportive of the CMNS community. No,
gentlemen, nothing could be further from the truth.
Your CMNS list confidentiality rule may give you the illusion of
privacy, but you do not have privacy. Your presumption of privacy
is a self-delusion, naiive, and dangerous. If you want privacy, a)
confirm the identification of all the members of your CMNS list and
b) set up nondisclosure agreements.
By closing the list from the press, you not only are sheltering
honest and supportive discussions from exposure, but are also
sheltering and harboring people with less-benevolent motives.
I appreciate all of the critical and thoughtful remarks make on
this Vortex list. It is a valuable resource.
Steve
