<div> </div>
<div>All-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am inclined to think Garrett should not have posted Steed's private response after Mr. Steed wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I purposefully deleted V2020<br>because, as a policy, I do not respond to it. I try<br>to respond promptly at all e-mails sent directly to me<br>by individuals (please do not incite V2020 to start<br>sending everything to me as I will have to stop all<br>
responses).</div>
<div>-------------</div>
<div>This indicates clearly that Mr. Steed knew Garrett might post his response to the list, and asked him not to. But I disagree with Mr. Steeds decision, and the obvious avoidance of Vision2020 by many public officials, to refuse to engage in dialog on Vision2020. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 11, 2008 5:20 PM, Chasuk <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Feb 11, 2008 5:05 PM, Craine Kit <<a href="mailto:kcraine@verizon.net">kcraine@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Flame me if you want, but as far as I'm concerned posting private<br>> emails on any public list is no different than secretly recording a<br>
> private conversation then broadcasting it on the radio. It may be<br>> legal, but it is not right. Ethics is proper behavior without<br>> government interference.<br><br></div>You are right, of course, except that Mr. Steed's words seem to<br>
indicate that he is at least aware of Garrett's actions (i.e., he<br>seems aware that Garrett is publicly posting their private<br>correspondence). That, and this is a public servant writing about a<br>public matter, with nothing pesonal divulged, which does, on<br>
reflection, make me a bit ambivalent.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br>Chas<br><br></div></div></blockquote></div>