[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Anonymity
- To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (IPM Return requested) (Receipt notification requested)
- Subject: Anonymity
- From: Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
- Date: 11 Mar 1998 07:48:51 -0700
- Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
- Conversion: Allowed
- Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited
- Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
- Priority: normal
- Return-Receipt-To: Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>
- X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 ( 22 )
- X400-MTS-Identifier: [/c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; 04DBC3506A453273-mtaSNL]
- X400-Originator: rfweine@sandia.gov
- X400-Received: by mta mtaSNL in /c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; Relayed; 11 Mar 1998 07:48:51 -0700
- X400-Received: by /c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; Relayed; 11 Mar 1998 07:48:51 -0700
- X400-Recipients: non-disclosure;
I initially left this argument to others. However, although it seems
superficial and pretty tame, there is an unsettling issue. One or two
anonymous respondents on RADSAFE could potentially squelch the free
and open discussions that make RADSAFE so worthwhile (and thank you
Melissa, too). One really does like to know to whom one is speaking.
What if HPD is a journalist or runs a talk show? What if he or she is
related to, or a friend of, people who have made threatening phone
calls to me (yes, it has happened)?
I have revived some old associations through RADSAFE and also got some
new colleagues, and I appreciate the discussions, including the ones
where I don't know enough to join in. So, I would encourage anonymous
correspondents to identify themselves. I don't think RADSAFE should do
anything in this regard.
Clearly only my own opinion
Ruth F. Weiner
Transportation Systems Department
Sandia National Laboratories
505-844-4791
fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov