This is the letter sent to the UUCF-LIST on 16 May 1998. It contains, in reverse order:
This posting is Bruce Wheeler's posting, unedited except as follows:
From: "Bruce Wheeler"
To: "UUCF List"
Subject: RE: Private communication [was: your site (fwd)]
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 18:33:07 -0400
Mike, I'm saddened that you chose to ignore my specific request to keep our communication private. I note your subsequent declaration that you won't honor requests to discuss issues privately with equal sadness.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Berger
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 2:44 PM
To: UUCF List
Subject: RE: your site (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from Bruce Wheeler -----
From: "Bruce Wheeler"
To: "Michael D. Berger"
Subject: RE: your site (fwd)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 14:10:39 -0400
Hi, Mike. I've been struggling with whether I should send this note to you, but my feelings are too strong not too.
I can't for the life of me understand why you would forward Kurt's private note to the UUCF list. (If my assumption that you did not get Kurt's permission to forward his note is incorrect, please accept my apologies). I have visited your site and found what Kurt was referring to. I fully understand why you posted Maureen's letter. I fully agree that you have a perfect right to post it.
>From the tone of Kurt's e-mail, I can infer that he would like to discuss with you the wisdom of posting that letter in the context of the struggles within our community. In forwarding his note to the list, I didn't note any comment on your part. You obviously want the list members to form their own opinions. That's fine. Very UU. Very consistent with what I observed in my very short stay at your website. Unfortunately, for me, your posting of Kurt's note to the list comes across as a flame at Kurt. You may privately believe that Kurt wasn't really looking for a discussion of ideas. You may privately believe even that Kurt's note was a veiled attempt at censorship, given Carol's administrative position at the church. To the more casual observer, though, Kurt appears to have been soliciting a private discussion with you because he wanted to more fully understand your point of view before deciding whether or not he wanted to make his private views public.
Is it possible your intention was to expose Kurt's point of view to the community in the context of his candidacy for a seat on the board? If so, then you should have stated so in forwarding the note. Had you done so, along with specifically answering Kurt's question as to why you felt it was "really necessary to post Maureen's e-mail to the UUCF list", I wouldn't be writing this note to you now. In that context, I could easily be persuaded that Kurt was a public figure who shouldn't necessarily expect the courtesy which I believe you should have accorded him.
Before deciding to write you this note, I reviewed the Netiquette guidelines as you have them posted at your site. While I understand you do not agree that some of them belong in a UU discussion group, the ones I've noted below I can find no reason for you to disagree with, yet, in my opinion, you looked askance at them when forwarding this note (my comments --->):
--------- Begin Netiquette discussion ---------
Use a descriptive subject line as many people use the subject line to decide whether they want to read a message.
---> "your site (fwd)" is, at best, innocuous and uninformative
Act as you would prefer to be treated and honor the UU principles in all posts.
---> How would you feel if someone you sent a private message to decided to make it public without your permission?
Assumed that any information posted can and will bes copied and reused.
---> Implied here, in my opinion, is that private communications will remain private. (For the record, that is my expectation of this note. If you feel that posting this note to the list will be of general benefit to the community, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.)
Respect copyrighted material.
---> Though I am not a lawyer, I believe that private communications have implicit, though arguable, copyright protection. The declaration that the material is copyrighted only makes that protection explicit.
Reply directly to the person who wrote the message when you want to criticize, ask a personal question, ask something off the topic of the list, or when your message isn't of interest to the group,
---> As I said before, lacking any reference to his candidacy for a board seat, your forwarding of the note comes across as personally critical of Kurt.
Reply to the list ONLY when you want to make a point that contributes to the group discussion.
---> On its face, in my opinion, this does not contribute to group discussion.
This List is a public forum, not private or personal one. Flames are, by definition, personal responses, and as such belong on private e-mail.
---> 'nuff said.
-------------- End Netiquette discussion --------------------
I have a great deal of respect for you and Rosie, Mike. It's because of that respect that I felt compelled to write to you. If I have offended you, I apologize. It certainly wasn't my intent.
In friendship,
Bruce Wheeler
P.S. I haven't discussed this with Kurt, nor do I intend to. This is strictly coming from my personal concern that postings to the list have too often strayed from the open discussion of ideas to the discussion of the people behind the ideas. We can't heal unless people feel personally safe in openly airing their views.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Berger
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 9:25 AM
To: UUCF List
Subject: your site (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from Kurt /Carol Jensen -----
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 07:53:01 -0400
From: Kurt /Carol Jensen
To: Michael D. Berger
Subject: your site
Is it really neccessary to post Maureen's e-mail to the uucf list?
----- End of forwarded message from Kurt /Carol Jensen -----
--
Michael D. Berger