[Imc-unity] Repost of last posting
Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:50:06 -0700
works well for me.
----- Original Message -----
From: lesmarquis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Cayce Callaway <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Imc-unity] Repost of last posting
> In reference to Cayce's last post
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cayce Callaway [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001, 10:35 AM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: [Imc-unity] Repost of last posting
> > Sorry Sean, I've been operating at near burn-out mode for the past
> > weeks. But you're right, I think we can make this happen if we
> > That's a tricky question and I do remember us talking about it. I'm
> > inclined to think offering that respect to some while witholding it from
> > others is too agenda laden to be a part of our basic principles.
> I agree
> I would
> > veer from that viewpoint however, when talking about police in the line
> > duty. When they put themselves in the position of being public
> > and despite their most common behavior that is what they're supposed to
> > in my book, they give up their right to privacy.
> I agree
> > Actually I just had another thought on the last one (#3). What if
> > of listing the reasons and therefore limiting them, we say "All IMC's
> > respect the right of those who, for any reason, wish not to be
> > identified..."
> this is fine, but the rest of the statement goes into video/photos of
people in the IMC space, do we want to keep it that way or try to make it
more broad-spectrum; personally I say we leave it to the IMC space. Anything
else gets too complicated and too censorial. It can be a general
"understanding" amongst IMC's that we do not publish material incriminating
toward individuals, but as a written Principal of Unity...I don't think so.
> So, I'm saying what Cayce put up is looking pretty good unless any one
else may have a problem.
> Cheers, Sean
> imc-unity mailing list