In your haste to ventilate your wrath about Fred Baker's comments regarding the Amigos program, you mistakenly described the source of your distress as "a post by Fred Baker on the Cambridge Republican City Committee’s blog." Wrong! This was a PRIVATE communication sent by Fred to a small number of people who signed up for a PRIVATE email discussion list hosted by Google. Participation in this group is by invitation only. It was intended to foster discussion of local issues among ourselves.
When I set up the list a couple of weeks ago, I thought that its status as a closed, private list would prevent casual Googlers from reading the contents of these messages. Obviously, I was mistaken, and I therefore apologize for my small role in this sorry tale. Yesterday, I figured out how to shield these messages from the all-seeing Eye of Google, and that is why you discovered on July 14th that "it seems they have closed their blog [sic] to public view." Once again, it was NOT a "blog" to begin with.
I believe that you owe Mr. Baker a public apology for revealing the contents of a private communication. The polite thing to do when you receive a letter intended for someone else is to give it back to the postman for delivery to the right person. The same rule applies to electronic mail. The fact that you stumbling into Mr. Bakers's message while searching for something else does not absolve you of the necessity for civility and respect for privacy.
Michael Selva
Vice Chairman
Cambridge Republican City Committee
Mr. Jacquith -
In your haste to ventilate your wrath about Fred Baker's comments regarding the Amigos program, you mistakenly described the source of your distress as "a post by Fred Baker on the Cambridge Republican City Committee’s blog." Wrong! This was a PRIVATE communication sent by Fred to a small number of people who signed up for a PRIVATE email discussion list hosted by Google. Participation in this group is by invitation only. It was intended to foster discussion of local issues among ourselves.
When I set up the list a couple of weeks ago, I thought that its status as a closed, private list would prevent casual Googlers from reading the contents of these messages. Obviously, I was mistaken, and I therefore apologize for my small role in this sorry tale. Yesterday, I figured out how to shield these messages from the all-seeing Eye of Google, and that is why you discovered on July 14th that "it seems they have closed their blog [sic] to public view." Once again, it was NOT a "blog" to begin with.
I believe that you owe Mr. Baker a public apology for revealing the contents of a private communication. The polite thing to do when you receive a letter intended for someone else is to give it back to the postman for delivery to the right person. The same rule applies to electronic mail. The fact that you stumbling into Mr. Bakers's message while searching for something else does not absolve you of the necessity for civility and respect for privacy.
Michael Selva
Vice Chairman
Cambridge Republican City Committee