[KS] Re: quoting private messages

[Michael Goodwin]

Frank Hoffmann wrote:

> I just had an e-mail exchange about this issue with Michael Goodwin.
> In Mike's case I just liked some of his statements in his "English in
> Korea" posting, but I feel completely buffed that my short private
> message serves him as the introduction for another reply to Robinson's
> remark.

Oh boy! I'm genuinely sorry that Mr. Hoffman feels rebuffed. And if he
feels that I have somehow unfairly "linked" him to private
communications between Mr. Robinson and, I then I am sorry for that too!
It was not at all my intention. I can quite honestly say that I think
this now stands as the single largest misunderstanding to which I have
ever been a party!

There are at least two issues here --and they are getting confused I
think. I know I'm confused. (I've written to Mr.Hoffman about the one
issue which I now see he wishes to keep private. Though as I told him, I
still don't see why. But I do respect his, and every other members,
wishes. So I'll let this issue lie!)

The other issue then is this: I don't think my citing Mr. Robinson in my
review shows any lack of respect whatsoever. On the contrary, his
comments were sent by him freely to all of us on the list. On the basis
of what tortuous logic can that possibly mean they are private, off the
record, out of the bounds of serious discussion, intentionally casual
(i.e., not well informed), or any other such thing?

My understanding of the Korean Studies Review is this (and here I quote
Rob Provine whose words were passed on to me by Stephen Epstein when I
first expressed an interest in reviewing Mr. Alford's book): "The
audience is precisely the Korean Studies email discussion list, so
virtually everyone has a direct interest in Korean things, usually a
scholarly interest."

If this is so (and I assume Mr. Epstein is right) and the audience for
the Reviews is therefore composed of the same people who contribute to
the list, then how can citing a posting previously made to the list in a
review possibly be in any way objectionable? I'm sorry, I'm not trying
to be argumentative, I just don't get it! I think I explained very
clearly earlier exactly why and how I used Mr. Robinson's remarks.

Anyway, I think I'll let this second issue lie there! This has been
somewhat time consuming. Again though, let me emphasize that while I may
not agree with everyone's opinions, I certainly respect the rights of
all the members of the list. I feel badly that Mr. Hoffman has formed a
contrary impression. I apologize to him and say clearly again that I too
value privacy.

Mike Goodwin
(Toronto, CA & Greenville, NC)



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%