Regarding:

<<Please accept our apology on behalf of the publications department of Interex....>>


and

<< This is a general (and sincere) apology to all members of the 3000-L....>>


your apologies are, at least by this listener, rejected and returned.

Just as I would refuse to accept the resignation of an employee (if I had any) who felt compelled to resign as punishment for a mistake made by another, I refuse to accept an apology from someone who has, as nearly as I can tell, done nothing wrong.

As best I can determine, the "crime" that so many appear to think was committed was that of having an opinion, and of expressing that opinion in strong terms. If there is culpability in that, we're all in big trouble.

However, it appears that there is, in fact, an apology due in this situation. Specifically, the person who intercepted or inadvertently received a misdirected copy of an obviously-private communication between two other individuals, and chose to make the contents of that private communication public without the knowledge, much less the permission, of the legitimate participants in that communication, owes those participants a *big* "I was wrong, and I'm sorry." In fact, s/he probably owes all of us an apology, for rude and unprofessional behavior in a public "place".

As to the content of the illegitimately-published item: was it ill-considered? Probably. Was it hot-headed? Definitely. Was it really some plan of action against an individual? Extremely unlikely. Was it private, and deserving of treatment as such by anyone and everyone who came in contact with it? You bet your ass.

Do I agree with what was said in the item? Nope. But, for some dozen years, I had the privilege of serving in an organization sworn "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies..." and so forth-you know the rest. One of the standard position statements we had went something like "Hey, buddy, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend, with my life if necessary, your right to say it." Obviously an improperly-repeated electronic mail item isn't quite a Constitutional crisis, but it's a matter of degree, not of kind. Your "right" (legal, ethical, emotional, whatever) to engage in private communication, and to express yourself freely within that framework, was violated. So why are you the "guilty" party?

I appreciate your intent; however, as far as I am concerned, an apology from you is neither required nor desired.

Steve