Print

Print


>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]@mail.vjs.org
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:39:37 -0400
>To: marc Wolfe <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]> (by way of Marc Wolfe
><[log in to unmask]>)
>Subject: Re: Posts from a point of Anonymity (and the NFPA-232 issue)
>
>This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the RECMGMT-L
>list
>at LISTS.UFL.EDU.  If you  simply forward  it back  to the  list, using  a
>mail
>command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or
>consult
>the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be
>distributed and
>the explanations you  are now reading will be removed  automatically. If
>on the
>other hand you edit the contributions you  receive into a digest, you will
>have
>to remove this  paragraph manually. Finally, you should be  able to
>contact the
>author  of this  message by  using  the normal  "reply" function  of
>your  mail
>program.
>
>---------------- Message requiring your approval (116 lines)
>------------------
>Jim-
>
>While on many fronts I respect your opinion on issues, I must respectfully
>disagree with today's post.
>
>>In my opinion, anonymous posts are not helpful, from whatever direction
>>they come and for whatever reason the poster wishes to remain anonymous. We
>>have seen a number of threads on this list to that end, so I will not
>>repeat them now.
>
>To make a statement that "anonymous posts are not helpful", but not to
>explain why you assert that aside from to say "I will not repeat them now"
>doesn't really support your assertion.  I think the two recent anonymous
>posters speak anonymously for substantially different reasons.
>
>One, to avoid persecution; one to criticize the viewpoints of another
>individual.
>
>>The fact that this list has been forced into a moderated
>>mode clearly indicates the difficulties this can present to the entire
>>group - and particularly to individuals who are attacked by anonymous
>>persons. I seem to recall listserv instructions that prohibit personal
>>attacks whether the poster is anonymous, or not.
>
>I don't feel it was the anonymous posts that resulted in the moderation,
>but rather the signed post which included a specific epithet.  Only Marc
>and Susan can confirm this, but this one post, along with the heavy
>traffic associated with the NYC/WTC posts, were the biggest contributors
>to it in my view.
>
>>This list excels at
>>education and information exchange and hair-pulling and eye gouging have no
>>place here, in my opinion.
>
>I agree this List is an excellent source of education and information, and
>it was just that that Hugh was attempting to do in both cases- opening the
>door to discuss the NFPA issue and asking about what (if anything) we
>could do to help with the recovery efforts in NYC and possibly Washington, DC.
>
>>Regarding the NFPA 232 issues - I personally believe there have been some
>>exaggerations and I've known Hugh long enough to know he does that
>>sometimes when he gets excited. I have provided another point of view in
>>the past, but did not respond on this occasion due to travel and timing
>>issues.  URLs have already been posted for those who wish to explore the
>>subject further.
>
>This is true, but as one anonymous poster (ARMA099) indicated, simply
>viewing the NFPA site doesn't provide the information that Hugh was
>providing, and was attacked for.  I've known Hugh for quite awhile too,
>and while he does get excited, this is an issue we ALL need to get excited
>about.  You were there, you know what was posted was not a
>misrepresentation of the facts.
>
>>There are deadlines approaching for commenting on the
>>standard (October 5, I believe) and I have seen Bill Benedon already make
>>an appeal to those persons who are interested, soliciting their comments. I
>>would add my voice to his call, and encourage you to learn more about the
>>standard. While there are some differences of opinion over certain elements
>>of the standard, overall it is a very helpful document to those engaged in
>>information management. I am sure the committee will continue to work
>>diligently, cycle to cycle, to improve it.
>
>I hope they will as well.  And as long as non-voting members are aware of
>the content changes being proposed, and which members of the committee are
>making them, they will be able to make informed decisions.  And please
>don't misunderstand that comment, everyone on the committee has the right
>to their viewpoints, but many have specific interests they are promoting
>and speaking on behalf of.  And while there is a wide range of interests
>reflected on the committee, there are a limited number of records
>management professionals in the NFPA Committee on Record Protection.
>
>Hugh's other comment in the ROP on 232-11 regarding the makeup of the
>business entities that store records in the US is very important. The
>membership of this Listserv is reflective of his assertion that the vast
>majority of people storing records *are not* members of ARMA
>International, so who speaks for them?
>
>>Regarding Hugh's call for the industry to pitch in to gather documents and
>>information.....(snip)  Press reports
>>indicate that much of the dust you see swirling around lower Manhattan
>>contains asbestos. I am no scientist so perhaps others can contribute to
>>the discussion, but I believe these asbestos particles would likely adhere
>>to the paper documents - particularly if driven in by explosive force.That
>>would make at least a portion of the records contaminated.
>
>My understanding is particulate matter has been sampled since late Tuesday
>and there is no data to support the existence of dangerous levels of
>asbestos or other contaminants.  This facility was constructed in 1973, so
>it is unlikely that many asbestos containing materials were used in the
>construction of these facilities.
>
>>I am exploring the
>>cost and possible creation of "rapid response teams" for our association so
>>that we might take action quickly in the event of future natural
>>or man-made disasters. With better
>>planning and preparation, we may be able to play a role is assisting with
>>information preservation - even at a disaster site.
>
>I would hope you would include ARMA International in anything being done
>along these lines, especially the individuals working on the Vital Records
>Program in the Standards Development Committee.  While PRISM has some
>obvious interest in developing such a system of "rapid response teams", it
>is after all records and information preservation that you're talking
>about here, and that is the profession that ARMA International represents.
>
>>It has been difficult to contact various PRISM members in New York, but I
>>was pleased to see Michael Lenhard and Joe Germinario post yesterday. So
>>far as we have heard, there have been only two vehicles and no personnel
>>lost to commercial information management operations in New York. For that
>>we are thankful. For those not so fortunate we are making contributions
>>wherever suggested by the media.
>
>I join in your comments here, Jim.
>
>Larry
>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance