This argument reflects an ongoing debate in political science over tranparency versus confidentiality in public office decision taking. Keeping of records and access to them is vital. To too much ''immediate'' access tends to lead to (a) people not being able to be open in a discussion without their words coming back to haunt them or being used outside wikipedia against them (if they were called on the list a rascist, a bigot, a homophobe, anti-semite, anti-catholic, any-woman, anti whatever) (b) playing to the gallery, ie., phoney positions being taken up simply for the impression they give if anyone does a google search on someone. Most organisations provide a space where full records are kept of discussions, debates, etc but where that information is not instantly available, providing a degree of confidentiality that allows things to be discussed fully and frankly without the worry that someone doing a google search discovering that 'x' was accused of such and such. I know I wanted to send a sensitive message to someone on wiki, but couldn't email them as they have no email account listed. I would hate to think, for example, that if Mav ever ran for public office, an opponent could do a google search under Mav's name, find that someone on the list in the heat of an argument once accused him of anti-semitism (and that is a ficticious example!) and use such a suggestion against him. I myself was accused of being like a holocaust denier here once. Luckily this email account doesn't give my real name, but if it did, that wild accusation could show up against me in a google search if for example in next year's Irish local elections I agreed to run for office as I have been asked. Or if ran in the next Irish general election in 2007. If there was the slightest chance that that wild claim or others could be found if someone did a google search under my real name, I would be gone from the list (and probably from wikipedia) like a shot. Communication on this list should only be available (a) through a carefully restricted means (eg, through being a contributor to wikipedia), not simply through a google search, and (b) perhaps with some time delay mechanism. There is, for example, a US Democratic Party political consultant called James Duffy, a soccer manager called James Duffy and a number of others. What happens if someone does a google search, finds attacks made on me under the name of this email account and presumes it was some other 'James Duffy', one with a public profile. That is why organisations 'always' provide restricted access to discussions such as those here, usually with a time delay mechanism. They universally find that unrestricted access blocks free discussion and prevents, not encourages, free speech. JT _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus