You wrote: I received a direct e-mail from one of the museum-l readers
who indeed called the individual and tried to assess if he was ok and
in a safe surroundings.  She decided he was safe and as ok as he could
be (as far as she could tell.)  I am grateful that she did that and
will try to be as brave should such a distress call happen in the
future.  How lucky for all of us that someone (without personal
fanfare) reached out to make sure a stranger on our list was safe.  e--
>
>>Last week we all got a very long e-mail from a troubled human being
and
>>I have been troubled by it ever since.  I did nothing about the
e:mail.
>> No reaching out to the individual, no calling for help for him by
>>caregivers who might have been better providers for him nor any
>>discussion with my museum-l neighbors until now.
>
>>What is our individual or collective responsibility when someone
>>appears on the screen who is in personal distress or (as in this
case)
>>so far away from the norms of human behavior?  Do we have some
>>responsibility or since they write in such a way as not to invite
>>comment, do we ignore?
>
>>I remain troubled but without any helpful answers for my own personal
>>responsibility to this person and wonder what others thought, worried
>>about and maybe even did.
>
>>Please let us all know.
>
>>Elaine Heumann Gurian
>>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>Could be that many, including myself, glanced at the message and moved
on.
>Most of us have trained ourselves to move through our messages quickly
and
>immediately respond to them or stash only those pertinent to our
>professional and vocational needs.   For me it's hard enough to read,
>evaluate, and prioritize messages every day when on any given morning
I
>might have well over a hundred waiting for me.  I have to do the best
I
>can.
>
>Frankly, I don't even remember the particular message in question.  It
>might seem insensitive on my part, but for all I know I could have
glanced
>at it and sent it right to the trash.  It's no longer in my "in" box
>anyway.  It apparently received a low priority.  I usually don't read
>through lengthy messages unless I can somehow find the information
somewhat
>useful.  With this in mind, it's easy to understand why few if any
>responded to the message.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Henry B. Crawford                                       v
>Curator of History                                       v
>Museum of Texas Tech University               v
>Box 43191                                                   v
>Lubbock, TX  79409-3191                         v
>806/742-2442                                          v
>FAX 742-1136                                            v
>[log in to unmask]                                     V
>All opinions expressed are mine                   v
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>