Mr Montgomery: As a Net denizen of some years' standing, and even more as a listowner (not of museum-l), I am somewhat taken aback by the tactics the Smithsonian is taking to compile its proposed directory. First: it should NOT be necessary for people to go to the lengths of concealing themselves on the lists to which they subscribe lest someone cull the listmember addresses for publication in a directory, as the Smithsonian is intent upon doing. Being an unconcealed listmember on any list implies nothing save that one does not object to other listmembers' being able to gather your name and address should they wish to pursue private communication, presumably of a professional nature or related to a list thread in which one has participated. Second: your assumption that silence equals assent is fallacious. It moreover seems based on the equally fallacious assumption that people read all the e-mail sent out on the lists to which they subscribe, on the day on which the postings are sent out. There are people on nomail; there are people on digest; there are people who have better things to do than to read every single message that comes into their e-mail postbox, who scan their subject headings and delete what does not interest them. Indeed, Mr Montgomery, until quite recently I was receiving the digest version of museum-l, where I was several weeks behind on my reading. It is now by sheerest chance that I did not delete your message from the new-mail folder on the basis of the subject line, that I did not cease reading it after the first paragraph. I am one of those who would not have known what you proposed to do, and would hence have been included unwillingly and unknowingly in the Smithsonian's directory. For any number of reasons, in short, you will be including listmembers who did not set conceal because they didn't know they needed to protect themselves, and members who did not protest because they didn't realize there was something *to* protest. Third: another fallacious assumption -- that all listmembers are museum professionals. I am a librarian with a strong interest in musea; once upon a time, I had entertained the possibility of a career in museum work. That is why *I* am on this list. I have no doubt whatever that there are others here in a similar position. The accuracy of this directory, by automatically including all listmembers from museum-l, would for that reason alone be suspect -- not the sort of thing your institution would want, I am certain. I am rather surprised that the Smithsonian would have its staff compile a directory by such means. Museum-L was, I thought, meant as a discussion list for people interested in musea, professionally or not. It never once occurred to me that the Smithsonian would use it as a hunting ground for its proposed directory in this fashion. I would not be at all surprised if listmembers finding themselves in your directory without their knowledge and consent will lodge a formal protest with your managing editor or with the head of the department in charge of your project. Mario Rups, henceforth concealed [log in to unmask]