|
922. ChristiPeters - 2/22/2000 5:39:24 AM clarification - "I have talked about my daughter - that makes it open info"
It is open info that I have a girl child and that I am her Mom - general stuff, not specific stuff, certainly not ANY personal info (specific or not) that I have not revealed HERE in The Mote. 923. Seguine - 2/22/2000 5:40:08 AM "I also don't see why you think that the present situation is so difficult to "ride herd" on. We've only had a very few privacy violations, and there haven't been any situations of unusual abuse that I remember."
Ah. You'll have to forgive me, then, if I entrust the memory--and the interpretation--of "unusual abuse" to others.
924. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:40:15 AM
Ban PelleNilsson
In your heart, you know it's the right thing to do.
Paid for by the Committee to Keep Godless Boozing Foreigners away from Decent American Citizens 925. Seguine - 2/22/2000 5:40:46 AM With each of your objections you clarify the need for a barrier to the use of personal information as I've specified. For instance:
"Your policy gives people a pass to release what personal information they want, and then complain when it isn't used to the purpose they intended."
Given that quite a lot of information has been released in this group over the last several years, under a wide variety of circumstances not always under the control of the people to whom it pertains; given that new members, who don't know this info, are nominally invited to participate, and that us pissing on each others' personal data signals a distinctly out-of-control, excessively personal hostile environment; given that whole threads exist in which people expect to be able to trade personal info on a friendly basis; given that an enjoinder against abuse ALREADY EXISTS; why in heaven's name shouldn't people have a right to complain about using personal info to insult, harass, abuse?
I simply think such complaints should be accorded legitimacy at the outset, in the RoE, as a means of limiting their necessity. By your interpretation, the right to scour Home and Garden for personal details, to be used nastily later on, should be enshrined as a right.
926. Seguine - 2/22/2000 5:41:11 AM Look at it this way: you revere the right to certain kinds of nods to privacy. You know very well, as do we all, that our rl ids and other identifying info CAN be located offsite, surmised, gossiped about and discovered by other means. But using that info in this forum is prohibited. I could argue as Jay has, that anonymity is an illusion, or as A-5 has, that to the extent it isn't an illusion it can be hidden behind to cause strife. But I don't: I grant you (and others here who also want it) your nod to "privacy". It doesn't matter whether I think you "deserve" the right. Likewise, it matters not one iota whether you think a hypothetical Cig "deserves" to be free of jibes about his illness. What matters is what promotes the interests of the forum while maintaining room for heated debate. I believe my proposal does this. Your interpretive latitude re the current rules, I believe, shortchanges the forum. And I would note this: Cazart firmly agrees with you.
Don't you think it's time for slightly higher standards than Cazart prefers?
927. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 5:43:52 AM Message # 924
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!! 928. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:45:19 AM Christi,
Thanks, that's what I thought you meant. I agree with your position. 929. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:46:14 AM Ace,
That's pretty funny. 930. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:49:38 AM
Famous Foreigner Roberto Benigni says:
"Ban thees disgusting sodomaniacal Swedish person already. Ace's posts warm de heart of this old Italian stereotype. Let us ban dis Pelle pezzanovante, and then let us burn his house down and sell his seester into white slavery."
In your heart, you know it's the right thing to do.
931. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 5:53:01 AM Ace
Uncle! You are better at this game. I still have your Insult Primer on my disk and I wait for an opportunity to publish it. Which is of course another invasion of your privacy.
Ban Ace!! He has hurt my delicate Herringista feelings. He has heaped abuse on me. He has employed ethnic slurs. Please help me! 932. Seguine - 2/22/2000 5:54:02 AM Ace, as usual, you mislead others as to what I have said.
"If you're not going to get "exercised" when such "personal information" is used to "attack" Niner, Cal, and I, when *will* you become exercised? Only when such information is used to attack yourself or people you have greater empathy for?"
See my response to Dantheman in Message # 892:
DMan: "To take another example which occurred some time ago, in the middle of a discussion with Ace, I told him to go back to abusing plaintiffs. That can be taken as insulting (and was meant to be), and was based on information posted suggesting that he is an insurance defense lawyer. Would it be permitted under your rule?"
"Sadly, no. But I trust you'd be capable of exacting as much pain without announcing what he does for a living."
933. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:54:22 AM By your interpretation, the right to scour Home and Garden for personal details, to be used nastily later on, should be enshrined as a right.
Um. Yeah. If someone wants to, that's what it means. If you don't want people using information against you, then don't post it online.
Of course, your "scour Home and Garden" is my "reading the thread and remembering what people say", but it's the same thing in the end.
It doesn't matter whether I think you "deserve" the right.
It has nothing to do with what people deserve. It has to do with what people have a right to expect. If they don't reveal information here, I think they have a right to expect that no one else is allowed to reveal that information, either.
But if they reveal the information, then I don't see why they should complain when it is referred to again. It was their own actions that made the information available in this forum.
Don't you think it's time for slightly higher standards than Cazart prefers?
I've never particularly cared who agreed with me or not. As most people can testify. What I do care about is the reasons why people agree with me. I recall agreeing with Caz's post earlier, although I can't remember what it was about. I see no particular problems with agreeing with Caz.
For that matter, Caz agrees with you about my fell purpose in this forum. Don't you think you should have a higher standard of conspiracy theory? 934. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:54:55 AM
Seg:
I considered an alternative interpretation. See subsequent post. 935. Seguine - 2/22/2000 6:01:27 AM Incidentally, now that Ace is here to spam the thread with distortions, not to mention the pretense that his hilarious repartee with the Swedish Ripper can't be identified by the moderator as a friendly exchange that requires no action on her part, I will leave this topic to its inevitable demise. 936. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 6:01:56 AM CAZART'S DA MAN!!!! 937. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 6:02:29 AM
Awwwww, Seguine... didn't mean to get your knickers in a twist. 938. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 6:05:48 AM CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ! 939. Dantheman - 2/22/2000 6:06:57 AM Ace,
Are you trying to insult Seguine and using the personal information that she's female? For shame! 940. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 6:07:42 AM CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
941. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 6:09:50 AM
And I'm not "spamming." I'm doing what people do on-line-- having fun with a fellow poster. I'm sorry I don't meet your high bar of debate.
But my exchange with Pelle has, in face, shown the unworkability of your absolutist position. I can joke with Pelle or whoever all day using "attacks" with personal information. Obviously, this is not a case for deletions or suspensions.
You counter: But wabbit knows the difference.
Yes, she does. She exercises judgment. Which makes it sort of nonsensical to write an absolutish ban when you concede, in final analysis, it won't be absolute at all, but will all swing on Wabbit's judgment.
Why not just cut out the middleman and state from the get-go that it will depend on her judgment? Why claim it's an abolute ban, but with exceptions A-ZZZ, rather than just say "it's a judgment call depending on the circumstances"?
I also find it rather odd that you would choose to insult me in the midst of THIS conversation, in particular. I won't say why. Let's say "irony" of some sort is involved.
|
