|
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. 942. bubbaette - 2/22/2000 6:12:11 AM I think that we should install little electrical touchpads in the keys of each moter's keyboard so that we can administer a small electrical shock when someone offends us. I volunteer to be in charge of administering the punishment. 943. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 6:13:04 AM Now, let's move this from the hypothetical to the realities here. If you are one that follows the Mote regularly, you know that some people are veryopen about who they are and about the problems they face in life. Cigarlaw is the prototype, but you and I can think of many others who have bared aspects of their life in this forum.
And have we seen these deeply personal relevations used to abuse these posters?
We have not.
And is this because a particular clause in the RoE forbids it?
It is not.
It is because when all has been said and done we are a decent lot around here.
And if anyone is out of bounds on this issue, he or she should, as PM suggests, have the head cut off and displayed at the Mote Gate. 944. Dantheman - 2/22/2000 6:14:43 AM bubbaette,
Is that a new service from the House of Wax? 945. FXMuckermind - 2/22/2000 6:14:47 AM That Cal Gal is so annoying.
OK Wabbit is a girl? That explains a lot!
Irony of some sort is involved.Not that I think the idiots here will get it.
Even I can see that, and I don't know much about the background here at all.
946. ChristiPeters - 2/22/2000 6:14:53 AM Well, it was an interesting discussion.
However, once something's been beat to death, why not have fun.
BAN ACE!! He doesn't use Purple font often enough! He MUST be EVIL!!! 947. bubbaette - 2/22/2000 6:15:11 AM or should have his butt waxed and buffed. 948. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 6:17:21 AM Swedish Ripper?
Ban Seguine! 949. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 6:17:56 AM
The other problem with Seg's absolute ban is this:
Some of us argue from authority. Spuddy Boy claims he knows a bunch o' stuff on account that he's one of them big-city reporters; I have, sadly, occassionally told people I knew what the law was better than they because I'm a lawyer.
The natural rejoinder is: But reporters are idiots. But you're a BAD lawyer.
Unworkable. 950. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 6:19:12 AM Let it rest. 951. Toenails - 2/22/2000 6:19:29 AM
Pretty sensible...for a Swede. 952. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 6:19:52 AM
The obvious way to defeat an argument from authority is to demolish the authority himself, impugning his intellect and/or credentials by ridiculing them, most often using "personal information."
I say I'm a lawyer and I know X Law. SpuddyBoy counters: But you're an INSURANCE lawyer, and a bad one at that.
This is perfectly fair for SpuddyBoy to do. Indeed, my assertion more or less DEMANDED he make this sort of insult.
|
