Subject:
|
Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:57:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5240 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > Ken's working situation IS and WAS personal information. So what if Ken has told
> > others of it before - this in no way changes the fact that it IS personal
> > information. IMHO posting personal information about another person is not cool,
> > you have no way of knowing how that person is going to take it, I think how Ken
> > reacted is a perfect example of that.
>
> I want to perform an experiment here to determine if this stance on revealing of
> personal information is reasonable.
>
> 1. Is it reasonable to say that Todd Lehman's being an AFOL is personal
> information?
Over the years Todd has made his stance on the hobby a VERY well known stance.
Plus, we are ON Lugnet so we all know this. And when you talk about Lugnet you
will prob also talk about Todd. When you run a public site such as this and
basically have your name plastered on it you become part of the site, you become
a representative of the site.
> 2. Todd certainly has communicated that to "others" (all of us) before.
yes, of course he has.
> 3. Have I by stating point #1 shared personal information about Todd and thus
> violated this stance on revealing of personal information?
No, for reasons I pointed out in reply to your first post. Todd IS Lugnet
basically.
> If all of the above is true, then any of us who have ever posted about someone
> else have violated this trust. I also violate this trust any time a someone asks
> me a question about some hobby/interest that I am not familiar with, so I
> suggest the person call another friend of mine.
But they are a friend of yours - AFIK Larry and Ken were not friends. So its
really not the same. You misunderstood my point, doing such in your circle of
friends is ok IMHO. Why? Because they are your firends and you know (or should
know) what level of privacy they expect and you respect their feelings (or you
should at least). But none of this can be said between Larry and Ken, they were
not friends, Larry did not know what level of privacy Ken wanted, Larry had no
idea what Ken would see as ok and what ken would not see as ok.
> I personally find that stance I have crafted above unreasonable. Society just
> doesn't work that way. But that is how I understand what Mark and Ken have
> stated about sharing personal information. So either I am misunderstanding
> something about the stance, or the stance is unreasonable. Is that fair?
Really it is more of a fine line than anything else. Everybody has their own
view on it, everybody reacts in their own way to it. There is no possible way
you can put it in a firm defintion. I also think you gave bad examples - Todd
and friends, but I understand the point you were trying to make - but I think
you took what I said too far.
MY PERSONAL view is unless you know the person - its better to play it safe when
you do not know what to expect of them.
Also keep in mind I am not defending Ken and I am not saying Larry broke ANY
sort of rule here on Lugnet.
M
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) I want to perform an experiment here to determine if this stance on revealing of personal information is reasonable. 1. Is it reasonable to say that Todd Lehman's being an AFOL is personal information? 2. Todd certainly has communicated that (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
71 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
