... remembered that even Jesus Christ had a soft spot in his heart for a prostitute:)
Whom He allegedly not only had compassion for but also advised to "go and sin no more", yes ?
Seriously, don't we all, especially those of us who deem and herald what I prefer to call "the internut" (and have been saying so for a long time) so high in Oz (if not the whole globe) have a responsibility if not duty to help create and keep it as a tool and facility that is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of, especially when it comes to the presentation and respect of our mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, and daughters, etc ?
Doesn't even common decency oblige us to promote it and encourage it in a way that edifys and demonstrates love and care for both our neighbour and ourselves and shouldn't near any method (not merely limited to ILCF) that can help make the net a better place for us all as a nation be worthy of promotion ?
How does it help us as a nation to have one rule for some and no rule for others ... surely we should all be adopting a beneficial common ground that benefits us all as a society rather than continuing with a flawed system that favours questionable individualistic and selfish (and obviously unhealthy) wants over majority community needs ?
I'm happy to support the "go and sin no more" angle in that regard - tis hardly any kind of price to pay at all AFAIC (so I guess no great sacrifice), but I do find it both disturbing and distressing to realise that there may be many among us who deem the price to be unacceptably high.
All the more reason that something like ILCF is not only well and truly warranted, but also well over-due, AFAIC.
regarDS
Monday, December 01, 2008
Posted here in response to - ILCF pt14 @ WP
"Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not." - derspatz
[deleted] writes ...
Yep, the language of confidence there.
Heh. I learned that style from reading the original literature put out by the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins. :)
regarDS
[deleted] writes ...
Yep, the language of confidence there.
Heh. I learned that style from reading the original literature put out by the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
invoking the "mothers, Wives and daughters" to justify your opinion. Yet we have women who clearly disagree, including women on this forum, my daughter and her friends (adult and teen), and even Holly from "Save the Children" organization. I can speak for them because I have personally talked to them or read their public comments.
I don't see how any of that could be deemed representative, especially considering if I too trotted out a list of names and anecdotal references to match, it similarly would be rejected out of hand.
Surely there are husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends in this forum who would at very least shudder at the thought of their wives, children, sisters, and girlfriends selling themselves to be the subject matter of pr0n and the various forms of prostitution ranging from telephone conversations through to skimpy/strip work through to lap-dancing, spiraling inwards and downwards towards being the drugged-up diseased dying by degrees kurb-side hooker who is fed and clothed and truly loved by the likes of Salvo's donations and the similarly compassionate ?
Surely there are parents in here who are doing everything in their parental power and influence to ensure their children don't grow up to be seduced or fooled or coerced into making such bad decisions ... all the while having to fight off the never ending influences pouring out of nearly every publicly available mass-media technology possible ?
Surely those parents and those who shudder at the thought of their own blood and loved ones being seduced into making such bad choices, or even just being regularly confronted with it in various ways, would welcome any measure that might help make being a family easier and simpler while keeping the developing minds entrusted to their temporary care safer and beautiful in their innocence for as long as possible ?
Surely most family minded women don't want their husbands and boyfriends lusting over other women ? Surely most charity minded regular non-specific-denomination-or-faith community orientated church/temple/mosque (etc) attending souls of either gender or family or relationship status would prefer a society that encourages and promotes the respect and protection of womenfolk and the young over degredation and corruption ?
Yes, obviously I am personally of the view that Oz would do well to deem illegal all pr0n, but I accept that I'll have to wait for Kingdom Come for that one. In the mean time, it isn't all that unreasonable nor hard to imagine that all those "surely"s just mentioned (and a lot more that could be mentioned) add up to quite the majority, and a majority who will support and continue to support the development of ILCF or whatever it takes (and we seem to be forgetting the other aspects of Senator Conroy's proposals, with the ILCF only being one part of it) to help keep our society, culture, and nation on a better path.
If no one else around here thinks that majority exists in Oz in those terms, then I reckon we have come to a very sad place in our history.
Sad enough already to think that as a nation we have become so irresponsible and untrustworthy that such measures as ILCF is deemed necessary by way of Intervention.
Another personal opinion for you. I reckon tolerance for the sake of tolerance is a far greater evil and destroyer of civilised society than censorship, and that there are degrees of censorship that are virtually mandatory in order to create a healthy, safe, just, and worthwhile culture.
regarDS
I don't see how any of that could be deemed representative, especially considering if I too trotted out a list of names and anecdotal references to match, it similarly would be rejected out of hand.
Surely there are husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends in this forum who would at very least shudder at the thought of their wives, children, sisters, and girlfriends selling themselves to be the subject matter of pr0n and the various forms of prostitution ranging from telephone conversations through to skimpy/strip work through to lap-dancing, spiraling inwards and downwards towards being the drugged-up diseased dying by degrees kurb-side hooker who is fed and clothed and truly loved by the likes of Salvo's donations and the similarly compassionate ?
Surely there are parents in here who are doing everything in their parental power and influence to ensure their children don't grow up to be seduced or fooled or coerced into making such bad decisions ... all the while having to fight off the never ending influences pouring out of nearly every publicly available mass-media technology possible ?
Surely those parents and those who shudder at the thought of their own blood and loved ones being seduced into making such bad choices, or even just being regularly confronted with it in various ways, would welcome any measure that might help make being a family easier and simpler while keeping the developing minds entrusted to their temporary care safer and beautiful in their innocence for as long as possible ?
Surely most family minded women don't want their husbands and boyfriends lusting over other women ? Surely most charity minded regular non-specific-denomination-or-faith community orientated church/temple/mosque (etc) attending souls of either gender or family or relationship status would prefer a society that encourages and promotes the respect and protection of womenfolk and the young over degredation and corruption ?
Yes, obviously I am personally of the view that Oz would do well to deem illegal all pr0n, but I accept that I'll have to wait for Kingdom Come for that one. In the mean time, it isn't all that unreasonable nor hard to imagine that all those "surely"s just mentioned (and a lot more that could be mentioned) add up to quite the majority, and a majority who will support and continue to support the development of ILCF or whatever it takes (and we seem to be forgetting the other aspects of Senator Conroy's proposals, with the ILCF only being one part of it) to help keep our society, culture, and nation on a better path.
If no one else around here thinks that majority exists in Oz in those terms, then I reckon we have come to a very sad place in our history.
Sad enough already to think that as a nation we have become so irresponsible and untrustworthy that such measures as ILCF is deemed necessary by way of Intervention.
Another personal opinion for you. I reckon tolerance for the sake of tolerance is a far greater evil and destroyer of civilised society than censorship, and that there are degrees of censorship that are virtually mandatory in order to create a healthy, safe, just, and worthwhile culture.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
DS only mentions his assumptions in order to support his arguments ...
Etc. And here was I thinking I was merely replying using the language of the question put to me by [deleted] when asked Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?
[deleted] asked using the word "assuming" so I responded using the word "assuming" ...
Aside from that, I'm noticing a nasty habit around here of the tending to make (and take) things personally and zone in on the individual than the topic and ideas/views presented, regardless of how carefully impersonal and generic (as per whirlpool forum guidelines) those ideas/views have been expressed.
For example, I suggest that democracy is obvious working and a response comes back that I'm in need of (presumed mental health) help. I make a point that can be distilled down to the commonly understood concept of "internet widow", with an obvious intent for it to serve as an "illustration of" and "appeal to" presumably something every last one of us participating in here can relate to in some way, yet the response is to merely make it somehow about me rather than even give the slightest concession that there may be a sizeable population of females in Oz who not only resent the amount of time their partners and/or family spends online, but would also settle for nearly anything that might make it less of an attractive place for them to click and tap their lives away in.
Such responses are neither warranted nor appreciated ... but moving on, surely the "internet widow" argument can be answered without trying to make things personal ... in fact I don't see how it can be answered properly if all that is going to be presented is along the lines of mere personal anecdote or by fallaciously suggesting that because the person who dared to suggest it isn't of the demographic then they can have no valid opinion. Actually, in certain ways the latter rules most of us out of most of what we've been discussing, yes ?
On any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and children out there who not only wish their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers were not nearly so "always online", but also have even come to hate the presence of the "always on" computer in the house in the same way no doubt many of our Grand Folks used to hate the "always on" TV when visiting ... and how even more of us hate the ever present mobile phones that are everywhere we turn these days.
Also, on any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and (sadly) children, out there who not only wish that it wasn't so easy and simple for "unwanted" material to be brought into their homes, but also that the very material didn't even exist in the first place.
There is absolutely no doubt that there are folk and families in Oz who wish there was less emphasis or cause for "being online" (along with less negative and more positive to be found online when there anyway) and equally no doubt that when it comes to overall population, there would be proportionally (and traditionally) more females than males who object to specific things such as pr0n and violent activities (especially when it somehow relates to children and entertainment), so it isn't too hard to imagine that a nation who voted in a government perceived to be the friend of families (and "working families" at that ... whatever that mean), would be more inclined to support the efforts of that government to make this country a better place for families.
Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not.
regarDS
Etc. And here was I thinking I was merely replying using the language of the question put to me by [deleted] when asked Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?
[deleted] asked using the word "assuming" so I responded using the word "assuming" ...
Aside from that, I'm noticing a nasty habit around here of the tending to make (and take) things personally and zone in on the individual than the topic and ideas/views presented, regardless of how carefully impersonal and generic (as per whirlpool forum guidelines) those ideas/views have been expressed.
For example, I suggest that democracy is obvious working and a response comes back that I'm in need of (presumed mental health) help. I make a point that can be distilled down to the commonly understood concept of "internet widow", with an obvious intent for it to serve as an "illustration of" and "appeal to" presumably something every last one of us participating in here can relate to in some way, yet the response is to merely make it somehow about me rather than even give the slightest concession that there may be a sizeable population of females in Oz who not only resent the amount of time their partners and/or family spends online, but would also settle for nearly anything that might make it less of an attractive place for them to click and tap their lives away in.
Such responses are neither warranted nor appreciated ... but moving on, surely the "internet widow" argument can be answered without trying to make things personal ... in fact I don't see how it can be answered properly if all that is going to be presented is along the lines of mere personal anecdote or by fallaciously suggesting that because the person who dared to suggest it isn't of the demographic then they can have no valid opinion. Actually, in certain ways the latter rules most of us out of most of what we've been discussing, yes ?
On any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and children out there who not only wish their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers were not nearly so "always online", but also have even come to hate the presence of the "always on" computer in the house in the same way no doubt many of our Grand Folks used to hate the "always on" TV when visiting ... and how even more of us hate the ever present mobile phones that are everywhere we turn these days.
Also, on any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and (sadly) children, out there who not only wish that it wasn't so easy and simple for "unwanted" material to be brought into their homes, but also that the very material didn't even exist in the first place.
There is absolutely no doubt that there are folk and families in Oz who wish there was less emphasis or cause for "being online" (along with less negative and more positive to be found online when there anyway) and equally no doubt that when it comes to overall population, there would be proportionally (and traditionally) more females than males who object to specific things such as pr0n and violent activities (especially when it somehow relates to children and entertainment), so it isn't too hard to imagine that a nation who voted in a government perceived to be the friend of families (and "working families" at that ... whatever that mean), would be more inclined to support the efforts of that government to make this country a better place for families.
Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?
Part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that a probable majority of non-single women in Oz, especially those with children, would happily agree to all sorts of government enforced constrictions put on the net (and way beyond anything ILCF might manage) if it would return a greater degree of attention from their partner back to them and their family, especially if it came with the added bonus of making it harder for either their partners or children to accidentally or deliberately view material not beneficial to healthy family life regardless of whether it was via their own net connections or connections at other people's houses, etc.
Another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the majority of Oz population are more interested in their TV and mobile phones than the "online world", and just as long as they can still do their banking, ebaying, check out sports scores and tv guides, book holidays and hotels, and maybe even get the odd cheap international phonecall, the net is never going to rise above being much more than a novelty and convenience to them and never going to figure as being "the last bastion of free speech". If anything, such people just want easier to use online systems, and care not much as to how it is done.
Yet another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the more certain minorities bash on about "free speech" and the like in the face of a government talking about controlling pr0n and attempting to bring similar law and order online as is done offline, an increasing majority will side with the goverment on this, for there IS something distinctly worrying and suspicious about such long bows being drawn re: alleged "attacks on free speech" etc in response to a proposal to help clean up the online world to make it all the more child and family safe and friendly.
I've got other assumings to add to that if you really wish ...
regarDS
Part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that a probable majority of non-single women in Oz, especially those with children, would happily agree to all sorts of government enforced constrictions put on the net (and way beyond anything ILCF might manage) if it would return a greater degree of attention from their partner back to them and their family, especially if it came with the added bonus of making it harder for either their partners or children to accidentally or deliberately view material not beneficial to healthy family life regardless of whether it was via their own net connections or connections at other people's houses, etc.
Another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the majority of Oz population are more interested in their TV and mobile phones than the "online world", and just as long as they can still do their banking, ebaying, check out sports scores and tv guides, book holidays and hotels, and maybe even get the odd cheap international phonecall, the net is never going to rise above being much more than a novelty and convenience to them and never going to figure as being "the last bastion of free speech". If anything, such people just want easier to use online systems, and care not much as to how it is done.
Yet another part of my assuming is based on the not unreasonable notion that the more certain minorities bash on about "free speech" and the like in the face of a government talking about controlling pr0n and attempting to bring similar law and order online as is done offline, an increasing majority will side with the goverment on this, for there IS something distinctly worrying and suspicious about such long bows being drawn re: alleged "attacks on free speech" etc in response to a proposal to help clean up the online world to make it all the more child and family safe and friendly.
I've got other assumings to add to that if you really wish ...
regarDS
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
This is Whirlpool syndrome. Pretending that this forum is an indicative sample of the rest of the Australian population. People are far more worried about things like the economy right now and will be going into the future for Labor to actually lose an election based on a filter.
An accurate observation and good point well made, AFAIC.
I don't think the Government will cancel the trial, even if they intend to scrap the policy. They'll go through with it and say "K it didnt work, not our fault".
A fair observation but one I'm less inclined to totally support. Sure, given the right kind of circumstances, it MIGHT come to that, but surely only more as a last resort.
Now that our government(s) are at last seriously thinking along the lines of better controlling online content as per the presumed majority wishes of the general population (as well as with a view to a better future for one and all ala what makes a better a society and all that), I don't think it is going to go away regardless of whether ILCF is deemed a suitable pass or hopeless failure.
I reckon that if ILCF is deemed to have truly failed, something else will be attempted, if not by our current government then then next one, and the one after that, and the one after that, until something that truly works properly is achieved.
It isn't too hard to imagine the general online environment of Oz future being called "the governet" with all communication feeds in, out, and around about the country going through government owned/controlled facilities, and even I'm willing to admit (in my support of our current government's attempts to bring a better level of law and order to the net in its current form) that even if such a network was created, it would still be somewhat difficult to achieve the aims and results that is bringing about the introduction of ILCF.
Hmmmm ... a case of 'better to try and fail than not to try at all" ? I guess I'm in more support of your "K it didn't work, not our fault" angle after all.
[deleted writes] ...
Should we sit by and allow a minority in this country rule by repression..
This isnt democracy and it needs to be stopped.
To begin with it is extremely doubtful that this is a case of "minority rule". Also, the method of its introduction is no different to anything else our elected levels of government do as per the form of democracy we have here in Oz.
Thus, there is no evidence of any kind of attack on democracy going on here, nor any indication that our elected government is doing anything contrary to the wishes of the general population let alone detrimental to the long term welfare of our nation.
Those of us who are deemed "voters" all still have the democratic opportunity to express our approval or opposition to our elected government's decisions in relation to ILCF, so democracy is obviously still alive and well and doing the job required of it, so I don't see a problem regardless of whether this particular item is popular or not.
regarDS
An accurate observation and good point well made, AFAIC.
I don't think the Government will cancel the trial, even if they intend to scrap the policy. They'll go through with it and say "K it didnt work, not our fault".
A fair observation but one I'm less inclined to totally support. Sure, given the right kind of circumstances, it MIGHT come to that, but surely only more as a last resort.
Now that our government(s) are at last seriously thinking along the lines of better controlling online content as per the presumed majority wishes of the general population (as well as with a view to a better future for one and all ala what makes a better a society and all that), I don't think it is going to go away regardless of whether ILCF is deemed a suitable pass or hopeless failure.
I reckon that if ILCF is deemed to have truly failed, something else will be attempted, if not by our current government then then next one, and the one after that, and the one after that, until something that truly works properly is achieved.
It isn't too hard to imagine the general online environment of Oz future being called "the governet" with all communication feeds in, out, and around about the country going through government owned/controlled facilities, and even I'm willing to admit (in my support of our current government's attempts to bring a better level of law and order to the net in its current form) that even if such a network was created, it would still be somewhat difficult to achieve the aims and results that is bringing about the introduction of ILCF.
Hmmmm ... a case of 'better to try and fail than not to try at all" ? I guess I'm in more support of your "K it didn't work, not our fault" angle after all.
[deleted writes] ...
Should we sit by and allow a minority in this country rule by repression..
This isnt democracy and it needs to be stopped.
To begin with it is extremely doubtful that this is a case of "minority rule". Also, the method of its introduction is no different to anything else our elected levels of government do as per the form of democracy we have here in Oz.
Thus, there is no evidence of any kind of attack on democracy going on here, nor any indication that our elected government is doing anything contrary to the wishes of the general population let alone detrimental to the long term welfare of our nation.
Those of us who are deemed "voters" all still have the democratic opportunity to express our approval or opposition to our elected government's decisions in relation to ILCF, so democracy is obviously still alive and well and doing the job required of it, so I don't see a problem regardless of whether this particular item is popular or not.
regarDS
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
Too much monies to be made with the "ILCF Buster 2008™", it's the capitalist way! :)
I know it is too soon to be doing the actual coding on this one sheepboy, but any chance we can get a peak at a rough draft of some of the documentation that will accompany it ?
How about a config file layout ? :)
regarDS
I know it is too soon to be doing the actual coding on this one sheepboy, but any chance we can get a peak at a rough draft of some of the documentation that will accompany it ?
How about a config file layout ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
The Morally Vetted Internet Experience that tools like you 'approve' of for the rest of the plebeans, less able to discern the moral high ground? ...
(etc, etc, etc)
Wanna lighten up on the ad-hominem, thanks ? You really don't have to be taking alternative opinions to yours on ILCF so personally and it does none of us any favours to try and take your own obvious dissatisfaction re: the ILCF trials, out on me.
I've stayed out of the thread dedicated specifically to the support of preventing ILCF, for I have no right to be there because of my contrary view point, but I would thank you to lay off with the abuse and lazy appeals to "trolling" directed my way, for I have just as much right to my opinion and presense in this particular thread as you do, regardless of how much we may disagree with each other's chosen stance. Cheers.
regarDS
(etc, etc, etc)
Wanna lighten up on the ad-hominem, thanks ? You really don't have to be taking alternative opinions to yours on ILCF so personally and it does none of us any favours to try and take your own obvious dissatisfaction re: the ILCF trials, out on me.
I've stayed out of the thread dedicated specifically to the support of preventing ILCF, for I have no right to be there because of my contrary view point, but I would thank you to lay off with the abuse and lazy appeals to "trolling" directed my way, for I have just as much right to my opinion and presense in this particular thread as you do, regardless of how much we may disagree with each other's chosen stance. Cheers.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
Do you understand the concept that the banned list will not be available to the public? How is there going to be any sort of accountability?
Why should Joe Shmo be privy to such controlled material ?
Isn't it the job of a created/delegated/accountable department to do the accounting ? Wouldn't suitable avenues be created to allow a degree of controlled public access as required – ie, via court orders/requests in relation to criminal proceedings or lawsuits and the like ?
I'm no more interested in knowing the contents of any banned list than I am of knowing where the Oz navy was last week or much else of what our elected government may have put under seal (or whatever) for our country's own good.
We cast out vote and trust the system we have created for ourselves, and when we cannot, we pressure for improvement.
Which, as it relates to ILCF, gets back to numbers again.
regarDS
Why should Joe Shmo be privy to such controlled material ?
Isn't it the job of a created/delegated/accountable department to do the accounting ? Wouldn't suitable avenues be created to allow a degree of controlled public access as required – ie, via court orders/requests in relation to criminal proceedings or lawsuits and the like ?
I'm no more interested in knowing the contents of any banned list than I am of knowing where the Oz navy was last week or much else of what our elected government may have put under seal (or whatever) for our country's own good.
We cast out vote and trust the system we have created for ourselves, and when we cannot, we pressure for improvement.
Which, as it relates to ILCF, gets back to numbers again.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
I do have to question derspatz's bona fides – mate – why do you hide? Notice all of us here have our whims turned on. Except you.
Already explained at my blog (which doesn't have comments turned on either – nor do I log/track/sitemeter visitors). I have neither the time nor interest in exchanging private messages here or on any other forum or blog and in fact I barely even use email or the telephone for anything other than taking care of business.
I am known to leave the odd comment or message on other folk's blogs and web pages on rare occasions, but even then I prefer that things said are deemed public domain.
I don't respond to "friend" invites on my "facile book" and "my spaz" accounts, either – I've already got all the friends I want and barely communicate with them in the offline world (let alone online one) anyway.
Private implies confidential and I'm not interested in keeping confidences or having people making inaccurate claims about me based on private exchanges, or leaving avenues open by which cowardly anonymous abuse and threats or stalking like behaviour can easily occur.
In over 20 years of online communications, I have never been the fan of (nor encouraged) recreational private communications where I could get away with it being public. That isn't about to change any time soon.
Suggesting that by only partaking in public conversations is somehow "hiding" has got me scratching my head though. Heck, my blog link is up there on the left and it links through to heaps of personal information (including my full real name), yet I only know the real names of two people in this forum (richary and -mark) and that is only because we go back near 20 years to a time of online communications that preceded the proliferation of the web.
Anyway, if you've got something to say to me, then say it so that the public record can remain proof of it, and I'll return the same decency. Cheers.
If you can't say it in the foum then it probably shouldn't be said, hmmm ?
regarDS
Already explained at my blog (which doesn't have comments turned on either – nor do I log/track/sitemeter visitors). I have neither the time nor interest in exchanging private messages here or on any other forum or blog and in fact I barely even use email or the telephone for anything other than taking care of business.
I am known to leave the odd comment or message on other folk's blogs and web pages on rare occasions, but even then I prefer that things said are deemed public domain.
I don't respond to "friend" invites on my "facile book" and "my spaz" accounts, either – I've already got all the friends I want and barely communicate with them in the offline world (let alone online one) anyway.
Private implies confidential and I'm not interested in keeping confidences or having people making inaccurate claims about me based on private exchanges, or leaving avenues open by which cowardly anonymous abuse and threats or stalking like behaviour can easily occur.
In over 20 years of online communications, I have never been the fan of (nor encouraged) recreational private communications where I could get away with it being public. That isn't about to change any time soon.
Suggesting that by only partaking in public conversations is somehow "hiding" has got me scratching my head though. Heck, my blog link is up there on the left and it links through to heaps of personal information (including my full real name), yet I only know the real names of two people in this forum (richary and -mark) and that is only because we go back near 20 years to a time of online communications that preceded the proliferation of the web.
Anyway, if you've got something to say to me, then say it so that the public record can remain proof of it, and I'll return the same decency. Cheers.
If you can't say it in the foum then it probably shouldn't be said, hmmm ?
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
