Re: Interesting TravelinMan observations

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:41:27 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <K9udneFL8sDXXvreUSdV9g@xxxxxxx>,
> Flint <agent1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Travelinman wrote:
>> > In article <VPOcnZDU0aCrmfreUSdV9g@xxxxxxx>,
>> > Flint <agent1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>George Graves wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <6gldm15umbs5otqu9mclkg256hlnts47kn@xxxxxxx>,
>> >>> Tom Elam <tom_elam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>On 31 Oct 2005 16:56:28 -0800, "Belphegor" <huelse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Personally I got my own bones to pick with Travelinman, but when people
>> >>>>>get this personal and some other keep stalking and pass on personal
>> >>>>>details of that person I find it creepy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Uh, it took about 20 minutes on Google to find the details about Joe
>> >>>>and his company. Viewing the 2 Oseco videos actually took longer than
>> >>>>looking up the facts on the company Joe runs.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Try this search
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Oseco +Ragosta
>> >>>>
>> >>>>and see what you come up with. There is nothing personal of
>> >>>>confidential in my post. Heck, given another 10 minutes I can
>> >>>>probably give you Joe's home address and phone number. It's all out
>> >>>>there in public documents for anyone who is interested, including
>> >>>>Joe's credit record if you want it. I'm not as good at this as some
>> >>>>people, I believe that a professional investigator could likely dig up
>> >>>>quite a bit more and not break a sweat, or a law, in the process.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Now, should it be out there in the public eye? That is a very
>> >>>>different question.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>No, the question is should you be using any of it as ammo here on CSMA.
>> >>>I say you definitely SHOULD NOT.
>> >>
>> >>Why not? If one wants to be a nuisance in a public forum, why should
>> >>they be immune from information about them (that is publicly available)
>> >>being used to "shine a light" on them?
>> >>
>> >>I'm all for respecting someone's privacy even if they participate in a
>> >>public forum, but the moment they get arrogant, antagonistic, rude, or
>> >>condescending, I think one *gives up* any reasonable expectation of
>> >>privacy considerations.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > You're arrogant, rude, antagonistic, and condescending. So I assume you
>> > think it's OK for someone to come crash your door down and invade your
>> > privacy?
>>
>> Depends. If one were to 'out' someone else because they were being
>> harrassed by that someone in real life, then yes, I think it is OK to
>> divulge their ID and any info that can be researched on the web, just to
>> put a "spotlight", or a 'face' on the miscreant.
>>
>> Furthermore, participating in a public, unmoderated newsgroup is akin to
>> walking down a street. While walking on a public street, there is no
>> reasonable expectation of privacy. You may try to disguise yourself
>> with a trenchcoat, hat, and sunglasses while taking a stroll down a
>> street to retain anonymity, and you would certainly be within your
>> rights to do so. However, if you decided to call every person you walk
>> by an ***, or start arguments with them while doing so, and someone
>> happens to recognize you, they would be well within *their* rights to
>> expose your real identity to everyone else on the street if they so choose.
>>
>> I'm not talking about your run of the mill flamewar as a justification
>> for general harrassment, mind you. I'm talking about real world
>> harrassment outside of a newsgroup. If what Snit said about Elizabot
>> was true, then I feel he had every right to do what he did.
>>
>> In your particular case, if others feel you've misrepresented yourself,
>> or are currently doing so, I'd say they have a right to post info about
>> you here, if it serves as proof of a rebuttal, or refutes your
>> credibility on a particular issue, provided the info is both accurate
>> and pertinent to the issue being refuted.
>
>It also endangers his career.

Bull***. I can see something like this being the final straw but no
one is going to get fired for just this. Unless they're already
looking for an excuse to rid themselves of Joe his job is safe.


> You can attack Joe all you want based upon
>his words here, but leave his work out of it. That's just common
>courtesy (actually its becoming "uncommon courtesy" in this society).

What with utter assholes posting people's workp[laces and such in
newsgroup nowadays, eh George? 8)




--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."

Jim Polaski

"I guess you're not ...a liar"

Joe Ragosta
.