galiel

Why can't people just adhere to ethical principles, regardless of who the target is? The very essence of a free society depends on respect for certain social norms, independent of the individual. Thus, for example, free speech is a privilege of all, not just those who agree with your point of view. Similarly, respect for privacy should apply to all, regardless of your personal feeling about them.

The combination of ethics-of-convenience, along with certain people's inability to ever, ever, ceed a single proint or admit to a single error, results in disingenuous contortions such as the ones we see in this thread.

It is wrong to post people's personal information online without their permission, and, to ii's credit, they immediately removed it.

Stop making absurd rationalizations, lame excuses and diverting the issue by attacking Layman. Anyone who reads anything in these forums knows that I never have agreed with Layman on anything, and we have frequently had quite heated flamefests. But I have no difficulty acknowledging that he is right on this issue, and most of you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of your reason. Post's like Toto's gratuitous comment about avoiding another thread should not be acceptabe, even if they come from a moderator. Nor should Steve Carr's ad homs. Steve, have the maturity to admit a mistake. Your credibility is vanishing the more you refuse to acknowledge that the responsibility to protect people's families by respecting their private information extends even to those you don't like.

Come on, people, this is such a no-brainer, I can't believe you're having such a hard time saying: it is wrong to post people's private information without their consent. Period.

MrKrinkles

Galiel,

Perhaps you could inform Turkel of that.

Brooks

Toto

Chill out man. I'm not a moderator in this forum. I made that comment because Layman was pounding his point into the ground well past the time that Don Morgan actually removed the offending personal information. Layman also appears to know little or nothing about Turkel's actual current desire for privacy (which appears to be non-existant as far as we know), or how much information he has revealed on his own.

I think I am entitled to comment on Layman's lawyerly debating techniques, which so often involve picking a side issue and beating it to death as a ploy to avoid a larger issue where he is on flimsier ground. That's my right to free speech.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Layman

The justifications continued so I responded. And Mr. Morgan provide no notice of the removal in the forum that was discussing that very issue. However, I'm very glad to see that the information was removed.

Funny how you attack me again for raising a privacy concern, attempt to impugn my motives by identify the "real" motive I am doing something, yet both times now the II has responded to my concern and took the action I recommended.

How so? Has Holding ever stated that he wants his home phone number and wife's information posted on the secular web in a hit piece? Unless you can show he has, what is your point?

Just admit I was right. Again. And on an issue that obviously is of interest to me--internet privacy. Actually, I've been encouraged both times now by the II's response to this issue. They have no legal obligation to take the action they did, but they do seem interested in responding to poster concerns. I really appreciate it. Thank goodness you have so little say in such matters.

And I do not need to post about internet privacy to "avoid" posting about some other topic. That's a silly comment. You can avoid posting about a topic just by not posting on the topic.

And yes, Toto. I am a lawyer. Does that make you impotent in light of my "powerful" oratory? Only if the arguments are good ones.

Sheesh.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Yet another example why I do not have any regard for Carr's ability to accurately represent what his opponents say and mean.

Layman

Right. Ridiculing someone is not antaganostic?
Only on Plant Turton. (See, an example of ridicule and antagonism).

One more time. I do not object to the information that Holding himself has revealed. If people want to stuff his PO Box with hate mail, that's not an invasion of the man's privacy.

Again. This is silly. I'm not in contact with Holding any more than you are. Is it reasonable to be concerned about the posting of such private information? Yes. Of course it is. And not only from people who actually post here frequently. I'm sure that there are many who use the library and/or frequent the boards without ever posting where I would see them.

Nope, but the State of Florida is required by law to reveal information. And, they did not single out one person, write a hit piece on him, post it in a place frequented by opponents of the guy, and then list all his family information and home phone number.

Yes, the information can be found out by people of varying degrees of informational or computer sophistication. That's different than bating people by starting off a malicious hit piece with the guy's home phone number.

And no skeptic would harass a Christian?

Just more cheap shots. You seem to have become quite a bitter, and deeply unfair, contributor Volk. That's a shame.

So it was worth violating your conscience (or at least comfort level) to add some more ridicule to the guy? Okay. That's clear enough.

Of course I have not complained about the listing of any of the above. I have specifically mentioned his home address, family information, and home phone number.

If you find it scary, why perpetuate the problem? Oh yeah, to take another shot at the guy.

If they knew how to do so. If they thought it was worth that much time. If they already had sufficient motivation.

Accessing several different websites or writing to get copies of corporation documents is substantially different than providing the home address, home phone number, and family information in the opening salvo of a hit-piece designed to stir up people against the subject.

Layman

Again, irrelevant. My complaint is about the home address, phone number, and family information in Till's diatribe. It at the very least gives the appearance of bating.

Taking your word for it, that sounds wrong too. I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.

I haven't expressed "righetous moral outrage," I've expressed a concern for privacy. But I do find it amusing how many skeptics come out of the wood works when it appears that a fellow skeptic "might" have done something that is actually obivously inapprorpiate. The typical reaction is:

1) twist what the fuss is about. for example, by arguing that Holding has revealed his name and email address and a PO Box when all I am complaining about is the listing of his home address, home number, and family information--as well as the context of the posting of such information.

2) impugning my motives. obviously as a Christian I have to be "up to something" other than what I am complaining about. for example, complaining I am only diverting attention away from some other topic when I have a trackrecord for concern over the handling of private information by II.

3) exagerrating my complaint. for example, complaining that I am expressing "righteous moral outrage" when I'm simply claiming that the revelation is inappropriate and objectionable. i've not claimed any laws were violated. i've not claimed that the laws should be changed to make the posting illegal. i've also expressed my apprceciation about how the II reacts to these concerns. I have not called vicious names or demanded his head or the removal of the article.

Toto

Glad to see you're finding some good use for the Sabbath, Layman. Since your putatively powerful oratory does not come through on the web, it has no effect on me. I brought up your profession as an explanation for your weaselly debating tactics, which I find helpful in keeping my blood pressure up.

Just to keep the record straight, Don Morgan removed the personal information at the request of another user who posted in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002369" target="_blank">Feedback queue</a>, so Don is probably not aware of this thread. You could have posted there and gotten the same results, but no, you'd rather posture and whine here, going on for a page of outrage, playing the wounded victim, the pure minded advocate of civil liberties.

For the record, some Christians have a record of harrassment and murder of people they consider infidels. I haven't heard of a non-believing equivalent of the Army of God that targets incompetant internet apologists with death threats or harrassment. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you will let me know.

MrKrinkles

Layman,

This is kind of like beating a dead horse, but I have a few comments anyway.

Okay, so now I am lying? It is documented here, if you care:

<a href="http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm</a>

Because Turkel makes a special effort to reveal personal information about people who do not give him their permission to do so. In other words, he is a hypocrite.

Brooks

Layman

No. Actually, just the opposite. I was assuming what you told me was true. And agreeing that "that was wrong too."

Well, if you were just piling on and not attempting to justify the posting of his home address, phone number, and family information, I understand your point.