skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 2, 6:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 9:21 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
> >>>>>>>> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
> >>>>>>> Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
> >>>>>>> the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
> >>>>>>> an issue.
> >>>>>> Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
> >>>>>> information about him, you should just take it down.
> >>>>> I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
> >>>>> actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
> >>>>> Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
> >>>>> develop.
> >>>>>> What's more you
> >>>>>> ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
> >>>>>> mocking you.
> >>>>> You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
> >>>>> I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
> >>>>> for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
> >>>> This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
> >>>> intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
> >>> character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
> >>> a break.
> >> I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
> >> usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
> >> heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > If there's nothing wrong with his moral character, then why is he so
> > goddamn SCARED for people to find out about his usenet activity?
>
> > He mocks me for having a history of mental illness. Apparently in your
> > view that doesn't reveal bad moral character? Fine, well, why can't I
> > draw public attention to the fact that he does this? If it doesn't
> > reveal bad moral character, what's the problem? I thought he was proud
> > of what he did here.
>
> > If Ball were to publish a website with my photo saying that I have a
> > history of mental illness, that would be fine with me. There might be
> > a minute chance that my employment prospects would be affected, and it
> > would probably be within my legal rights to get the site shut down,
> > but I, unlike Ball, have a fairly strong genuine commitment to
> > libertarian principles, in many areas of life anyway, and I don't
> > think it would be within my moral rights to get it shut down. I
> > voluntarily put the information into the public domain and I think
> > it's fair game.
>
> > If his conduct here doesn't reveal poor moral character, then what's
> > the problem with publishing information about it? Seems to me there's
> > a tension in your argument here.
>
> It's a privacy issue, you get to tell me whether or not I can post your
> personal information on my private website. What you say in this
> discussion group you say of your own free will, I would not reproduce it
> elsewhere without your permission and I hope you would accord me the
> same consideration.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I agree, I would honour any reasonable request by anyone not to
publish personal information on a webpage. That's a reasonable
request. Not "Take my name down off your webpage, fruit" followed by
threats of illegal activity.
So, am I to take it you agree with me that Derek's behaviour towards
Karen was contemptible?
|