Re: !Pig Watching... 1 of 236

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:12:08 -0500, "Carol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote something wonderfully witty:

>ZombyWoof wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:08:10 -0500, "Carol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>> What is this with the personal information posting? Geez, what a
>>> mess this place has become, and lots of very juvenile and bad
>>> behavior. I know that the schools were closed for the holiday, but
>>> really people....
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>> While I rightly don't know you are every bit as guilty as those you
>> condemn.  You reposted the very same information again when you
>> replied to this message.  Noticed how I snipped it out prior to
>> responding to you?
>>
>>
>First; I disagree that I am as 'guilty' as those I  "condemn'. I reposted it
>in error. I had intended to edit my reply, but for some reason, MSN kept
>kicking me off line and I had to keep reconnecting. This was a constant
>problem, coupled with the fact that I am still relatively new to OE. I got
>back on, forgot that it was not edited (very easy for someome with Fibro and
>cognitive problems, as well as CP), and rushed to send it off before I got
>booted again. Using _your_ reasoning, I guess that makes you in agreement
>with Juba about Jennie reposting it too? People do make _mistakes_ , or are
>you so perfect that you are above such things?  When I pointed out to Juba
>that Codeee had done the same thing as Jennie, I also ackowledged that I had
>made the same error. Juba's reply was that Codeee would most likely admit
>that she did so in error. Like me, it was not intentional and/or with
>malice. But Juba feels that Jennie is dodging the issue and won't even admit
>to it being done in error. So he assumes that she did so with intent, to
>make sure the info was aechived.
>
>Second; the person who originally posted the information did so with malice
>and intent. I did not. I don't think that even Jennie, or Codeee (who I
>pointed out to Juba _also_ reposted it) did so either. Since then, Jennie
>has posted links to Rack's personal info that is archived in Google. I know
>that there was at least one reply to that post of hers that was not snipped
>of the links that take you directly to the same information. I think the
>point she was making is that her accidental repost is not all that harmful,
>as it is readily available at Google.
>
Why is it that every time someone gets caught in inappropriate
behavior it's their newbie status and/or disability that is
responsible not them?  This theme is repeated over & over.  There are
tons of examples.  Not knowing what the hell you are doing isn't an
excuse.  Although it can be an explanation.  

If a person doesn't know how to drive a car should they simply jump
into one and head out on the interstate?  If a disability does not
allow someone to do something properly they should consider strongly
not doing it.

The person who posts the information the first time is guilty of a
First Degree Usenet felony.  Those who repeat it via a response to the
post are guilty of a Second Degree one.  While they are not as much to
blame, they do have culpability.  Therefore yes, Jennie does have a
level of guilt associated with her actions.  She should not have done
it.  Whether or not the information is in Google doesn't make it right
to point it out.  If someone wants it they can go look it up.  They do
not need to be lead there by the hand.  
-- 

"Y'know I remember when things were a lot more fun around here
When good was good and evil was evil
Before things got so fuzzy"

Don Henely, The Garden of Allah