Threaded index Date index FAQ
That had fucking better not be the content!
Posted by Prometheus on 2010-November-9 03:08:30, TuesdayIn reply to Clarification / Synopsis posted by Amicus on 2010-November-8 23:54:10, Monday
|
First of all, nobody's response should contain my name, because I have not consented to being included by anyone in a response to this request. Anyone who would do that would certainly not be someone I would ever trust again. Yeah, I know that was just an example, but I was making a point. Second, I didn't write a "misleading interpretation". Not one thing you have written here in any way addresses any of the concerns I raised to the slightest degree, and all your "clarifications" were restatements of what I understood in the first place. I understood in the first place that you were asking for names and e-mail addresses, and never implied otherwise, and the example you gave of the format is consistent with the way I understood your request. What I wrote was in response to this request, not a mistaken belief that you were asking for anything more. Saying "Is all that is asked, no reasons, or any other information is wanted." is disingenuous, because I never thought or implied that you were asking for anything else. The second question is not extraneous precisely because of the first (and it's bracketed qualifier), and visa versa.It is extraneous for precisely the reasons I gave. If you are looking for people who volunteer to participate in your movement, you can justify wanting to know who can vouch for those who do volunteer (though still not without those people's prior permission - hell, it's even rude to give someone's name as a work reference without asking them first!), but why do you need people who volunteer to tell you everyone they can vouch for regardless of whether any of those people are interested in participating? Why do you need to know who can vouch for people who have given no indication that they are inclined to participate, with emphasis on completeness to boot ("try not to leave anyone out")? I'll also note that the fact that you say the second question is not extraneous "because..." and then follow the word "because" with something vague and cryptic that doesn't really say anything at all leads me to believe that you don't have an answer. Sorry, but "because of the first (and it's bracketed qualifier), and visa versa" isn't any sort of explanation as to why you need anyone to vouch for people who have not volunteered. This does not compromise people (period). It was designed not to.Proof by assertion? As persuasive and iron-clad an argument as "(period)" may be, I can think of many ways in which a database of interrelationships among BL's can be used to compromise people's privacy. The U.S. government has been doing this sort of thing more and more since safeguards were loosened after 9/11, ostensibly in the interest of preventing terrorism, but the idea is that if you have a web of interrelationships, once you've tracked down some of the people by separate means, it becomes easier to track down others. I won't get into details and I'm not interested in debating about this, because it really misses the point anyway. The point is that it does not matter whether you think that it compromises anyone's privacy, or whether I think so. It's every individual's right to decide that for themselves before other people give out information about their interrelationships. Further, the interpretation of trying again hardly means we should try at random, rather it means where there is a reasonable chance of success, despite past (unrelated) losses.Why bother to make that argument, when not one of your respondents either stated or implied that trying again means trying at random? Why correct a misinterpretation that nobody made? You seem to love the rhetorical device of appearing to address objections by refuting things that weren't said in the first place. Finally, although the details are lacking, can't you concede they would have to be if they have any chance of succeeding, that a meta-analysis of your social interrelations in this simplistic manner (which I'm certainly asking you to provide me with - I'm not attempting to hide this, I've explained that much) is a sensible means to begin under this kind of irrationally paranoid atmosphere?You're missing the point again. It doesn't matter what I can or can't concede. What I or any other reader concludes about the chance of success, or whether there's value in collecting information about interrelationships, or whether doing so compromises people's privacy and security, are all beside the point! I didn't tell people "I think you shouldn't participate in this because of the following concerns..." What I said was that it's not anyone's place to make the decision for other people whether information about them will be sent. You can make all the arguments in the world for why what you're asking is worth a try and doesn't compromise anyone's privacy and still fail to even address that point let alone refute it. The fact that your response was so shifty and equivocal and teeming with rhetorical abuses, frankly, makes me so much less inclined to trust you, on a personal level. But, I reiterate, what's important is not whether I trust you or whether any other reader trusts you. The point is that nobody has to right to trust you on other people's behalf. If some readers want to give you their own nicks and addresses as volunteers, that's their business, and if they provide the nicks and addresses of people who have agreed to vouch for them, I have no problem with that, and never implied that I did. Why are you putting so much effort into obfuscating the point? .jpg) |
Follow ups:
