just realised steve shaw has left!

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:45 am

avanutria wrote: Im my years here it's been very common for Person A to comment "oh, I haven't seen Person X in ages" and for Persons B and C to comment "oh yes, don't worry, I've seen him/her around in such-and-such a place." I read nothing sinister in Joseph's post, just a forum member trying to help out, and was sad to see Steve so offended.

Ditto. It was just an offhand comment.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:57 am

Well, to sort it out, Joseph's remark was innocent and well
meant and Steve's response was a bit overthetop IMO,
and it's probably better for moderators to err away
from revealing who is 'perusing' the forums.
People who do this may wish it
not to be known, for whatever reason, and we might
as well respect their privacy.

djm · Post by **djm** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:51 am

But do we really know that it was Steve who logged and complained about this perceived invasion of his privacy, or was it actually a moderator winding us up? Can't a moderator log in as any user, or make it appear that they are another user even though they are logged in as themselves? Or what if it wasn't a moderator but someone else who logged in under Steve's userid? What if it was a giant toadstool named Clyde who lives under Cornwall and taps into the internet under the assumed ids of innocent Cornwellians but who is, in fact, a mercenary for hire that gathers personal information for foreign governments and only pretends to gather amphibian excrement?

I mean, what are the odds, right?

djm

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:56 am

You could be on to something there Deej...

talasiga · Post by **talasiga** » Mon May 07, 2007 5:59 am

emmline wrote:
avanutria wrote: Im my years here it's been very common for Person A to comment "oh, I haven't seen Person X in ages" and for Persons B and C to comment "oh yes, don't worry, I've seen him/her around in such-and-such a place." I read nothing sinister in Joseph's post, just a forum member trying to help out, and was sad to see Steve so offended.
Ditto. It was just an offhand comment.

Offhand comment, yes.

Avanutria, Joseph is not just posting as "just a forum member", however innocent his intention is. He is posting information that is privileged by the vantage of his authority as a moderator. Only the moderators have access to the sort of info. that Joe has posted about.

Just like (I suspect) only a moderator can see who I am sharing PMs with.

Our non public activities are PRIVATE activities. Whilst our societies allow authorities to have access to certain parts of our private domain that is not an access allowed for the stuff of public sociability on the part of those authorities.

I don't want to go into a laborious paper tiger dissertation about this because I really only come here to enjoy myself. Surely you can see where I and others are coming from even if you may not agree.

I do feel it is possible to acclaim Joseph's innocent intent without throwing mud at Steve's rightful post.

Can we not have WIN WIN? It is the best way to move on.

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Mon May 07, 2007 6:48 am

SteveShaw wrote:
Joseph E. Smith wrote:Every now and then, I see him perusing the forums. Perhaps someday, he'll end his self-imposed exile and come back to play.
Yes, well, I'll break my "self-imposed exile" for just one post to say that I am more than a bit miffed that, having chosen not to post and having stated my reasons for this clearly on the list, someone can betray the fact that I have been "perusing the forums." As soon as I stopped posting I altered my profile preferences so as to hide my online status, yet it now seems that I did this to no avail. It's almost as if a confidence has been breached. As it happens I peruse lots of forums to do with lots of topics and I post to hardly any of them and C & F has, to me, become just another one of those. This is obviously just another of those moderator issues I complained about and I am not very happy about it. Point made. I wish everyone well.

Steve, no harm was meant, honestly. Believe it or not, you are missed... even your grumpiness from time to time.

Moderator issues?

talasiga wrote:
Just like (I suspect) only a moderator can see who I am sharing PMs with.

Nope, can't (and wouldn't) do that. It would be a legitimate breach of privacy.

amar · Post by **amar** » Mon May 07, 2007 7:35 am

talasiga wrote:
snip
I do feel it is possible to acclaim Joseph's innocent intent without throwing mud at Steve's rightful post.
snip

That's what I think. Moderators are not always aware of being moderators, first of all they are people contributing to the board and having fun.

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Mon May 07, 2007 7:41 am

Look, whether I think that Steve is being too sensitive or that I am not in breach of a privacy thingie, the fact remains Steve felt violated.

It was never my intent to violate Steve's sense of privacy.

I am sorry Steve, and from here on in I will refrain from making it known that you are lurking.

fearfaoin · Post by **fearfaoin** » Mon May 07, 2007 7:44 am

Joseph E. Smith wrote:Look, whether I think that Steve is being too sensitive or that I am not in breach of a privacy thingie, the fact remains Steve felt violated.

Then Steve should anonymize himself. Why trust the board
software? Log on as a guest and no one knows who you are.
Good grief. Much ado about nothing.

talasiga · Post by **talasiga** » Mon May 07, 2007 8:13 am

fearfaoin wrote:......
Log on as a guest and no one knows who you are.
Good grief. Much ado about nothing.

It is difficult to check one's Private Messages if one is not logged on as the member to whom the messages have been sent to. I do not mean to insinuate that this is what SS was doing.

Now I don't mean to be maudlin but I am somewhat touched by Joe's open hearted latest posts and I hope Steve is too. I really feel he is about to make a comeback (if only to prove me right). That would be really nice seeing as he is one of the few here who understand my jokes and pokes.

Hmmm .... much ado about nothing? The voidist theory of the universe - pretty Buddhist if you ask me ....

fearfaoin · Post by **fearfaoin** » Mon May 07, 2007 8:34 am

talasiga wrote:It is difficult to check one's Private Messages if one is not logged on as the member to whom the messages have been sent to.

Checking one's PMs is not "perusing the fora". You can log in as
yourself to do the one and log in as guest to do the other. If you
want to be paranoid, then do it right, by gum.

Careful surfing: It's not just for hackers anymore.

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Mon May 07, 2007 8:56 am

Feeling bored? Need some spice in your life?

Check out the 3 perfect records thread and listen to the suggestions. That'll keep you busy for a while.

talasiga · Post by **talasiga** » Mon May 07, 2007 9:00 am

fearfaoin wrote:
talasiga wrote:It is difficult to check one's Private Messages if one is not logged on as the member to whom the messages have been sent to.
Checking one's PMs is not "perusing the fora". You can log in as
yourself to do the one and log in as guest to do the other. If you
want to be paranoid, then do it right, by gum.

Well you're taking a big bite when you're trying get nitpicky with me. Do you know what you are dealing with here?

1. How do YOU know what Joe precisely was referring to? Maybe he just saw the ISP hereabouts.
2. Why do you keep saying "log in as guest"? There is no need to LOG IN AT ALL if one wants to just peruse these forums.
3. Why do you characterise the way this topic has developed as "much ado about nothing" and then contribute more ado yourself? Do you think your ado will make something out of nothing?
4. What makes you think that privacy just turns on paranoia? Sometimes keeping things private is driven by compassion. Sometimes it turns on that quaint idea of dignity.

fearfaoin · Post by **fearfaoin** » Mon May 07, 2007 9:24 am

talasiga wrote:Well you're taking a big bite when you're trying get nitpicky with me. Do you know what you are dealing with here?

Pragmatist war? I thought you'd never ask!

talisiga wrote:1. How do YOU know what Joe precisely was referring to? Maybe he just saw the ISP hereabouts.

Which would easily be solved using a proxy server. I was
respecting the intelligence of Steve and others by allowing them
to research their own anonymizing resources. "Log on as guest"
was a placeholder for all anonymous browsing.

talisiga wrote:2. Why do you keep saying "log in as guest"? There is no need to LOG IN AT ALL if one wants to just peruse these forums.

There is a need to log out if you have your browser set to log you
in automatically. Once logged off, you can be considered "logged
in as guest".

talisiga wrote:3. Why do you characterise the way this topic has developed as "much ado about nothing" and then contribute more ado yourself?

I only characterized Steve's contention that he was being spyed
upon as "much ado about nothing". The rest of the thread remains
uncharacterized by myself. Of course, my response to yours was,
admittedly, taking it too far. As is this one. Darn.

talisiga wrote:4. What makes you think that privacy just turns on paranoia?

Of course it doesn't. Hackers have been characterized as paranoid
for a long time, because they were libertarian well before it was
fashionable. The paranoia comment was self-referential humor.

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Mon May 07, 2007 9:26 am

C'mon folks, there is such a thing as getting carried away, tempest in a teacup, mountain out of a mole hill... etc... etc...

For good or for ill, what was done, is done. Might I suggest we move along and get on with our lives? Hmmmm?

I regret stepping on bruised toes and (believe it or not) I do feel badly that Steve feels badly. But, jeeeezuz, isn't it time for more shenannigans and less cadaver whipping?