E, that is, indeed, a rule. One open to wide interpretation. Most of the "forbiddens" are difficult to define and often depend on "the eye of the beholder."
I don't believe there is the slightest suggestion that posters may impose "to or about" restrictions on other posters.
I don't think the "rule" actually assures participants of squat. There MAY be some assurance re privacy of registration information as part of the sign-up. And I would think posting your personal address, phone number, e-mail or place of employment is a "no-no" but I am unsure of legal implications of doing so. This sort of thing is SOP with news media.
If you send me a PM and ASK if I will keep a confidence in a subsequent PM, I will honor that, if I agree. If you send me an unsolicited PM, I will note it as I please (probably not at all).
In reality, you and I and others here know all kinds of personal things about each other. In spite of sometimes bitter disagreements, I have only seen this kind of "private" knowledge "outed" on a couple of occasions. The people who did this (one on this thread) are beneath contempt, regardless of any rules.
I suspect the people who own/run SI (and their attorneys) would die of fright if they thought they had guaranteed that you would not feel offended here now and then.
There seem to be two main issues at the heart of this discussion. One is a "he said - she said" thing between CH and Poet. The other is "to or about". I think most people are simply tired of hearing about the former. As for the latter, I think a "to or about" rule is a crock and would lead to a tortured nightmare of political correctness here.
As for SI, I believe they act against posters only with strong provocation (I am amazed at some of the stuff that passes muster). This is probably as it should be.
Hmmmmmmmm.....I keep hearing a frog-like noise in here???Good time to head out for some pub grub (but not before checking temp of water in the pool and sending off to those damn eeeeeek!ologists at the NAS).
M |
