I was going to just let you get away with your attempt to distract, but after reading your posts since, I decided to try one more time to allow you to see yourself as others see you... Do you see an image when you stand in front of a mirror or just a bunch of words.
You managed to avoid a direct answer to my question yesterday. It all started when you said:
""...but public records can never be invasion of privacy by definition. ""
Then I asked:
"Would you consider a published telephone number a "public record?""
Message 9894000
You responded:
"The difference here is that I posted the owners of record of one of the offices of PABN/PRwt/FirstStates.......blah, blah, blah..."
Huh? A public record is a public record only when posted? And it depends upon the intent behind said post?
Then there was all the blah, blah, blah about my and Isoman's ethical values followed by.....
"Not to mention a shallow attempt to distract the discussion and divert attention."
Oh, and what was all that blah, blah, blah if not to distract and divert one's attention from the fact that you said that public records can never be invasion of privacy by definition. Then you respond by implying that, in fact, the posting of public records CAN be an invasion of privacy. Was your first statement not one of fact or is it a .....er, lie? Was your response a way of weaseling out and distracting and diverting? All the things that you accuse others of doing. Tsk, tsk....
Bill
|
