Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (22223)	8/15/2001 11:07:39 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Is anything here necessary? I doubt you could point to a single post in the last 10,000 that is truly necessary. But your point is fair in the context in which I think you meant it. I'm not sure what would constitute necessary in the context of discussions here. I saw people attacked in ways I thought unfair, and came to their defense. Was that necessary? On one level, no. But I have an instinctive, almost visceral, response to come to the defense of people under attack. And equally, I have a gut level negative response to hypocrisy. So when I feel I see the two coming together, I suppose I act like a shark smelling blood in the water. Time to go on the attack. Necessary? Well, I could sign off SI and seethe in private (except that inevitably I would take some of my frustrated resentment out on my wife and kids and dog.) But that wasn't the choice I made. And, of course, the same question should be asked of Poet, and E, and X, and all the others involved in this little contretemps (or, in E's case, in the aftermath). Were all their posts necessary? I wonder what their responses will be. Poet and E will probably read this and can decide whether to answer or not. You'll have to pose the question to X yourself if you think it's a reasonable question, since she has me on ignore, so won't read this. Which raises an interesting point: if you have somebody on ignore, and therefore your only understanding of what they have said is based on what other people have said to other people about what they have said, is it necessary or even appropriate to respond to that obliquely but plainly in your posts to other people you know the ignored person will read? Or do you have an obligation, if you're going to address yourself to what other people say, at least to read what they actually say, not what other people say about what they say? Is there a question of intellectual honesty or integrity here? For myself, of the two people I have on ignore, I am quite careful not to refer in any way to what people say about what they post. That's my comfort level. Others feel differently, apparently.

To: Lane3 who wrote (22223)	8/16/2001 7:56:21 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

There are some interesting doings in DC regarding IDs for school kids. Something in here for everyone to like or dislike... Schwartz Questions Child ID Proposal ACLU Also Raises Privacy Concerns By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Sewell Chan Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, August 16, 2001; Page B01 A key member of the D.C. Council said yesterday that her committee would hold a hearing about a proposed high-tech identification program, as some officials and civil libertarians criticized the plans to take digital photographs and fingerprints of schoolchildren this fall. <snip> <snip> Schwartz's comments followed an article in The Washington Post that described the plan of Mayor Anthony A. Williams's administration to collect names, home addresses and other personal information from children with the permission of their parents. The children's data would be fed into a central computer maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles, which would issue ID cards containing bar codes that could be scanned by authorities. Schwartz's committee will hold the hearing on the initiative because it oversees the DMV. Officials at Polaroid ID Systems, which is helping the District with the technology, said the program would be the most sophisticated of its kind in the nation. Initially, city officials said the system would be used to improve the search for missing children, by giving authorities quicker access to identifying information. In interviews, officials acknowledged that they hope to use the ID system to improve social services by tracking young people at schools and in public assistance programs. A Polaroid official said yesterday that a company sales representative broached the idea of the child ID program 18 months ago during discussions with the District about the DMV's digital licensing system. Polaroid spokesman Roy Nilson said the ID program was offered as an added security feature. <snip> washingtonpost.com