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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (56300)	9/1/2002 1:30:35 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

Now I see what you mean. I had no clue. This explains why not. Message 17941558

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (56300)	9/1/2002 1:45:36 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

Re the question of revealing Rambi's real first name, and your dire warnings that anyone whose first name I know had better be careful! Knowing that Rambi's actual first name is routinely used on SI, I went to the last post on DAR that Rambi had made. I found this response to it, from, I believe, your wife: Message 17914637 I see that X, who posted the third post after your wife's post, expressed no concern whatever.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (56300)	9/5/2002 1:03:38 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Your feigned horror does you little credit as an actor, and less as a human being. Your outburst was transparent in its opportunism, and I dare say was easily grasped by almost everyone as a regrettable and impulsive try for cheap theatrics. Don't give up your day job...<g> As one who has spoken to Rambi on various threads, you have had opportunity to see many people use her name--and details of her work and so forth. Yet it has only just now knocked you to the floor, and all of a sudden has caused you to writhe in the most exquisite agony! Well, enough of that... I personally believe that there is absolutely no upside to allowing innumerable strangers to know your name, address, and phone number: Public posts on SI do not share one-to-one, but one-to-many. Many people have come to regret what they have shared with unhealthy strangers; and many regret what they have shared with "friends". People who have PM'd me know well that I am very stingy about revealing anything beyond what I would reveal in a public place or forum. As to revealing a confidence...nothing shared privately on SI should go any further without an understanding and a clearance from the sender--this regardless of the nature of the relationship, or the depth of affection. This brings up the interesting question of members of the same household sharing private communications as SI posters. The question as to whether spouses ought to disclaim on their profile page the alias of their spouse (who will almost certainly be privy to the contents of any private messages sent to either), is an interesting one to consider. One may feel quite comfortable sending a privileged private communication to a particular person, but not to another with whom he or she has an entirely different relationship, or none at all. Such a situation might be considered to compromise the privacy rights of individuals in the absence of full disclosure. What do you think, Mr. D.? Do you think that the pre-eminence of spousal intimacy might cause a breech of ethics in an SI poster as to their protection of privacy rights? Do you think that such a relationship ought to be disclosed? At this point I am leaning toward the belief that SI spouses are liable (for very natural and understandable reasons) to be less protective of the privacy rights of another SI poster sharing personal information with them. Take the case of two Si friends who decide to become more intimate. Perhaps two men in the same profession with some similar interests. The one decides to tell his buddy about an affair he had. Little does he know, however, that one of SI's worst gossips just happens to be the spouse of this person. The details of this illustration are not important. It is illustrative only, and not based on particular facts. What is important is the principle. Given the natural expectation (that people in the same household are liable to share information even though it was supposed to be private)...ought they not, at the least, to disclose that they are (for instance) maried? What do you think? I have not yet made up my mind.