... you should not be afraid to say in front of your mother or a police officer! All privacy issues go out the window... Remember, you did hit REPLY ALL!
I wasn't aware of that social rule. I'll still keep all the -reply all- emails at work private though.
By the way, I used to have a list called "dasfamily". I sent an email to that list asking for how to get a hold of you. Steph did a REPLY-ALL with your phone number, cell number, and home address. I think this was for Christmas presents. I'll be posting that information just in case anyone is looking to get a hold of you as well.
That is unless you object. I'll take your silence as consent though. Expect the post EOD Friday.
If you feel the need to publish my personal contact information, go for it.
Interested parties can contact me by phone if they choose to by clicking on the "Call ME" button on the top of the blog.
If you think there is personal information which identifies your family in my post then please identify it for me and I will remove it. I have reviewed the posting and to the best of my ability find nothing that can identify the author.
I honestly didn't think that you would miss the point.
You KNOW that I wouldn't do that. I was just making the point that REPLY-ALL != everyone on the planet. I used the example of personal contact information. In the example I gave, even though it was a replay-all response, it still morally wrong to abuse the trust. Also, while I can't cite the law, I am sure that if I did post your personal info, there would be legal problems. Again, going back to the point that REPLY-ALL does NOT mean everyone on the planet. REPLY-ALL only means everyone that the email is addressed to.
As far as the other post goes, in a technical sense, I don't have a problem with that. Like you said, there is no personal information or even identifying information contained in it. You asked me -after- you posted that message, who it was. Therefore, I still believe that it's not a personal thing.
Now, if you had argued that there is not personal or identifying information in the post, and/or that you didn't know who the sender was before you posted, no big deal (to me).
4 comments:
I wasn't aware of that social rule. I'll still keep all the -reply all- emails at work private though.
By the way, I used to have a list called "dasfamily". I sent an email to that list asking for how to get a hold of you. Steph did a REPLY-ALL with your phone number, cell number, and home address. I think this was for Christmas presents. I'll be posting that information just in case anyone is looking to get a hold of you as well.
That is unless you object. I'll take your silence as consent though. Expect the post EOD Friday.
I think at this point, everyone should just agree to disagree!
However, I think it's great that we live in a country where each one of us can have our own opinions. Thank goodness we don't all think alike.
If you feel the need to publish my personal contact information, go for it.
Interested parties can contact me by phone if they choose to by clicking on the "Call ME" button on the top of the blog.
If you think there is personal information which identifies your family in my post then please identify it for me and I will remove it. I have reviewed the posting and to the best of my ability find nothing that can identify the author.
I honestly didn't think that you would miss the point.
You KNOW that I wouldn't do that. I was just making the point that REPLY-ALL != everyone on the planet. I used the example of personal contact information. In the example I gave, even though it was a replay-all response, it still morally wrong to abuse the trust. Also, while I can't cite the law, I am sure that if I did post your personal info, there would be legal problems. Again, going back to the point that REPLY-ALL does NOT mean everyone on the planet. REPLY-ALL only means everyone that the email is addressed to.
As far as the other post goes, in a technical sense, I don't have a problem with that. Like you said, there is no personal information or even identifying information contained in it. You asked me -after- you posted that message, who it was. Therefore, I still believe that it's not a personal thing.
Now, if you had argued that there is not personal or identifying information in the post, and/or that you didn't know who the sender was before you posted, no big deal (to me).
Post a Comment