|
|
|
Quote:
On FR it used to be quite a popular passtime to sleuth out the identities of liberals who dared to post and then track them down and harrass their employer until they got fired.
I'm aware of that happening once. Was there more than one occasion of that?
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. |
|
|
|
Quote:
Was there more than one occasion of that?
Yes. The DOT worker was the most publicized, but not the only one. |
|
Subject
|
 Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: Earth_AD | Post 1351784, reply to 1351418 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
CubicleGuy (agent provocateur) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 05:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd certainly be puzzled by his behavior, but certainly not attempt a fucking intervention. It would, in essence and in fact, be none of my business.
When one believes that another's eternal salvation is on the line, it tends to affect one's behavior in a way that puts one's feelings regarding mortal liberty in second place.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: CubicleGuy | Post 1351785, reply to 1351771 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
JustStopIt (Son of Liberty) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 05:46 PM |
|
|
I would guess that he is about nineteen +3/-1 years old.
No matter who you vote for, the government always gets elected |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: JustStopIt | Post 1351807, reply to 1351785 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
CubicleGuy (agent provocateur) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 05:57 PM |
|
|
In the Muslim community, when does one achieve the age of majority? Is it 21? Does it even matter to them one way or the other? They may not view their children as ever really being totally independent from the parents for all I know.
I think it's important that we don't necessarily impose a Western viewpoint regarding liberty and age of majority and parental involvement in the lives of their children in this instance.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. |
|
Subject
|
 Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: John Deere | Post 1351808, reply to 1351623 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
annalex (agent provocateur) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 05:57 PM |
|
|
Flag to: John Deere, JustStopItI broadly agree with all you said, but you did not address directly the issue of repeated provocations on the part of WRS, in the face of your stated strong concern for the member's privacy. This is why I agree with JustStopIt that a proactive line could be taken by you, not as punishment for a concrete violation of existing policy -- there is none, -- but as a defensive measure on behalf of all members who, it appears, can never consider themselves safe from WRS' snooping. That proactively defensive measure would be to prohibit images hosted on WRS's servers. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: CubicleGuy | Post 1351815, reply to 1351807 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
JustStopIt (Son of Liberty) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:00 PM |
|
|
They may not view their children as ever really being totally independent from the parents for all I know.
As I understand it, they don't. Rightful, in my view.
No matter who you vote for, the government always gets elected |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: OWK | Post 1351822, reply to 1351645 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
annalex (agent provocateur) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:06 PM |
|
|
I am advocating precisely [an ideological condition of membership]
There are several problems with that. One is, if you define that ideology too narrowly, you will not have an opportunity to persuade anyone outside of the libertarian realm. The other, -- there is no way to enforce what coercive actions people take outside of LF. WRS and Co. could have conducted the entire identification of Zaphod and notification of the parents in PM, or by phone, -- and how would you prevent that from happening? The fact that they disclosed their investigation to all of us did no further harm, the harm was possibly done when Zaphod's parents were notified.
|
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: Le_Roy | Post 1351827, reply to 1351751 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
Randal (freedom fighter) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:07 PM |
|
|
Flag to: Le_Roy, AdaCQuote:
Randal - IF the charges are true, there is no way you can interpret calling the school to have him ejected in any least possible way as springing from a sense of compassionate concern -- if someone committed the acts alleged, they are a bottom-feeding bastard that should meet a swift demise (and if the SOB comes to my door, he will).
The acts to which you refer are entirely speculation and hearsay.
And no, I am not prepared to pass judgement on any act without knowing the full circumstances, and most especially not without having heard the defence case. Perhaps if there was a call to the school WRS genuinely felt that the guy's well-being depended upon him returning home to his family.
Just as likely, WRS believed that his returning to Islam depended upon his returning to his home country, and that was necessary for his own good.
As for whether execution is even a possibility, that depends upon the policies in Z's home country, whether the sentence is ever actually carried out there, whether you can avoid the sentence by recanting your apostasy. None of which I know about (and nor would I necessarily trust those here who would claim to know all those things).
If calls were made with malicious intent, then certainly the person who did so was acting contemptibly.
"You only have to be sufficiently determined to realise heaven on earth to be sure of raising hell" |
|
|
|
Quote:
When one believes that another's eternal salvation is on the line, it tends to affect one's behavior in a way that puts one's feelings regarding mortal liberty in second place.
Thank you for very eloquently stating one of the many reasons I find religion immoral.  |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: OWK | Post 1351830, reply to 1350862 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
JRadcliffe (Son of Liberty) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:12 PM |
|
|
How can one aquire the ID of other posters?
...we are ruled by mercenaries, men without a country. National sovereignty is nothing to them, nor is patriotism...these are not the actions of patriots. Lew Rockwell |
|
|
|
Quote:
I think it's important that we don't necessarily impose a Western viewpoint regarding liberty and age of majority and parental involvement in the lives of their children in this instance.
It's not an issue of parental involvement. WRS and ansar are not his parents. Nobody is judging the actions of his parents as far as I've seen. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: Randal | Post 1351836, reply to 1351827 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
OWK (Son of Liberty) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:15 PM |
|
|
Just as likely, WRS believed that his returning to Islam depended upon his returning to his home country, and that was necessary for his own good.
Just as those who stick guns in our faces to prevent us from ingesting unapproved substances or from owning unapproved plants believe it to be for our own good.
Thinking more about liberty these days. |
|
|
|
Quote:
Thank you for very eloquently stating one of the many reasons I find religion immoral.
You're welcome. 
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: CubicleGuy | Post 1351847, reply to 1351807 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
Randal (freedom fighter) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In the Muslim community, when does one achieve the age of majority? Is it 21? Does it even matter to them one way or the other? They may not view their children as ever really being totally independent from the parents for all I know.
I think it's important that we don't necessarily impose a Western viewpoint regarding liberty and age of majority and parental involvement in the lives of their children in this instance.
One of the things I dislike most intensely about the way this has been done is the way it has been done behind the backs of those who have been trashed, without any opportunity for those involved to defend themselves.
While I can understand the preference to avoid the inevitable free for all which would result from posting on an open thread, I believe those who wished to make such obnoxious charges against someone should do so openly, perhaps in a limited access thread on the open forum.
Of course, given that WRS's real identity is public knowledge, there may well be real problems in doing so from a libel law point of view. I do not know how American libel law works, but I would not be surprised if accusing somebody of trying to get somebody else killed (even by a lawful islamic process in a foreign country) might be regarded as libellous. Certainly harassment can be a criminal act, so accusing somebody of doing that might count as libel.
So we have a real problem here, partly of WRS's own making, if we are to seek to get to the bottom of this matter.
An unpleasant business, all round.
"You only have to be sufficiently determined to realise heaven on earth to be sure of raising hell" |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: Randal | Post 1351856, reply to 1351847 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
OWK (Son of Liberty) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:26 PM |
|
|
One of the things I dislike most intensely about the way this has been done is the way it has been done behind the backs of those who have been trashed, without any opportunity for those involved to defend themselves.
Hmmmm...
Wonder if ZBB got to defend himself..??
Or Magician..??
Thinking more about liberty these days. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: SteamshipTime | Post 1351869, reply to 1351179 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
Eric (insurgent) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:35 PM |
|
|
Flag to: SteamshipTime, thoughtcriminal, Randal, Zviadist, JustStopIt"Again, Kudzu and WRS have goals other than liberty."
To ban someone for conflicting goals seems to be a goal other than liberty.
With great change often comes great pain. I was unaware of Muslims transformation until now, but if he felt the need to hide in the shadows with his new philosophy, perhaps he shouldn't be posting it on a public forum.
Second point, is that Muslim apparently had multiple identities upon this forum which I always thought was not permitted.
As for others concerned about what is said here affecting their personal lives I'll ask why? Are you socialist by day only to transform into Libertarian man in the cover of darkness and anonymous postings?
I see no reason to pursue the banning of either Kudzu or WRS.
As a person dedicated to learning, I enjoy being wrong. It lets me know I've got something to live for. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: Randal | Post 1351872, reply to 1351847 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
CubicleGuy (agent provocateur) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One of the things I dislike most intensely about the way this has been done is the way it has been done behind the backs of those who have been trashed, without any opportunity for those involved to defend themselves.
And a non-western religious point of view is very strongly intertwined in all of this, as well. I hesitate to be too judgmental when a paradigm that I don't particularly know too well is involved. If Republican parents hire a deprogrammer to kidnap their son, newly converted to libertarianism because they believe they have their son's best interests at heart, do I, as a libertarian, have the right to interfere in that deprogramming process?
One person's infringement of rights is another person's rescue from error.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: OWK | Post 1351874, reply to 1351836 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
Randal (freedom fighter) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just as those who stick guns in our faces to prevent us from ingesting unapproved substances or from owning unapproved plants believe it to be for our own good.
I was addressing the point raised by LeRoy about motivation.
However, your analogy is not relevant anyway as we are presumably dealing with an individual whom WRS believed to be of unsound mind at the time, and in need of help.
"You only have to be sufficiently determined to realise heaven on earth to be sure of raising hell" |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: Eric | Post 1351875, reply to 1351869 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
Mr_Nuke_Buzzcut (Son of Liberty) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Second point, is that Muslim apparently had multiple identities upon this forum which I always thought was not permitted.
Point addressed earlier. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: Randal | Post 1351880, reply to 1351874 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
OWK (Son of Liberty) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:40 PM |
|
|
However, your analogy is not relevant anyway as we are presumably dealing with an individual whom WRS believed to be of unsound mind at the time, and in need of help.
Those who stick government guns in our faces to control our ingestion of unapproved substances also believe us to be of unsound mind and in need of help.
But they too are wrong.
Thinking more about liberty these days. |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: Randal | Post 1351881, reply to 1351874 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
Mr_Nuke_Buzzcut (Son of Liberty) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 06:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, your analogy is not relevant anyway as we are presumably dealing with an individual whom WRS believed to be of unsound mind at the time, and in need of help.
The evidence is that he was of unsound mind during the period in which he was consuming LSD -- which just so happens to coincide with his conversion to islam. When he cleaned up and recovered a sound mind, he rejected islam. Was the goal to get him back on hallucinagens? |
|
|
|
Quote:
How do you feel about the fact that at least two of our fellow posters have in the past engaged and are currently engaging themselves in affecting the offline lives of other LF posters to their detriment by using LF and what is said here?
Once it has been proven that they have fucked with people's offline lives, they should be banned.
That's not censorship because it is banning someone for their actions, not their speech.
He is not a pure man of truth and I think he is also Wexner and Christopher Lambert and retard. -Newswatcher |
|
Subject
|
Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: John Deere | Post 1351985, reply to 1351623 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
NMC_EXP (insurgent) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 07:22 PM |
|
|
Flag to: John Deere, thoughtcriminalThe question is, are we seriously trying to build an alternative society? Or are we just paying lip service to the responsibility that comes with actually putting something together that could eventually help to free us from state coercion?
How are we going to free ourselves from state coercion if we cannot free ourselves from individual coercion on a discussion forum?
If WRS outed this person WRS should be severely sanctioned.
As TC said, if libertarians won't protect individual privacy then "libertarians ain't shit".
As to the discussion re: the knowledge that some malicious son of a bitch has the inclination and capability to sleuth information I wish to remain secret, as I see it this is a show stopper for a forum dedicated to free speech.
The two are not compatible.
If these allegations are true WRS has voluntarily surrendered any claim he had to the right of freedom of expression on LF.
"The only kind of freedom that the mob can imagine is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters, and that is precisely the kind that we mainly have."
- H.L. Mencken
|
|
Subject
|
 Re: Instrusions into your offline life
[ To: JRadcliffe | Post 1352006, reply to 1351830 ] (Score: 2) |
| Posted by |
MadameAxe (agent provocateur) |
| Posted on | 03/08/04 07:26 PM |
|
|
Flag to: JRadcliffe, Adac, gjenkins, SonOfLiberty, OWK, JustStopIt, texoma, ZviadistQuote:
How can one aquire the ID of other posters?
"Self search" links have your userid embedded in them. If you go to a thread where a graphic is stored via your Self-search and the image is loaded, the server where the image was stored records the information of your IP address along with the URL of the page which requested the graphic, which contains your username.
Your username would also be stored on a remote server if someone did a search on your posts and then went to a thread via the links returned from that, but someone who wanted to wade through it all could sort out those hits from the "self search" ones based on times posts were made by you, etc.
Ways to avoid having your IP address recorded are to either keep images turned off, or to use a proxy server. Note that some proxy servers are configured so such that you may not be able to post through them. I use the Opera browser which allows me to toggle, in each tabbed window, whether images are off, on, or cached only, so I usually turn images off and then load only the ones I trust and/or want to see.
Flagging a few others I seem to recall were discussing this earlier in the thread, since the url issue has not been mentioned.
Why vote for a lesser evil?Edited by MadameAxe on 03/08/04 07:28 PM. |
Previous 
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded