General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2120067

    Chat Room Psycho Babblers

    Locked

    by fluxit ·

    Years ago the dinner table was a place for chat. Then the food and beverage industry attempted to draw people out of thier homes and the chats were in restaraunts and at bars. Today the chats are back at home and at work as well in these online chatrooms. Chat rooms are prevasive on the web. Everyone seems to have them and everyone is talking.

    There are many questions to be answered about the chat room as they have become to be used as evidence in court and people use them to advance unusual ideas.

    I would not be surprised if some research team is collecting chat room dialoques and peoples profiles to analyze and profile types of people for marketing, defense, and criminal purposes.

    Just what is our exposure?
    Is a web presence good, moderate, or bad?
    Should we maintain many online alias’s not associated with our real id?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3422282

      The Web is like…

      by generalist ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      The Web is like life. And for most people, life is a set of aliases that vary in how strong they are coupled to our ‘real’ ID.

      Of course the Web does allow people to have aliases that go to greater extremes because the cloak of privacy protects their ‘real’ identities and the Web itself makes it easy to ‘be’ the alias.

      The classic male playing the part of a female is one relatively tame example. There are those who are willing to go through the physical effort of appearing to be female because it appeals to them and is one of their aliases. There are even those who go to the extreme of becoming structurally female through surgical and biochemical means because that alias is a closer match to their ‘real’ ID.

      With the Web, onecan go multiple directions and still keep their ‘real’ ID intact.

      Now, is that good or bad? I can see situations where multiple aliases on the Web could indicate that psych problems exist. I can even see situations where they cause psych and/orsocial problems.

      It leads to some interesting areas of discussion.

      • #3422114

        You are suggesting…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to The Web is like…

        People are not happy with themselves? So they go to extremes to become happy? This sounds like hedonist.

        I think the bottomline is that people have a marginal outlet today for thier emotions, beliefs, and feelings. Modern society has taken something away from people.

        We cannot have relationships with coworkers because of sexual harrassment policy, fraternatization concerns, and those cliques that cause problems. In some military boot camps today the DI has the recruits stare at the opposite sex while he runs a stop watch to illustrate how long a person can at another person before it becomes harrassment. Ready – look – Stop! 3 secs is the rule.

        I am single and want to contribute to the Boy Scouts and be a Big Brother but I fear legal issues if a individual decides to point a unjust finger at me.

        Even online today I often wonder if anything a write will come back to haunt me. I may be the founder of a large company in the future or rise to meet a political challenge for acause I believe in. But there is someone out there who will pull some ole email I wrote and try to hold me accountable to it.

        The new testment remarks that we will become a number and the sexes will become confused.

        So would you suggest that people are someone they are not online since society penaltizes us for who we are?

        • #3418345

          Social pressure

          by generalist ·

          In reply to You are suggesting…

          I think that your comment that people have a marginal outlet for their emotions, beliefs and feelings is at the core of the matter. But it isn’t a new phenomena. Social pressure has been around for a long, long time. But modern communications, combined with massive databases and the Web, have increased the potential pressure.

          What is new is the fact that the Web can provide a greater outlet for emotions, beliefs and feelings and still have a veneer of privacy. So for those who feel the social pressure more intensely, the Web ironically offers a certain amount of relief.

          If people don’t have an outlet for emotions, beliefs and feelings, they can be unhappy with themselves. When they find that outlet, they may sometimes go to extremes because the social pressures are reduced and they can FINALLY be themselves.

          From some points of view it is hedonism. But from other viewpoints it is an expression of relief.

          When you get down to it, one person’s hedonism may be trivial to another person and torture to a third. For example, the Caribbean cruise ‘Fred’ considers to be a hedonistic award would be trivial to ‘Carol’ who likes backcountry hiking and torture to ‘Allan’ who hates crowds and temperatures over 68 degrees F.

        • #3442867

          contradictions in society

          by qba98 ·

          In reply to Social pressure

          You have to love the hypocrisy and mixed messages being sent out to people today.

          Example. Police officers:

          It seems that everyone today encourages people to seek professional counseling if they’re having a hard time coping with something. Now, say a cop goes and seeks treatment for some mild depression or grief counseling for the loss of a child. UH, OH, the officer has to use his weapon in the line of duty, and it is completely legitimate. The fact that he did his job properly won’t stop the media from portraying him as a loose cannon on the edge of sanity. All of a sudden reporters will say “the officer was under counseling” at the time of the shooting, and that they are not sure about his “state of mind.” Now you tell me, is any cop ever going to get help, especially now that he knows it could be used against him someday. Hell no. He’ll suck it up.

          The examples are endless, and they apply to everyone in society, not just cops. The rule is, ask me no questions, I tell you no lies.

          As a side note, I see people getting there balls busted about something they said twenty-five years ago. Give me a break. You mean to tell me people are frozen at some stage in their development?

        • #3421475

          An easy way to check

          by admin ·

          In reply to You are suggesting…

          What is readily available that you (or anyone else) posts is at groups.google.com 🙂

          Fight the powers that be. Have relationships anyway. Help others anyway. Refuse to live in fear. Take back that which was unjustly taken away. I noticed the NewTestament reference and wondered if you have seen the WWJD (What WOuld Jesus Do) stickers today. Would Jesus have gone along with the system and let himself be marginalized? Nope. HE could have had the whole world, but what does it profit to gain itall if you lose your soul? REfuse to lose it. They can kill you, but they can’t have your soul unless you let them. It doesn’t even come to death for many of us to start letting our spirit erode -don’t be one of the many 🙂

      • #3418488

        Well, I agree and disagree…

        by packratt ·

        In reply to The Web is like…

        For many the anonymity of online aliases provide the opportunity to be something or someone that they are or cannot be. It is to a great extent like a bar where inhibitions are lowered and more often than not the actual filters come down and truth comes out. But the opposite is also true, where cliques, desire for acceptance, and even deep rooted social pressures for conformity continue to repress oneself to the extreme while online. This is where you see many of the “not as they seem” personalities.

        This is just another social setting, one that has replaced the water cooler and the town squares or neighbor’s fence. These forums are less desirable due to the combination of mass paranoia and social changes. Online is preferable to going outside and talking with people, with looking your fellow person in the eyes and making contact. Here it’s cold and impersonal, but so much safer to the fragile ego of today.

        Just in case anyone wonders… I am quite much as I am here, my aliases are often tied to my real name, and they do not vary with any activity with which I use the name. I say what I feel in person or online, I wonder how often that this is the case? Perhaps the only place I repress myself is at work, since this is a requirement to keeping one’s job.

    • #3418476

      Big Brother is late for dinner.

      by packratt ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      18 years past his due date, big brother is late, but he’s here. Really, whether it’s online or off big brother could be watching in many ways so there really is little difference whether you say it outloud or type it down. Every transaction you proceed with is logged and accesable to all when you use that plastic.

      There are cameras on street corners, cameras in buildings. There are people listening to your calls at work, and more freedom for agencies to monitor your home as well. There are people who would report you if they stood to gain, and there are those who will interpret what you say as subversive no matter what medium in which it was said.

      This is as it is, and there is little to be done to change it so long as people are as timid as cattle and go with the herd or where they are led without thought. The only question is, which big brother do you fear more, the corporate one or the government, or the combined efforts of the two?

      Me, I refuse to let such things change who I am. There is a price for everything and I willingly pay the price for the freedom to be myself and be true to what I feel and believe, big brother or popular opinion be damned.

      • #3418324

        Big Brother, Inc.

        by generalist ·

        In reply to Big Brother is late for dinner.

        Personally I would fear the corporate big brother because it ultimately controls a substantial portion of the job market. If you don’t work, you have major problems surviving.

        What is really frightening is the background databases that some companies maintain for companies that want to do background checks on potential employees. You could be a perfect candidate for a job but be rejected because the background check has flaws that you don’t realize exist.

        Credit reporting bureaus at least have a mechanism that allows you to view and correct erroneous data. Background check companies appear to lack such things. (When I e-mailed one asking if I could check on my own files, I didn’t get a response…)

        At least with the Freedom ofInformation Act, you have a remote chance at getting the US government to divulge what it knows about you. You are unlikely to get all the information you want, but you can get more than would be available from a corporation.

        This may be one of the privacy battlegrounds of the future.

    • #3418366

      Not much of value

      by tomsal ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      True chat rooms are a “dime a dozen” as the saying goes. They are everywhere..and with ICQ, AIM, Yahoo Messenger!, etc. even more so now.

      I find it kind of sad, pathetic and yet ironic actually. I mean people will blab for hours a week online – speak out on issues once thought taboo but then all too many times I’ve experienced such dull conversations in “real life” places – restaurants, pubs, sports events and of course parties. What is it? Is there a lot of people who “save their talk” for the computer chat rooms these days? Its it a decline in social skills based on the prevailence of technology in our lives? Or perhaps, based on many chats on the ‘net, that people are so limited in their topics that if you aren’t talking trash about someone or trying to “hit on” someone of the opposite sex – they are lost for words? 😉

      In the business world – chat is a useful tool, for short and to-the-point messages…I loathe it for anything longer though, at which point I feel its more worthwhile to just phone the person (if I can’t speak to them face to face).

      I’m guilty of being a past user of ICQ and wasting a few hours of my life in meaningless chat sessions with “artifical” people. Maybe that’s why today, I feel so strongly that 90% (if not more) of all chats on the Internet is just wasting valuable hours of peoples lives on valueless conversation.

      By that’s just my opinion – and everyone’s entitled to their own.

    • #3442627

      In general

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      Many of you commented that there are social concerns here. As an IT person who manages these discussion groups and chat rooms at least technically, do you feel any obligation to review or manage the conversations? How can validation occur? Should chat rooms be chargeable?

      I would think if people paid for a discussion group or chat room then a traceable and validated individual would be id’d. This would limit or reduce the amount of crap.

      Additionally, as a techie would you want a Government or Agency overseeing the site. Establishing processes and methods to ensure credibility. I could foresee the government establishing operating guidelines for technology. Perhaps called Generally Accepted Information Practices that are somewhat like General Manufacturing Practices or Generally Accepted Accounting Practices.

      • #3573079

        Privacy, freedom and responsibility

        by generalist ·

        In reply to In general

        This is a very sticky area involving a mix of privacy, freedom and responsibility.

        Personally I would prefer to avoid having the government overseeing sites that they themselves do not manage. That would be a major invasion of privacy and could,through incompetence and corruption, result in the destruction of freedoms that are socially beneficial.

        Establishing standards for self-monitoring would be an acceptable quasi-governmental function though. These standards would be aimed at protecting privacy/freedom while providing necessary information for legal action should the users take part in irresponsible actions that are harmful to individuals or the public. A group meeting these standards might have GAIP certification to show that they work by certain rules and are subject to monitoring.

        Groups without GAIP certification would be considered venues where anything goes. You can do whatever you want, but there is no guarantee that your privacy is being respected. And unless the site operator has a disclaimer stating that illegal activities are prohibited, there is no guarantee that the site operator won’t be charged as an accomplice. In fact, if the site operator shows that they actively participate in illegal activities, they could go from accomplice to ringleader.

        To keep certification from becoming a stumbling block to freedom of speech, it must NOT be something that requires a fee. Certification should also be flexible in how it is implemented as long as the end results are the same. It might even be reasonable to have different levels of certification that cover the full spectrum of discussion groups and chat rooms.

        As with anything, this could get out of control and result in a Big Brother world OR anarchy. So we need to keep on top of things, no matter what happens.

        • #3445965

          Rights?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Privacy, freedom and responsibility

          First off, I have to say that the public at large needs to rethink thier concept of rights. You have rights – at a price. Sometimes the cost is going to war and having Americans die. Most of the time the cost is in our everyday lives.

          You have the right to free speech. You can Say anything you want but there is going to be a response (cost). Sometimes the response is agreement or could be mild disagreement. Other times the response could be passionate such as the case with the Abortion issues.

          When you are in plain public view; that is in earshot, can be seen, can be smelt, or felt; you are open to inspection that may result in a price of your freedoms.

          The internet, airways, and open space belong to the public according to the Supreme Court of the United States Government. Your actions are open to public inspection and your freedoms are limited by the public at large.

          Unless you go into your home close your curtains, disconnect your phone, cable tv, and internet access.You must entirely isolate yourself from society, you have absolute rights to do what ever you want. When you introduce one person into your life, your rights are limited.

          Now that said, when the Government intervenes its usual intended purpose isto apply the rule of law to ensure that inappropriate behavior does not create an inbalanced distribution of rights. Unfortunately, there are those in Government who apply intervention for the purpose of gaining imperial control of the public.

          When you go online it may be of value to hold people accountable to there rants rather than have a false alias spewing garbage.

        • #3421747

          What’s a “False Alias”?

          by admin ·

          In reply to Rights?

          Would that be a real name or? Anyway…. I agree on the rights thing, by introducing others, or several others in a group, into your life, you start limiting rights. This is the point of joining a Chatroom, a BBS or IRC internet or private network based. By agreement or consent of the members in the group then, certain rules (or lack of rules) are then introduced and those outside the group can choose to join or stay away.
          Some people don’t need, want or encourage government oversight and itis a waste of our national resources to bother them unless they break outside of their group and start spamming their opinions on others without consent.
          This is why we have physical conventions, like if you want to practice the art of stripping, do it in a strip club, not on the steps of your workplace. If you don’t want stupid opinions by “false alias” then stay out of the clubs. It’s that simple. We don’t need to be wasting taxpayer dollars on some stupid attempt to control consenting adults.

          BTW the internet, and open space DO NOT belong to the public in the USA. The use of them does.

        • #3432216

          Incorrect…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to What’s a “False Alias”?

          BTW the air, open spaces, and yes the internet are the public domain and ‘belong’ to the public. The internet enters this legal definition because the transmission of signals pass through the air via microwave signalling and the public gathers on the internet.

          This legal definition also applies to some extent to a lobby in a building or parking lot even though privately owned. Your actions are open to public inspection and your claim to privacy is significantly diminished.

          Another closeexample is when you put your trash on the curb. You have no claim to privacy or even ownership. People seem to lose sight of this.

          Reagan attempted to limit the public domain by pushing for laws that one could claim your airspace above your property. The concept was to charge for encroachment of aircraft, electronic signalling, pollution, the blocking of sunshine, or to otherwise economically ration the use of the airspace. It failed in the legislative system. However, you do have rights inthe other direction for minerals, drilling, pipelines or other encroachments into your property.

        • #3432087

          Incorrect…..

          by admin ·

          In reply to Incorrect…

          Actually, if you were attributing: “BTW the air, open spaces, and yes the internet are the public domain” to me you are incorrect . My quote was: “BTW the internet, and open space DO NOT belong to the public in the USA. The use of them does.”

          Inmy view the internet is much more than th rf broadcast it travels on at times, it is primarily the content and community etc. that makes it what it is. I do know the public legally owns the airwaves, however, the content belongs to many people, corporations, government branches etc. The public owns the vehicle, but is barred with serious consequences from providing content in many of the available frequencies and even barred from receiving a great deal of content freely.

          At this stage, no one owns the internet, and since it is worldwide, we do not currently have the structure for ownership in a way that we know today. That is one of the things I love about it 🙂

          As for Open Space, some states have laws regarding this. I have just learned this. Initially, I thought you meant open space as in large open areas and I was mistaken. These laws usually refer to land that is privately owned and grant limited “Open Space” rights, but as far as I know public ownership of them varies or does not occur everywhere. I actually read more about it after I posted and yes, you are right, there is public ownership in many places, although this appeared to me a much disputed ownership in our legal system right now unlike the airwave issue. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to learn 🙂

        • #3431971

          Watch out for mineral rights

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Incorrect…

          You do have to be careful when dealing with mineral rights. Those can be sold separately, so there could be problems if you are in the wrong place when the owner of those rights decides to exercise them.

          You also have to worry about utility and other easements. While you may own the property beneath the easements, you’re restricted in terms of what you can do. In some instances you may even find that the neighbors have the right to build a road on your property because of an easement.

        • #3574034

          Exceptions

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Watch out for mineral rights

          Right of way, eminent domain, and easements are usually known at the time of purchase of a property. There is rarely a surprise.

          As for the internet, it resides on wires and the airways. People gather there to present content. Internationally there are sovereignity issues and some countries like Saudi Arabia are installing control points but because of packet switching everyones packets at one time or another pass through others sovereign borders.

          This introduces a bigger problem if a state sponsors computer attacks against another state. Today airplanes must request permission to fly over a country but computer attacks may pass through or even originate in many other countries if a DDOS attack having 10,000 zombie machines. It makes it difficult for a state to determine where the original threat is coming from.

          Side note, during the grounding the EP-3 in China last Spring numerous US civilians conducted a private war against the Chinese. 100’s of 1000’s of private citizenslaunched a vast array of attacks against Chinese sites in protest. Of course, the US government could not do anything about it – they have a right to express themselves!

        • #3573906

          FYI – Re: eminent domain

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Incorrect…

          DblOhGawd, a minor correction, if you don’t mind. You said, “Right of way, eminent domain, and easements are usually known at the time of purchase of a property. There is rarely a surprise.”

          You are two-thirds correct. Eminent domain has nothingto do with the disclosures made regarding the purchase of a property, and it is (almost) always a surprise. Eminent domain is the power given to a government (Federal, State or Local) to take (for a fair market value, of course) the private propertyof an individual for the “greater good”. This power is usually implemented, for example, when the State or Local Government will buy all the property that gets in the way of a new road project, or something like that. Unfortunately, there have been cases where a Local government has exercised this right for shopping centers and the like. (That’s an abuse of the right of eminent domain, if you ask me.)

          Maxwell

        • #3421597

          Rant Accountability Part 1

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Rights?

          “When you go online it may be of value to hold people accountable for their rants rather than have a false alias spewing garbage.”

          Note that the following applies to rants and not those activities that are harmful to society. (Of course, this assumes that you live in a society where rants are considered freedom of speech and not subversive activities that are harmful to society…)

          Would this accountability for rants apply to everybody in all venues?

          There are areas where rants are a way of life, something expected by those who frequent them. As long as you stick to the formal or informal rules of these areas, ranting isn’t a problem so accountability isn’t a problem. If you don’t like the rants in these areas, either get the rules changed or ignore the rants. It may be painful at times, but it is the price you pay if you support the freedom of the venue.

          Using aliases in these areas can be useful, especially when a person wants to rant from multiple points of view in an effort to prove a point or stimulate discussion. Trying to restrict these types of rants by restricting aliases in the name of accountability would be a bad form of censorship.

          (Continued: Rant Accountability Part 2)

        • #3421596

          Rant Accountability Part 2

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Rights?

          There are other areas where rants are considered to be bad taste at best and forbidden actions at worst. This is where you have formal rules and procedures to ensure accountability, even if you have aliases. A person who rants in this environmentwill find themselves restricted or removed if they exceed the rant tolerance level. This applies even if they are using an alias.

          Of course, they will be able to rant at least once, since the act of ranting is the thing that violates the rules.Whether that rant makes it to the rest of the population would depend upon whether there is a gatekeeper (aka censor) that allows the rant to be posted. Whether it stays there would depend upon the policies of the organization providing the platform for the discussion.

          The ranter could even rant again if membership is something that is automatically provided without using some sort of secure, easily accessed, universally recognized cybernetic ID.

          And even with a CyberID, you could createaliases used for ranting.

          Of course if you had to pay a good sized sum for a CyberID, and had to verify your identity with voice print, retina print, finger prints, genetic sampling, multiple notarized witnesses and a warm body, you might be ableto get some accountability. And if you could only have one CyberID at a time, you couldn’t have multiple aliases in those areas that require CyberIDs.

          At this point it would be possible to get accountability if the ranter’s CyberID can be terminated by organizations that use it for accountability. That would ‘encourage’ accountability because the CyberID owner would lose something of value if they violated the rules.

          Unfortunately, there is always a chance that an unscrupulous person would lay a false trail in order to kill the CyberID. And there would also be a chance that somebody could spoof the CyberID with the same intent to kill.

      • #3446165

        Ideally…

        by packratt ·

        In reply to In general

        You would see a push towards self governance of any site where user demand would force such a move. (ie. people stop using the site due to abuses and thus force the site to make moves to secure the site against abuse)

        Yet, the problem here is that you need a public that is forcefull and informed about possibilities and it’s needs and you need other sites more responsive to user demands so as to effect real competition and thus provide a motivating factor for change.

        All of these factors are missing, thus you see demand for goverment or other agents of change which often have their own agendas in providing you with what you wanted and were likely better off demanding for yourself. (government would like to monitor or an agency/companywould like money or other revenue streams that compromise independence or privacy as well)

        The Generalist mentions anarchy in opposition to big brother. In this context, I would propose that anarchy would be the ideal force for change whereas comparable to free market pressures utilized by an informed and motivated populous. All other choices are far less than perfect.

        • #3445961

          Self Governance vs Intervention

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Ideally…

          This is an age old argument our founding brothers (the 8 team) struggled with. In general, our founding brothers agreed that governance is by the public at large and government provides steering (Legislative branch) and applies the rule of law underthe Executive branch then validates the rule of law under the Judical Branch.

          I would argue for some sort of generic validation of who you are on the internet. For instance, a personal id similiar to a drivers license for access to the net. This could be possible with the 128 bit ip and possibly some variation of PKI or certificate validation.

          This would greatly reduce criminals (child pornographers and pediphiles) and subversives (Timothy McViegh)from using the net.

        • #3445930

          Verifiable ID Online

          by packratt ·

          In reply to Self Governance vs Intervention

          Well, there are some drawbacks to IDs online and there are some things that validate such desires.

          The drawbacks are increased opportunities for identity theft, no guarantees that the ID will be un-crackable, and there is the increased opportuninity for big-brotherism and neo-macarthyism. Yes, you might be more sure that the person you talk with is who they stated they were, but may be very reluctant to share honest opinions in fear of reprisals by managers/businesses that monitor or track individuals. (that’s a drawback for individuals and a big bonus for corporations) Government can already track a great deal of usage and thus find people who delve into such things as child porn or the like. (think of all the raids about a year ago)
          All required and government enforced IDing does is bring all of these activities into the forefront, but changes little since these things are already done quite a bit. The problem is that many from other nations can use anonymously since their government may not enforce such regulations, and those may even host anonymous sites as well.

          Again, this is where self governance is preferable. If you want to discuss things with people who are verified in their identity and those people are willing to deal with the consequences of that then make a system that enforces that and invite those people as your user base and exclude those who do not wish to conform to your ideal. This is the basis of self government by proxy of forming associations with others of like mind for the purpose of doing what you have a like mind about.

          After all, whatever you think gives you the right to control others gives others the right to control you, and that’s what government is all about, power over others despite their will. I just suggest that you do what you want with others who’s will matches your own for the intended purpose.

        • #3421740

          I agree with the ideal of

          by admin ·

          In reply to Self Governance vs Intervention

          personal validation. I would much rather have each individual accountable for their actions.

          Having said that, the current technology we have does not lend itself well (or much at all) to making this possible. I can easily spoof my location on the internet. (For that matter, I can fake a drivers license too) I could steal your ip your mac address your isp info and even spoof the hardware in your computer. Actually physical and virtual identity theft are real problems and the smart criminals DO NOT get caught often. I do computer evidence work at times, and let me tell you, most of the cybercriminals that are caught are not the smartest cards in the technology deck. The smart ones, as my friends in law enforcement say about the physical world, don’t get caught. Organized crime is of course worldwide now and well funded. These people are excited about identities because it keeps the average cybercriminal or script kiddies in line and sends more denario their way while lessening public outcry and investigation against them. I don’t think Technology will ever live up to this ideal of personal responsibilty and identity, but we, as individuals, are free to embrace it -and I do cherish that 🙂

        • #3421694

          Censorship

          by id10tnolonger ·

          In reply to Self Governance vs Intervention

          Although most of the replies here arethoughtful, I have seen nothing that calls ANY of this what it really is… an attempt at censorship.

          In the age of keystroke loggers and secret searches, it SHOULD be clear that not only is the government interested in what you say, but to whom you say it.

          For the record, my outspoken nature has already been rewarded with a layoff and the installation of the keystroke logger on this very computer.
          I suggest each and every one of you reboot with a startup log and step by step confirmation of every item on your computers… you may find that I am not alone in the existence of a few lines that read “enumerating unknown” and “starting unknown”.

          The source of the problem is liberalism with a twist. We may have HAD freedom of speech, but nobody seems to see that liberalism and political correctness are diametrically OPPOSED. If liberalism it to ALLOW more, how is it that SAYING MORE is not allowed?

          Although this forum discussesaccountability for what one says in a chat room, i would like to point out to all of you that freedom of speech is a right given by GOD not government. Identifying a specific individual is only useful in destroying the right to say what you wish. Itis also clear that those who wish to impose this upon us would in the very same moment exempt themselves from such oversight.

          Censorship works…ask HITLER, STALIN, HUSSEIN, or anybody who ever may have dealt with them.

        • #3421625

          I think I implied that…

          by packratt ·

          In reply to Censorship

          Censorship by way of those know that they are monitored and tagged with an identifier being fearful of reprisals if they said what they felt and that information finding it’s way back to government or an employer.

          We deal with censorship from corporate interests and government, of course, the two are often intertwined these days. Those non-competes you sign limit your freedom, those agreements not to discuss the company or it’s business practices limit your freedom… Heck, working these days limits your freedom by the loss of your privacy… Businesses are miniature governments, maybe that’s why they aren’t that great at profit-making without using deceptive accounting practices, (yes, a vast majority of them do in one way or another),since all governments suck at managing money. Plus, there is a reason that there is the term “office politics”.

          And for those of you who DON’T think that you are watched and tagged already are either foolish or exceedingly lucky or very skillful.Big Brother and censorship are mainstays of society today, when’s the last time anyone said something without wondering if you would get called into the manager’s office about it?

          I guess it really is 1984, desspite what my calendar shows.

        • #3421586

          Hardware Logger

          by admin ·

          In reply to Censorship

          Personally, I don’t care if I’m logged, Our forefathers and many others would go to prison for their ideals- getting heat in a thread is nothing compared to this. Even checking software won’t sheild you from hardware logging so you might want to check your cord too (if you can)

        • #3421741

          ANARCHY RULES! :)

          by admin ·

          In reply to Ideally…

          I agree, anarchy, unlike the common uninformed thought regarding it, is ultimately about learning to live responsibly in the best way- having personal responsibility. It is also about learning to use personal responsibilty wisely. With anarchy you do not have holocausts as Eric Raymond pointed out so well years ago.

          http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/anarchist.html

          It is extremely unfortunate that the government in the USA launched a misinformation program regarding Anarchy years ago and that people still think it refers to a life of marauding gangs. It does not, in fact, marauding gangs are the opposite of anarchy. The evil bunch in Road Warrior were a good example of group consent to do evil which is of course- democracy… the absence of personal responsibilty to many people (It’s not my fault, I voted for the other guy…… I don’t make the laws…. I didn’t cause this just because I paid taxes… somebody else makes the decisions.. etc.)

        • #3421630

          Looks good on paper…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to ANARCHY RULES! :)

          You can make nearly anything outside of perhaps ritual suicide, look good on paper.

          Proper discussion and analyzation of forms of government can in no way be done in just a little dinky 1930 characters-allowed forum, however I disagree that Anarchy is superior to Democracy.

          You over simplify enormously in your assumptions of self-responsibility and personally, as for mentioning how Eric Raymond proved that Anarchy doesn’t create holocausts is not enough to convince me of the point you aretrying to make.

          And why, do I feel you are mis-informed with what Anarchy would be/do for our society? Simply put you are giving way too much credit to majority of American citizens (oddly enough since I *AM* an American citizen I feel no guilt of making that accusation). People *ARE* irresponsible, people *ARE* lazy, people *NEED* leadership. This is years of US governmental brain washing either – travel the country poke an interest at court cases filed, look at the jobless rate, drunks, domestic violence…. Anarchy wouldn’t solve problems it would create more.

          Finally, let me make one thing perfectly clear – ALL forms of governments suck to a degree, I’m not saying democracy doesn’t have a *TON* of things I *LOATHE* but it is thelesser of all the other evils (governments) in the world.

        • #3421572

          Where’s the democracy?

          by packratt ·

          In reply to Looks good on paper…

          I gather that you are suggesting that the US government is a democracy?

          I really hate to dissapoint you, but it isn’t. Actually, there is no democracy in existance anywhere at this moment in time.

          Any government is an evil, that’s the nature of the beast. You give up freedom, income, safety, security, and responsibility in return for… um… entitlements? Gee, seems like a bum deal for someone.

          Implying that something is the lesser of evils still makes it evil and thus deserving of deconstruction and reformation.

          Pure democracy, in it’s essence, is closer to anarchy than previous governmental archetypes, as a republic is closer to democracy and monarchy is closer than communism and that is closer than a dictatorship… evolution of society leads to the pinical of anarchy, where government is not needed. Thus we should always strive to reduce government where practical instead of increasing it’s control.

          Yes, humans are not ready to control themselves, but we should notgive ourselves entirely over to the whims of others because of that. We should, as I said, strive for freedom always until we are ready to take responsibility for ourselves and throw off the shackles of government.

        • #3421557

          1930 Characters or less

          by admin ·

          In reply to Looks good on paper…

          As far as Eric Raymond, the Open Source Movement and other original web culture, I would just say that of course it doesn’t prove Anarchy works by any one piece, but that many of these web pioneers are Anarchists or Anarchy sympathetic and that thisis part of our technical history. Think about it. Open Source is Anarchy in action to a large degree and it’s working. Not for everyone, but for those able to use it, it works well.
          If democracy is a lesser evil inherently would not all democratic governments produce better end results? Why the rise of the Nazi party then? People democratically CHOSE this. In fact, pure Democracy often has grusome outcomes. We saw this in France at one time as well. Our government has avoided this partly because it is NOT purely democratic. Republican principles abound as well. We have also been really lucky.

          Your argument: “People *ARE* irresponsible, people *ARE* lazy, people *NEED* leadership” proves it as superior to those ready to accept it. Anarchy is perhaps a system that we are not ready for as a whole society, but someday perhaps everyone can grow to the point of personal responsibility that it can thrive in. If “That government which governs least” is truly the best, Anarchy is superior.We just can’t handle it yet seems to be the point.
          I think it is important to have ideals and morals to strive for. I would rather that we took responsibility for our actions rather than give up this right to a government. If we worked towards this goal we wouldn’t need to have cyberid’s etc. We wouldn’t be taxed to the point where charity can’t be afforded at home. Most of all, we could choose to be moral rather than having “morality” forced on us. Are you really a moral person if those decisions are made for you?

        • #3421556

          1930 Characters or less

          by admin ·

          In reply to Looks good on paper…

          As far as Eric Raymond, the Open Source Movement and other original web culture, I would just say that of course it doesn’t prove Anarchy works by any one piece, but that many of these web pioneers are Anarchists or Anarchy sympathetic and that thisis part of our technical history. Think about it. Open Source is Anarchy in action to a large degree and it’s working. Not for everyone, but for those able to use it, it works well.
          If democracy is a lesser evil inherently would not all democratic governments produce better end results? Why the rise of the Nazi party then? People democratically CHOSE this. In fact, pure Democracy often has grusome outcomes. We saw this in France at one time as well. Our government has avoided this partly because it is NOT purely democratic. Republican principles abound as well. We have also been really lucky.

          Your argument: “People *ARE* irresponsible, people *ARE* lazy, people *NEED* leadership” proves it as superior to those ready to accept it. Anarchy is perhaps a system that we are not ready for as a whole society, but someday perhaps everyone can grow to the point of personal responsibility that it can thrive in. If “That government which governs least” is truly the best, Anarchy is superior.We just can’t handle it yet seems to be the point.
          I think it is important to have ideals and morals to strive for. I would rather that we took responsibility for our actions rather than give up this right to a government. If we worked towards this goal we wouldn’t need to have cyberid’s etc. We wouldn’t be taxed to the point where charity can’t be afforded at home. Most of all, we could choose to be moral rather than having “morality” forced on us. Are you really a moral person if those decisions are made for you?

        • #3421555

          1930 Characters or less

          by admin ·

          In reply to Looks good on paper…

          As far as Eric Raymond, the Open Source Movement and other original web culture, I would just say that of course it doesn’t prove Anarchy works by any one piece, but that many of these web pioneers are Anarchists or Anarchy sympathetic and that thisis part of our technical history. Think about it. Open Source is Anarchy in action to a large degree and it’s working. Not for everyone, but for those able to use it, it works well.
          If democracy is a lesser evil inherently would not all democratic governments produce better end results? Why the rise of the Nazi party then? People democratically CHOSE this. In fact, pure Democracy often has grusome outcomes. We saw this in France at one time as well. Our government has avoided this partly because it is NOT purely democratic. Republican principles abound as well. We have also been really lucky.

          Your argument: “People *ARE* irresponsible, people *ARE* lazy, people *NEED* leadership” proves it as superior to those ready to accept it. Anarchy is perhaps a system that we are not ready for as a whole society, but someday perhaps everyone can grow to the point of personal responsibility that it can thrive in. If “That government which governs least” is truly the best, Anarchy is superior.We just can’t handle it yet seems to be the point.
          I think it is important to have ideals and morals to strive for. I would rather that we took responsibility for our actions rather than give up this right to a government. If we worked towards this goal we wouldn’t need to have cyberid’s etc. We wouldn’t be taxed to the point where charity can’t be afforded at home. Most of all, we could choose to be moral rather than having “morality” forced on us. Are you really a moral person if those decisions are made for you?

        • #3421554

          1930 Characters or less

          by admin ·

          In reply to Looks good on paper…

          As far as Eric Raymond, the Open Source Movement and other original web culture, I would just say that of course it doesn’t prove Anarchy works by any one piece, but that many of these web pioneers are Anarchists or Anarchy sympathetic and that thisis part of our technical history. Think about it. Open Source is Anarchy in action to a large degree and it’s working. Not for everyone, but for those able to use it, it works well.
          If democracy is a lesser evil inherently would not all democratic governments produce better end results? Why the rise of the Nazi party then? People democratically CHOSE this. In fact, pure Democracy often has grusome outcomes. We saw this in France at one time as well. Our government has avoided this partly because it is NOT purely democratic. Republican principles abound as well. We have also been really lucky.

          Your argument: “People *ARE* irresponsible, people *ARE* lazy, people *NEED* leadership” proves it as superior to those ready to accept it. Anarchy is perhaps a system that we are not ready for as a whole society, but someday perhaps everyone can grow to the point of personal responsibility that it can thrive in. If “That government which governs least” is truly the best, Anarchy is superior.We just can’t handle it yet seems to be the point.
          I think it is important to have ideals and morals to strive for. I would rather that we took responsibility for our actions rather than give up this right to a government. If we worked towards this goal we wouldn’t need to have cyberid’s etc. We wouldn’t be taxed to the point where charity can’t be afforded at home. Most of all, we could choose to be moral rather than having “morality” forced on us. Are you really a moral person if those decisions are made for you?

        • #3421553

          Apology to Tom and Everyone!

          by admin ·

          In reply to Looks good on paper…

          I have no idea what happened! My first reply was lost and then when I posted a re-written one it showed up multiple times! All I saw was this error:

          S i t e U n a v a i l a b l e
          ——————————————————————————–
          Due to a technical issue the TechRepublic website is currently unavailable. Please try again in a few minutes.

          We apologize for any inconvenience.

          Thank you for visiting TechRepublic

          Again, I’m really sorry and thanks for your insights and willingness to trade posts on this 🙂

          ~

        • #3422039

          Why didn’t anyone rip on me?

          by admin ·

          In reply to ANARCHY RULES! :)

          “Anarchy Rules”? hehehehehhee 🙂

        • #3421939

          OK – Here’s my rip

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why didn’t anyone rip on me?

          The common (or, perhaps, not so common) notion that anarchy would result in some sort of idealistic atmosphere of peace and tranquility for all is, shall I say, a bit misguided. At least it’s not very realistic. It would be all fine and goodif everybody were indeed fine and good. Unfortunately that’s not the case. Anarchy would result in nothing but “bully” rule.

          What you described, however, would fall more in line with Libertarianism (and the Libertarian Party). That system of self-government would be much more appropriate for a society that truly does believe in total self-responsibility. It’s not a bad concept, but it would never fly today, especially when there are so many forces at work pointing the finger of responsibility at someone else for just about everything. The sad thing is, people are buying into it. We sure have evolved into a “someone-else-is-to-blame” sort of society.

          Maxwell

        • #3421867

          Libertarianism

          by admin ·

          In reply to OK – Here’s my rip

          I am, actually, Libertarian and have been voting this way since age 18 so it’s not surprising my slant is this. Of course, I thought it was funny writing the juxtaposition “Anarchy Rules”. My point really wasn’t that I prefer or seek Anarchy as a political system, however, I do think it gets an undeserved negative bias for mob (not “bully”) rule and have found this kind of interesting on the internet which was at many points brought into what it is today by people with a bent towards or outright claiming to be Anarchists. You still get this in philosophical Open Source forums.

          Unfortunately people today lack self-responsibility at an alarming rate, so I try to encourage thought, moral examination and balance when confronted with this.

        • #3572661

          Off Topic – Re: Voting Libertarian

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Libertarianism

          America has always had a two party system. The parties have had different names, such as Federalists, Whig, Democrat, Republican, Democrat-Republican, et al, but maintaining the power base has always been a battle between two strong parties. Sure,there have always been third parties and/or minority parties, but they’ve always been left out in the cold, not really having any influence on the real power base nor able to have a real voice in deciding major issues. They have always been unable to make a real difference in that regard. The only real difference any third party has ever made has been that of a “spoiler”. For example, Ross Perot’s Reform Party had only enough support to swing the 1992 election to the Democrat party. And in 1912, Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party only served to take votes away from the Republicans, which in turn gave the White House to the Democrats. And more recently you’ll recall that Ralph Nader’s Green Party, the extreme left wing of the Democrats, only managed to take votes away from Al Gore. (Thank you Ralph Nader!)

          How does this relate to “voting Libertarian”, you might ask? Consider this, in the early 1850s, the two primary political parties were the pro-slavery Democrat party and the opposition Whig party. However, there were really two factions within the Whig party, those looking to appease the Democrats with various compromises on the slavery issue, and those who were adamantly anti-slavery. The current day Republican Party was born by those who were against both slavery and any compromise on the issue, and felt that a split from the Whig party was the best way to promote their cause. The “split-off” Republicansliterally changed the political landscape, and soon had their first winning presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln.

          (continued…)

        • #3572658

          Re: voting – Part 2

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Libertarianism

          Keeping that in mind, any “Libertarian” agenda could only, most likely, be promoted by a split-off from one of the current major parties. I believe that it’s possible, but not very likely, at least not for a while. There certainly is a Libertarian faction within the Republican Party, but not nearly enough to assume any real power, and that’s where any real change would have to take place. Therefore, any vote given to the Libertarian Party is only a vote taken away fromthe Republican Party, which is more closely aligned with Libertarian values. So any vote to the Libertarian Party is really a vote for their real opposition, the Democrat Party.

          There certainly is the thought that one should “vote their conscience”, and there are a lot of Libertarians (and “Greenies”) doing just that. In fact, Harry Browne, the Libertarian’s 2000 Presidential candidate, received 382,892 votes. And Ralph Nader carried about 3 percent of the vote nationally, including 5 percent in Minnesota and 1 percent in Florida, the state that did indeed decide the presidential race.

          If anything, the 2000 election certainly did prove that ONE vote COULD make a difference. So go ahead and continue to vote your conscience. But how would you feel if that ONE VOTE gave the election to someone that would be your last choice of the two primary choices. I did it in 1992 when I voted for Ross Perot. What a mistake that was. The only thing I did was help swing the election to Bill Clinton instead of to the person I would have preferred in a two-way contest. Voting with your conscience instead of voting with your brain is kind of like that old saying, “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. I’ll never do it again, and I would encourage others to refrain from it as well. In the long run, as history has proven time and time again, it doesn’t do any good.

        • #3572599

          Not Just Voting For Conscience…

          by admin ·

          In reply to Libertarianism

          While I agree that there is truth in this, I believe the Libertarian party does have some “real world” influence. It is the strongest third party of our era and has produced a number of elected local and some state officials that have enacted real change. Therefore I believe that it is more than “voting for your conscience”, although at the national level I understand how voting for another candidate that has a chance of winning could be beneficial, especially in a close election. There is definately, however, a faction in the Republican party that notices and is influenced to some extent by the Libertarian party. Beyond “voting for conscience” there is a political influence on all parties when vocal credible constituents support Libertarianism and vote this way even nationally in my view, but I can see the sense in voting along the 2 parties in National election and Libertarian locally where races are actually possible to win.

        • #3572575

          Libertarianism vs Republicanism

          by packratt ·

          In reply to Libertarianism

          Too often republican candidates come forth with strange ideas about how to reduce government while increasing the amount that it interferes with the individual’s rights. Through promising to impose moral directives to the populous from the christianreligeous front to sitting heavily on the side of corporate rights while imposing more restrictions on the rights of employees including the prohibition of strikes in many cases. (Republicans riegn over more strike breaking directives than democratsin recent history, which is suprising given their supposed goal to reduce government!)

          Overall, Democrats are not a choice for an anarchist or libertarian voting concience or otherwise. Yet, republicans seem no better if not worse in some respects, but overall are just the same as democrats and at least just as corrupt.

          The old anarchist saying seems to hold true here: “If voting could really change anything, it would be illegal!” I mean, really, was there any difference between Gore and Bush? Do you really think anything would be different if one or the other won or lost?

          I do not… Because money is in power, not politicians.

        • #3572551

          Anarchist View on this topic

          by admin ·

          In reply to Libertarianism

          Can be found at Practical Anarchy, an Anarchist Publication where they further “Popular Democracy” in the use of the Internet, food production, and a host of other things.

          http://www.practicalanarchy.org/

          Specifically, an Anarchist viewpoint on Internet Use is at:

          http://www.practicalanarchy.org/internetworking.html

          I think this is of some interest to us as IT pros as is the philosophy behind Open Source which is linked through:

          http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.html

          to find the philosophy of these pioneering software people which is at:

          http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html

          Where you can find that whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Anarchist or from another country at least on the Internetand in computer related sciences, Anarchy has been extrememly beneficial to all of us that are today working in the IT field. 🙂

    • #3421558

      Just so you know

      by information_superhighway_patrol ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      I’m watching and reading “very carefully” everything that is said here.

      ISP

    • #3421549

      Do you see the joke?

      by packratt ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      Why is someone who hasn’t revealed his own identity calling for the goverment to force others to reveal theirs?

      Why do I find this funny when it really isn’t at all?

      It’s just indicative of those who call for a loss of the freedoms of others that they are unwilling to give up themselves. I guess that’s what government is for.

      • #3432209

        My id?

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Do you see the joke?

        My ID is known to TechRepublic and coincidentally the computer I am on does stroke logging, the firewall logs all my URLs, they can remote in and watch my screen, and I had to have a 20 year background check to even be here.

        Moreover, my credit history, police reports, judicial activity, and home phone are monitored from time-to-time to ensure I am not going astray. Recently, I checked the credit reporting agencies and three times in the past 2 years my credit rating was reviewed by the investigating agency.

        I am validated and I am no stranger to intrusiveness into my privacy. I do not mind this as much as the dang credit card companies who constantly beat me up to get thier card.

        • #3574025

          So…

          by packratt ·

          In reply to My id?

          You are still using an alias while decrying them? I guess I don’t understand what you are going on about here, maybe you can clarify with a brief statement about what you want and why?

        • #3574006

          At least you can click on our names…

          by admin ·

          In reply to So…

          and get some real info behind the alias 🙂

      • #3572270

        I NEVER SAID…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Do you see the joke?

        that all the participants in th forum had to know of each other complete backgrounds. In fact, most of my discussion pointed to signup validation, login validations, and account accuracy.

        I am not certain I want all my personal detail outhere for’freaks’ to hunt me down or misuse it.

        But certainly I have been validated numerous ways and misconduct will be traceable.

        • #3572196

          So you’re saying…

          by packratt ·

          In reply to I NEVER SAID…

          That you don’t care if we view you and your ideas as credible or not so long as the government and the one administrator of the site thinks you might be credible?

          You could be some 12 year old snot nosed brat for all I know. I have seen no validation or proof otherwise as far as you are concerned, especially not here. I have had no freaks hunt me down or any other problems. I wonder what is really stopping you… Hmmm… Maybe you really are just 12?

          There certainly aren’t any questions or required fields in the user information needed to use this site that would validate you as anything. So, who are you that I should give you any further consideration?

        • #3573014

          Yeah!

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to So you’re saying…

          you got me. I am Dugie Howser.

    • #3432194

      Censorship, Privacy, Big Brother

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      There is a good book out called “The Founding Brothers” that discusses the 8 principles who created the United States of America. In it you’ll see that 200+ years ago they struggled with the same issues as today. Their conclusions have been rediscovered and reinforced many times in the following years after their reign.

      Having citizens accountable for thier actions is not a bad idea. We do this in our legal system when we put people in jail and fine them. Like operating a car the internet isa privilege extended to us by the Government. I agree it would be wrong to license people to stand in a natural public forum to exercise thier rights but the internet is not a natural forum and subject to ‘controls’.

      Today the internet has become a place for pediphiles, porno, and scams that infringe upon peoples rights. With little ‘controls’ inplace young children are being inappropriately influenced and parents have few abilities to manage it. People are losing life savings in scams and the scale of internet crimes is astronomical. Most businesses have had intelligene gathering conducted on them and never know it.

      So how do you all suppose we create a more equitable system?

      • #3432084

        Government ownership of Internet

        by admin ·

        In reply to Censorship, Privacy, Big Brother

        My dear fellow, you state: ” Like operating a car the internet is a privilege extended to us by the Government.” and I am at a loss here. Which Goverment extended me that privilege? I understand that a government can make its use illegal within their borders, but no current government can stop it, nor do they own it. I can Telnet into it by calling Cananda quite easily. I could set up a radio patch in another country and enter that way. I am really at a loss specifically of which government youare referring too and would appreciate it if you could tell me which government owns it as I honestly do not know.

        • #3574033

          they don’t have have own it

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Government ownership of Internet

          Where in the Constitution does it state you have a right to the internet? It is a privilege.

        • #3574014

          OK… now you are making more sense.

          by admin ·

          In reply to they don’t have have own it

          Obviously “They don’t have to own it” is an admission that the US government DOES NOT own the internet as reinforced abvove in your reply to generalist entitled “Exceptions” points out in more detail.

          I am curious as to this new point however. Do you believe that if something is not in the constitution that it is not a right? I am hoping that this was more a last ditch effort than something you really believe. If we went by the constitution literally, women would not be able to vote and essentially be afforded no rights. People would have the right to abuse animals as much as they wanted. There would be no rights of the American public in your aforemention of airwaves and a whole host of other things. In reality, the internet, arpanet,worldwide web and personal pc were not around during the era of drafting the constitution as far as I can tell…… Do you really think that we can survive into the next few centuries intact if we do not allow the constitution to be a living document?
          Personally, I love the constitution of the United States of America a great deal and have the utmost respect for it and its intent, however, I would consider it wrong for me to imply constitutional law upon all of the people in the world and I certainly wouldn’t claim that it somehow should be the be all end all of deciding whether the web is a privilege or right for the entire world. I especially wouldn’t post this ascertation in a world wide public technical forum. I would like to believethat as in science, there is a worldwide brotherhood of IT workers that is reaches above the mark of who’s country is the best, but that’s just me 🙂

        • #3572276

          Living document?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to OK… now you are making more sense.

          The Constitution is the frame work we operate under and not intended to be rewritten over time. In fact, its language is common to the language of that time just as the bible is written in the prose common to its time. I would not rewrite the constitution but maybe update the verbage such as “All human beings are created equal”. This single update would have eliminated numerous admendments and years of political babble.

          I suggest you read the following:

          Founding Brothers
          Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson
          Democracy in America

          The web is a privilege extended to US citizens. People do not have a right to access the web irregardless of its reach. Other countries may treat it different within thier own borders despite its reach.

        • #3572262

          Obviously I do not suggest

          by admin ·

          In reply to Living document?

          That any of it should be re-written, not even your suggestion of trying to “update the verbage such as “All human beings are created equal”.” A living document implies usefulness over time not re-writing.

          The fact that it is amended over time points to the fact that it is indeed alive and well and is still important and of use to all of us American citizens.

          The United States has not (yet) as far as I know specied use of the internet as a privilege. Constitutionally it will most likely beconsidered a modern right of assembly if there is an attempt to take away the common persons ability to access it freely. There is quite a bit of legal groundwork done already in this direction, but it has not occured yet at the Federal level as faras I know. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU amoung others are active in anticipation of this possibility though. There is a fundamental difference between driving and assembly when it comes to rights and Jefferson specifically fought for the right to assembly as fundamental. It may someday be for the courts to decide whether or not limiting electronic interconnection (and therefore limiting assembly) limits this ability in a manner far more profound than not being licensed to drive would limit your ability travel freely.
          At any rate, it is not limited currently, nor would it be easy to do so (well, unless we get the “Shadow Government” and martial law soon) 🙂

        • #3572135

          DblOhGawd – you amaze me

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Living document?

          More specifically, your ignorance is what amazes me, especially your ignorance of that which you claim to be an expert. The Constitution was indeed intended to be changed over time. What a foolish thing to think otherwise.

          That’s why the allowance of amendments was installed into the body of the document. That’s why the rule of ratification of two-thirds of the states was written into it. That’s why the writers themselves changed it, both initially in order to get all 13 states to ratify it, and subsequently to adapt to changing times.

          If it weren’t later changed, only white men would have voting rights. Should I continue?

          You really should stop saying foolish things. You know what it makes you look like, don’tyou?

          “Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and
          unalienable rights of man.” –Thomas Jefferson

          Maxwell

        • #3573777

          DblOhGawd – you are mistaken

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to they don’t have have own it

          DblOhGawd, you have it backwards.

          The US Constitution does not “bestow” rights on the individual, but rather grants certain “rights” to the government and limits the citizenry in regards to others. In short, the US Constitution declares what the government may or may not do, it does not declare what the citizen may or may not do. In addition, the government doesn’t just “take” those rights away, but rather the people (through their representatives)relinquish certain rights for the common good. If they are not “specifically” relinquished, then everything else is indeed a “right”. Furthermore, the Constitution does not even suggest that the US government “grants” ANY rights. In fact, it specifically states that all “rights” are granted by God.

          Indeed there are certain rights spelled out, such as the right to free speech, etc., but just because something is not specifically stated does not mean it’s not a right. To use your example that the, “Constitution does (not) state (that) you have a right to the internet”, does not imply that one does not have that right. On the contrary, it certainly does. (Since it does not limit that right.) The Constitution, for further example, does not even mention schools, but I certainly do have the right to attend any school of my choice, or send my children to any school of my choice.

          In summation, we all have the “right” to do whatever we please as long as it is not specifically limited within the text of the Constitution. (And, of course, if it is in compliance with all Federal, State and Local laws.)

          And that’s the civics lesson for today.

          Maxwell

        • #3573766

          Thanks Maxwell…

          by packratt ·

          In reply to DblOhGawd – you are mistaken

          I couldn’t have stated it any better…

          Government can never give you the right to do anything, it can only take your rights away.

        • #3572271

          Interesting

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to DblOhGawd – you are mistaken

          The constitution sets the frame work for our federal government and establishes in certain alienable rights that are given by God. That is true. You do not have any ‘other’ rights that come and go with time or economics conditions. It is a privilegeto operate a car. It is a privilege to access or use the internet. It is a right to free speech but the internet is not a requirement to that end.

          Now the US government realizes the value and dignity of having a job, driving a car, and being ableto conduct commerce and conversation on the internet. The US Government reserves the ability to limit and control these things through various methods such as laws, regulations, taxes, and policy.

          You do not have a right to do what ever you wanteven within the law. Your inalienable rights are limited by the public at large when you ‘infringe’ upon anothers rights.

          I am not certain where you people are obtaining your constitutional understanding. I encourage you to read:

          Founding Brothers
          Constitutional Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson
          Democracy In America

        • #3572261

          Ok… You lost me…

          by admin ·

          In reply to Interesting

          When you said: “The constitution sets the frame work for our federal government and establishes in certain alienable rights that are given by God. That is true. ”

          Are you suggesting that God or the government can “alienate” them?

        • #3572160

          DblOhGawd – another correction for you

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Interesting

          Another correction, you should note that those rights are “unalienable”, not “inalienable” or “alienable”.

          You’re welcome.

          Maxwell

        • #3573010

          Thanks

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to DblOhGawd – another correction for you

          I uasually hit this site late at night and sometimes I stumble over the keys.

      • #3431960

        Non-governmental approach

        by generalist ·

        In reply to Censorship, Privacy, Big Brother

        Imagine an non-governmental organization with high standards that has the resources needed to evaluate and monitor cyberspace. The organization would operate a database that would allow people to verify that their cyberspace contacts meet certain ethical standards. Think of it as a centrally located universal filter for all your cyberspace interactions.

        This organization would have to be honest and above board in all their dealings. It would also have to admit when it makes mistakes and aggressively correct those mistakes.

        Furthermore, the organization would have to be able to work with those people who don’t have a track record they can trace. Filtering people out because they can’t be ‘verified’ as meeting the ethical standardsis akin to declaring that they are unethical.

        This concept might work in an ideal world. At the same time it could make Big Brother look like the patron saint of individual freedom if it were perverted.

        Perhaps such a watch dog organization would need watch dogs…

        • #3574032

          checks and balances?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Non-governmental approach

          That’s fine but it will need some kind of checks and balances to avoid corruption and political agendas from overtaking it.

        • #3573880

          Definitely…

          by generalist ·

          In reply to checks and balances?

          Checks and balances would be both internal and external and would also involve independent organizations.

          It is a classic case of who will guard the guardians.

          You would also have to guard against stagnation, bureaucracy and other organizational problems. I suspect that it could be done, but it would take a paradigm shift to do it right. The organizations involved would have to continuously reinvent themselves to stay healthy.

          When you get down, this reinvention process would be a form of check and balance.

        • #3574004

          Good Idea :)

          by admin ·

          In reply to Non-governmental approach

          I would like to have: “non-governmental organization with high standards that has the resources needed to evaluate and monitor cyberspace” 🙂

          I personally, currently in the world arena, think major corporations may be more powerful than government in wwweb issues, but still, I think an honest governing body would be a definate step in the right direction 🙂

    • #3572269

      Let Me Clarify

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      I am not for more Government in general. However, we are approaching a time when the Freedom of the Internet act will come to an end. Chat rooms are loaded with people who often discuss inappropriate material, advance subversive ideologies, or are pediphiles. There are alot of honest and sincere people too.

      In our new world we are faced with the clash of the civilizations. In our society there are vulnerabilities everywhere. Somehow we need to install credibility into these things. Did you know that Timothy McVeigh used websites and chatrooms extensively. That was evidence against him.

      We need to reduce the time between learning and course of action in order to respond to identified threats.

      Many seem to think industry can regulate itself. Others think independent private organizations can do it. I wonder if that is possible or should there be overarching control and monitoring?

      • #3572268

        What if…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Let Me Clarify

        What if there were policy that required chatroom sites to maintain a database of validated users. Nueral agents set on top of the database and when conversations or users who match a pattern are seen the agents fire a signal off to other mid-level agents.

        Over the wan these agents are all monitoring and shooting off signals. When a line of logic occurs authorities are notified?

        For example let’s say most pediphiles are males in thier 40’s or 50’s, earn an average income of $40k/yr, poseas boys, live in one metropolitian area and attempt to travel elsewhere to meet up with a girl.

        All males are identified in this pattern without names or social security numbers at first. A chat between a girl a man is found. Firing signals are generated. A determination is made that the conversation is questionable. The girls zipcode is pulled and the males name is drawn and checks are sought against registered offenders. His credit cards are monitored for travel to the girls vacinity or zipcodes on the path.

        Next law authorites are notified and the man is observed and arrested for illicit behavior.

        • #3572259

          Reply To: Chat Room Psycho Babblers

          by admin ·

          In reply to What if…

          Parents would raise their kids to understand the internet, sex and pedophiles in a manner appropriate to their developmental level? I seriously thik that we should require licenses to parent in this country because so many people are flat out crappyat it.

          Why risk the child until the last minute? If they get no love at home and resort to talking to a pedophile something is WAY wrong before the person gets to their home and damage to the child has already occured.
          Here are a couple of interesting things to know about pedophiles and profiling. In a British study the ratio of Male\Female perpetrators that are convicted was almost equal. The number of cases reported was also almost equal as was the gender equality in perpetrators storiesof their own abuse (which is almost always the case). In America it is overwhelmingly males that are reported and prosecuted. However, what is interesting is that in their stories, equlity in the gender of their abusers was nearly equal as well. Onehypothesis in America may be because females are far more likely to get away with it in America rather than because females do not commit this act in America. This kind of screws up profiling as a working preventative measure.
          Having said that, I am EXTREMELY supportive of “Megan’s Laws” in the states they exist in. These give parent’s choice in choosing where to raise their kids. The difference to me is that your measure would be speculative and rely on inaccurate profiling- “let’s say most pediphiles are males in thier 40’s or 50’s, earn an average income of $40k/yr, pose as boys, live in one metropolitian area and attempt to travel elsewhere to meet up with a girl.” -whereas the technology to share known convictions publicly with withthe help of the state is based on known conviction.

        • #3572258

          What if?…..

          by admin ·

          In reply to What if…

          Parents would raise their kids to understand the internet, sex and pedophiles in a manner appropriate to their developmental level? I seriously think that we should require licenses to parent in this country because so many people are flat out crappy at it.

          Why risk the child until the last minute? If they get no love at home and resort to talking to a pedophile something is WAY wrong before the person gets to their home and damage to the child has already occured. Pedophiles techniques areknown to work in an enviroment of secrecy, and parents can combat this by providing a safe, loving, secure and open enviroment for their children where this is talked about.
          In a British study the ratio of Male\Female perpetrators that are convicted was almost equal. The number of cases reported was also almost equal as was the gender equality in perpetrators stories of their own abuse. In America it is overwhelmingly males that are reported and prosecuted. However, what is interesting is that in their stories, equlity in the gender of their abusers was nearly equal as well. One hypothesis in America may be because females are far more likely to get away with it in America rather than because females do not commit this act in America. This kind of screws up profiling as a working preventative measure.
          Having said that, I am EXTREMELY supportive of “Megan’s Laws” in the states they exist in. These give parent’s choice in choosing where to raise their kids. The difference to me is that your measure would be speculative and rely on inaccurate profiling- “let’s say most pediphiles are males in thier 40’s or 50’s, earn an average income of $40k/yr, pose as boys, live in one metropolitian area and attempt to travel elsewhere to meet up with a girl.” -whereas the technology to share known convictions publicly with with the help of the state is based on known conviction.

        • #3573061

          It could backfire

          by generalist ·

          In reply to What if…

          This could easily backfire.

          What if a fourteen year old girl claims to be eighteen or older and the man believes her. Pattern matching fails to catch this lie so the man gets nailed for his actions despite the fact that he was trying to obey thelaw.

          An even worse case would be if the ‘girl’ on the other end is legal age but happens to be using an ‘underaged’ ID for somebody else. It wouldn’t take much in terms of circumstantial evidence for the man to get nailed.

          This type of systemhad better have some high quality checks and balances to it.

          Of course, it might encourage a small portion of the population to change their behavior…

        • #3572949

          for one…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to It could backfire

          The law already deals with most of this. The adult is always held accountable irregardless of what a minor says.

      • #3572198

        I suggest…

        by packratt ·

        In reply to Let Me Clarify

        That the best person to decide what is subversive or inappropriate is the individual, not the government.

        Yes, McVeigh may have used chat rooms and the like to advance his ideas, but so do many other people with mixed intentions and ideologies. Who is to determine which ideologies are allowed and which are not? You? Me? Government?

        How would you feel if the government censored what you were saying right now or arrested you for subversion or suggested that you were a terrorist because of the books you suggested that we read?

        If you want the government to protect you from different ideologies, perhaps you should move to China, they do that there you know.

        • #3572951

          Never mentioned censorship

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to I suggest…

          I do not know why censorship keeps entering this conversation. I never suggested censoring anything at all.

          Second, your credit card spending is being monitored and you are being profiled as we speak. The IRS monitors credit card spending on nameless accounts. When a ‘red flag’ surfaces such as large purchases they begin looking closer. This kind of monitoring is only going to increase.

        • #3572662

          Monitoring = censorship

          by packratt ·

          In reply to Never mentioned censorship

          When you monitor communications like you suggest it becomes censorship by the intent with which such monitoring is done. It is censorship by threat of punishment if you say something that the monitor does not agree with.

          As for your credit crap, I really don’t use credit cards, I refuse to because of how that data is tracked and used and abused. All this data that is collected does not even come close to describing any person in any real terms and it’s quite insane to use such figures to predict future actions of individuals for commercial purposes like marketing and even insurance risk assesment, or even for job applicants, which is most vile. It’s more than just insane, it’s flat out immoral and I strongly object to such activity and thus boycott the use of credit cards and credit reporting agencies.

        • #3572431

          REJECTING STATUS QUO?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to I suggest…

          You may reject the use of monitoring, credit cards and the use of credit reporting but they do not avoid you and that is not your choice. Numerous agencies and private companies maintain databases records on you. In fact, the county recorder has records on you where ever you have lived.

          The only way you can avoid be detected in the system is to administratively disguise yourself.

        • #3573502

          True…

          by packratt ·

          In reply to REJECTING STATUS QUO?

          Sure, but it can be done… I’m just not willing to subject my family to the rigors of squatting since I know what that is like and do not want my children to grow up in poverty like I did.

          Oh well… As Maxwell would say, it’s my fault for beingborn into a poor family. hehe

        • #3437080

          whose fault, Packratt?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to True…

          No, it’s not your fault if you were born into a poor family. That’s a silly assertion, and one I never made. Moreover, it’s most disingenuous of you to even make such a suggestion.

          As far as staying “poor”, now that’s a different matter entirely. Whose fault is that? Yes, in some cases, some people are born into situations where there’s not much hope for improvement. And, in those cases, we, as a caring and, generous society, should provide for those who truly can’t provide for themselves. I’m sure we both agree in that regard.

          But that leads us to consider those who don’t provide for themselves even though they are very capable of doing just that. Therein lies our difference of opinion. Why do those people stay “poor”? Whose faultis that? It’s the fault of the many who brainwash others into thinking they have no control over their own future and are relegated to a life of poverty. It’s the fault of those who refuse to believe that their life’s possibilities are limited by only their own ambition. It’s the fault of those who really wish to have a “poor class” over whom they gain and maintain power. There are simply too many “rags to riches” stories in America to think otherwise.

          Consider this, person number one (perhaps you) tells some poor soul that he is not capable of achieving anything on his own. He can’t do this because of that. He can’t help himself out of a dire situation because there are too many others who are too heartless to help. He will never make anything of himself because of this or that or the other thing. He will always be poor because he doesn’t have what it takes to overcome difficult obstacles. He can’t do this; he can’t do that; he can’t; he can’t; he can’t. You offer a hand out to make yourself feel better.

          (continued…)

        • #3437079

          fault – part 2

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to True…

          (continued from above…)

          Then we have person number two (perhaps me). He tells that same person that he can indeed achieve his dreams if he stays focused on them. He can overcome any obstacle that gets in his way if he believes it strongly enough. He doesn’t have to take on the limits imposed on him by others. He can; he can; he can. I offer a hand up to make him feel better about himself.

          Who is the cruel one? The one who promises more despair, or the one who offers hope?
          Too often, those who “have not” are told that can never have unless it’s given to them. That’s what’s cruel. Others convince them that the American dream is outside their reach and beyond their ability to achieve. That’s what’s cruel.

          They can achieve it, and they will achieve it, but only when they truly believe it.

          Maxwell

        • #3437024

          Believing and achieving

          by generalist ·

          In reply to fault – part 2

          Your last quote reminded me of something that a motivational speaker/writer named Napolean Hill came up with a number of decades ago.

          “Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve.”

          Success and failure both have major mental components.

        • #3437013

          Too Far…

          by packratt ·

          In reply to fault – part 2

          Oh how I wish I had the space to describe to you how different your fantasy world is from the real world that I live in.

          Ah… But that would be too far off topic and I am fairly certain that my life story would be something beyond you ability tocomprehend or even believe. But spin the magical wheel of blame you must I suppose.

          Let us leave it at this, the hand out is a shackle, we both agree on this…

          Words of encouragement are just that, empty and hollow sounding fantasies and of little use on the dinner table. These words are the most vile and crude when echewing forth from the mouths of those who have no want. On this I am certain we disagree…

          Yet, I offer you the third choice, the opportunity to succeed and the reciprocation of success by those who achieve it and those who strive for it alongside one another. The choice to give equally to all of those who contribute to your own success and thus makes you more successful as a result. The sharing of the bounty between those who think and those who do instead of the hoarding by those who own and those they think they own others as a result.

          But, as I said, all of this is way off topic and I really doubt that we can find agreement since we are from two alienworlds to one another.

        • #3436075

          Agreement and disagreement

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Too Far…

          I’d agree that handouts frequently backfire. But they can help the right people in the right circumstances. Finding those people can be a risk though.

          I would disagree that words of encouragement are useless, though I would have to add a major qualifier. When you’re dealing with a pessimist or a cynic you might as well not offer words of encouragement because they will be rejected 99.9% of the time. (And that is an optimistic estimate.)

          I can agree to the principle of the third choice, but I have my doubts about the phrase ‘give equally’. The phrase ‘give a fair share’ would work better in my opinion.

          Of course, the people doing the distribution would need to be honest/generous and base their decisions on product/service maintenance/improvement rather than stockholder profits. They would also have to consider how people like janitors and maintenance techs keep things running, thus making it possible to work on the product/service side of things.

          There are a handful of organizations that work on the ‘fair share’ principle. But they are greatly outnumbered by those who reward the CEO with millions while cutting back on those who actually do the work.

    • #3572151

      DblOhGawd – another civics lesson

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      DblOhGawd, I certainly don’t profess to know you, not even a little bit. However, there is one thing I have learned about you in regards to how you conduct yourself, especially in a forum such as this. You simply won’t admit when you’re wrong.

      And thank you so much for the reading suggestion. I am quite the history buff, especially when it comes to American history, and I am an admirer of Thomas Jefferson. I’ve read scores of books about him and the other founding fathers, as well as the events that started this great “experiment” in democracy. (I know, I know, it’s a republic, not a democracy.) I will indeed make it a point to read “Founding Brothers”. And I have a reading suggestion for you as well. I suggestyou read the Constitution itself before you claim to be an expert on the subject. It’s obvious, at least to me, that you understand neither the content nor the context, and you certainly don’t understand the intent.

      These “rights” about which we are debating, were not – and are not – granted by any individual government. They were assumed to be granted by God. They were called unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson. (And, by the way, is not part of the US Constitution.) And James Madison, who was the primary author of the US Constitution, often referred to them as “the great rights of mankind”. These rights are simply not limited merely by their absence in any document. There were, of course, certain rights specifically spelled out, based on time and circumstance. These “spelled out rights” were included in the Bill of Rights, which actually comprise the first ten amendments to the original Constitution. The Constitution represents only a set of general principles out of which the implementation of statutes, codes and laws has emerged.

      (continued…)

      • #3572150

        Civice lesson continued

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to DblOhGawd – another civics lesson

        The Constitution establishes the blueprint for self-government. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, is the document that establishes the basis for such government, and pronounces that one’s rights are granted by God, not any government. It’s the Declaration of Independence that “declares”, and I quote, “…that they (us) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”. Moreover, it goes on to say, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”. In the end, the very purpose of the US government is for the protection of individual rights, not to define what those rights are.

        The Declaration of Independence does indeed set the foundation upon which the US Constitution is based. But don’t get the two confused. And don’t mistake the intent of either. The US Constitution is the “growing” document that sets forth the “rules” by which the US government must function. In theory, the government works for us, not the other way around. (Although today that seems hard to believe.)

        If you want to continue to debate me on this subject, I’d welcome the dialogue. The function and intent of the US government is probably my favorite subject to discuss. I’m very well versed on the subject, both present and past, and can certainly hold my own in any debate. And don’t go on splitting hairs about “rights” versus “privilege”. You’ll just continue to makeyourself look foolish. But, of course, it’s certainly your right to do just that.

        Maxwell

        • #3572146

          Please excuse the typo

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Civice lesson continued

          Of course, the title of that last message should read, “Civics lesson continued”.

          Dang, I hate it when that happens.

          Maxwell

      • #3572147

        US Government role in Internet

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to DblOhGawd – another civics lesson

        In addition, the Internet, which started this whole discussion in the first place, is a global network. The US government doesn’t have jurisdiction over the whole globe. (At least not yet.)

        Maxwell

      • #3572956

        Rights granted by God?

        by kuhlio ·

        In reply to DblOhGawd – another civics lesson

        I understand what the Constitution says about the rights being granted by God, but God also says something to the effect of “Thou shalt not worship another God or Idol…” or whatever, yet, under the Constitution we have the freedom of religion. The right to choose which God we worship, or to worship no God. It is one of the many things that makes America great. But how can the two be so contradictory?

      • #3572941

        Hang ups

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to DblOhGawd – another civics lesson

        1. I never said rights were granted by the governement – that seems to your own hang up.
        2. I’ll forward you a Legal brief discussing the international implementications of the Internet.
        3. history buff great but you lack an understanding of the legal definitons and blur the term rights with those things you believe to be a necessity.
        4. Numerous times I have agreed or even admitted being incorrect when I was in these dialogues.
        5. I never said the Constitution could not be admended. I said that by updating terminolgy to be more specific we could have avoided several admendments.

        You seem to have an ego that requires positive re-inforcement. Tell me about you mother. LOL…

        MAX – People like you. You are so smart. I wish we all could be like you!

    • #3572895

      Answering the original Questions p1

      by admin ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      Getting back to the original questions:

      1) Just what is our exposure? Our exposure is worldwide and quite traceable if someone desires to track us personally, but lies in an overwhelming amount of hardware that many people either do not have access to retrieve unless there is a pretty good reason or just wouldn’t want to waste their time at. This is not because of “rights” etc. but because of the overwhelming amount of data on the www. What entity has the ability to collect, store and archive every single bit (hehe) of it? Alternately, there are some simple tools that allow most anybody the ability to track some stuff. In my opinion the www is kind of like our atmosphere, you can collect and test and make a positive ID of any segment ofit that you want but it is pretty impossible to get every molecule’s footprint individually at the same time. It’s just too overwhelming. People can construct a pretty darn good idea of finding out who I am and my families habits by going through our trash too, but this doesn’t stop me from throwing away stuff or incinerating everything because frankly my life isn’t really all that interesting as is the case with most of the garbage at the dump. I bet that much of what I have said online over time has been re-written over to the point of little hope of recovery.

      • #3572892

        Answering the original Questions p2

        by admin ·

        In reply to Answering the original Questions p1

        2)Is a web presence good, moderate, or bad? Well, as far as research teams, yes they exist and they have not fared all that well finding accurate profiles and certainly not well yet at delivering meaningful marketing information. For one, many people have caught on to the fact that we can all be bob@aol.com and click inforamtion seeking boxes quicker when we pay no attention to the survey. Cookies aren’t real effective and most any honest marketer would tell you we are in the infancy of this onthe web. Profiling is extremely inaccurate as well, especially when most people play parts in their own version of whatever play they can muster up. To me, a web presence is good. It shares another wonderful piece in the human puzzle with all the world. This to me is near magical and extremely beautiful 🙂

        3)Should we maintain many online alias’s not associated with our real id? Aliases seem to be the number one indicater that role playing abounds on the internet. In my view, much of it is in good fun. How many CounterStrike players sign on as and if they did should I be concerned that they cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy and might actually think they are training for some mission? Sure,you have the wierdos acting like they are women when they are men, but by far the ragingly huge majority of people on the internet have “handles” that are fun and benefit life and culture rather than detract from it.

        Thanks! 🙂

    • #3572857

      Just a thought

      by notanalias ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      “Just what is our exposure?
      Is a web presence good, moderate, or bad?
      Should we maintain many online alias’s not associated with our real id?

      I’m not sure anyone still knows what the initial question was — but I think a Web presence CAN be moderate while it also CAN be bad. Im simplistic terms, without delving into the constitution i.e., I feel it is essential that we maintain more than one online alias for varied reasons, which reasons are apparent to most that think about that question. So may talk about inappropriate web contacts re: minors etc. Is that not the same argument that floated around regarding cable TV? Eveyone hemmed and hawwed and its here,,,, and the answer has been put forth that one can “just change the channel” if one finds it offensive. Cable TV comps also monitor who watches what and when. This goes back and on and on…….. Watch what you please – surf the web wherever you choose and let the watchdogs watch.

      Not an Alias,,,,,
      A real person

    • #3421870

      Thank you for your replies and input

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to Chat Room Psycho Babblers

      I would like to thank you all for your inputs. Its time other discussion move up in the hot topics.

      Thanks!

      • #3572719

        Hot Topic Discussions

        by admin ·

        In reply to Thank you for your replies and input

        Has anyone else noticed that the Hot Topic feature doesn’t seem to be working smoothly?

        • #3572441

          Yeah…

          by packratt ·

          In reply to Hot Topic Discussions

          I can’t say that I like the new format that much…

          Maybe it’ll grow on me…

          Like…

          Well, nevermind.

Viewing 11 reply threads