Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

And neither have you.

And I have no concerns about my freedom or my privacy. 0.01% of emails. I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear.

But you're the one banging on about what good value it all is - we have no idea if it's any sort of value at all plus they hold all manner of stuff about us and they've already been shown to have misused some of it. I reckon that's almost inevitable.

[french frank]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24781417

And the significance of the John Kerry statement (misunderstood by scotty and A_I_C) was not that it was an act of contrition and a promise not to do it again. It was significant as a public statement because, unlike some people here, he admitted that surveillance had gone too far, rather than, like some people here, defending it as necessary in the 'war on terror'.

Logically, if Kerry admits that state surveillance had gone further than necessary, rather than defending it, that weakens the state's case against Snowden as some sort of traitor.

The only people left defending the level of surveillance appear to be two or three contributors to this thread ... Which is a bit weird.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24781417

And the significance of the John Kerry statement (misunderstood by scotty and A_I_C)

Where and when?

And how many are 'your' numbers active on this thread? And are you proposing to settle the issue by numbers?

[french frank]

Where and when?

The reaction of both you and scotty to my link to Kerry's statement was that it was merely a platitude and it would be business as usual as far as the surveillance was concerned. Scotty here and you here. That disregarded the fact that it was a public admission that some of the spying had 'gone too far' (which would remain the case even if they did continue as before). My point was that if it came to court, Kerry's admission that some (at least, to be quantified) wasn't necessary would weaken the administration's case. Ultra vires? Sledgehammers and nuts at any rate.

And how many are 'your' numbers active on this thread? And are you proposing to settle the issue by numbers?

If you're interested, I'll leave you to do the totting up. I wasn't imagining that anything would be 'settled' here. It's just a discussion forum.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I stand by my first reaction. Kerry's apology was quite weak and unspecific, and also went on to justify the general level of surveillance by linking it to the prevention of terrorism threats. So on the one hand, we have a plea of perhaps a step too far, but on the other, safety from significant and real danger. Play that one out in your imaginary court if you like.

Pleased to see you're backing off from the silly numbers game.

[french frank]

I stand by my first reaction. Kerry's apology was quite weak and unspecific, and also went on to justify the general level of surveillance by linking it to the prevention of terrorism threats. So on the one hand, we have a plea of perhaps a step too far, but on the other, safety from significant and real danger. Play that one out in your imaginary court if you like.

Pleased to see you're backing off from the silly numbers game.

I always get the feeling I've done something to deeply offend you personally at some time. I can only say I'm unaware of what it might be.

[amateur51]

I always get the feeling I've done something to deeply offend you personally at some time. I can only say I'm unaware of what it might be.

Join the club, french frank - I hope it's just a question of style.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I always get the feeling I've done something to deeply offend you personally at some time. I can only say I'm unaware of what it might be.

On the one hand, that shows a remarkable sensitivity (in that #1340 was a response to your own jibes contained in #1337 and #1339, none of which was, by the standards of this thread particularly bitter), and on the other a complete insensitivity since you don't see that you are equally acerbic in many of your posts directed not just at me but to others, and particularly ScottyCelt. Just recently we have had a good demonstration of this at #1169.

This would be of little matter except that you are the Administrator of these boards, and apparently you would seek to improve the tone of the conversations of these threads. However, given your encouragement and apparently eager participation, the threads continue to be an open brawl of abuse; we even have some (but not all) of the moderators participating! For that reason you have buried the P&CA threads.

And there's one particular aspect of this that is becoming uglier as time goes on, and that is the pack (of which you are a member) hounding of ScottyCelt. How he puts up with this I have no idea.

[amateur51]

On the one hand, that shows a remarkable sensitivity (in that #1340 was a response to your own jibes contained in #1337 and #1339, none of which was, by the standards of this thread particularly bitter), and on the other a complete insensitivity since you don't see that you are equally acerbic in many of your posts directed not just at me but to others, and particularly ScottyCelt. Just recently we have had a good demonstration of this at #1169.

This would be of little matter except that you are the Administrator of these boards, and apparently you would seek to improve the tone of the conversations of these threads. However, given your encouragement and apparently eager participation, the threads continue to be an open brawl of abuse; we even have some (but not all) of the moderators participating! For that reason you have buried the P&CA threads.

And there's one particular aspect of this that is becoming uglier as time goes on, and that is the pack (of which you are a member) hounding of ScottyCelt. How he puts up with this I have no idea.

Well Inspector, he will insist on getting drunk and wearing short skirts, y'see.

[french frank]

Just recently we have had a good demonstration of this at #1169.

I thought that a rather restrained response to your constant negativity - and I quoted the post from you to which it referred to illustrate the point: that was not simply expressing a view contrary to my own - it was aggressive silliness.

And there's one particular aspect of this that is becoming uglier as time goes on, and that is the pack (of which you are a member) hounding of ScottyCelt. How he puts up with this I have no idea.

As administrator and legal 'owner' of the forum, I reserve the right to participate if I wish. I disagree with most of scottycelt's view's expressed here but don't believe I have ever been guilty of 'hounding' him, though there have been times when I have not merely disagreed - I have found his view offensive. If he responds, he gets responses. There is likewise no obligation on him to 'put up ' with anything: he wishes to have his say and is free to do so. I don't believe he is always 100% respectful of the views of other people - nor are you. The fact that the majority of participants have strongly held views, both in favour of what they believe and against the opposing view, means there will be vigorous exchanges. If people could be persuaded to disagree civilly the board would not have been moved out of sight. It seemed a better alternative to closing it because it's too much trouble to moderate.

On the whole, I have taken the view that people may interact here as they wish - that was my quid pro quo for keeping the board.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Your response is entirely as expected.

[MrGongGong]

And there's one particular aspect of this that is becoming uglier as time goes on, and that is the pack (of which you are a member) hounding of ScottyCelt. How he puts up with this I have no idea.

I'm sure he can cope, after all he does have God on his side :-)

and as Am says :Laugh:

[scottycelt]

I thought that a rather restrained response to your constant negativity - and I quoted the post from you to which it referred to illustrate the point: that was not simply expressing a view contrary to my own - it was aggressive silliness.

As administrator and legal 'owner' of the forum, I reserve the right to participate if I wish. I disagree with most of scottycelt's view's expressed here but don't believe I have ever been guilty of 'hounding' him, though there have been times when I have not merely disagreed - I have found his view offensive. If he responds, he gets responses. There is likewise no obligation on him to 'put up ' with anything: he wishes to have his say and is free to do so. I don't believe he is always 100% respectful of the views of other people - nor are you ...

I find such remarks quite astonishing and these bear little resemblance to a message you once sent to me in private. I won't embarrass you by betraying a confidence and quoting it directly.

It is sad that you have to chosen to become so personal about members with whom you vehemently disagree. It did strike me as odd that you have consistently failed to take action against like-minded members who time and time again insult others but I learned to live with that ... after all it's only a forum.

However, to accuse myself (and A-I-C) of being 'disrespectful' towards the views of others whilst much of our time is spent fending off rude, snide comments from 'the usual suspects' is a bit rich to say the least. I have always just accepted that as part of forum life and it has been evident for some time that you are tolerant of such behaviour as long as it is solely directed at the 'right' members.

As I've said repeatedly it's your forum and you can fashion it any way you wish so that's not any of my affair. However, what is clear is that you want your forum to be a mouthpiece for those who hold, for want of a better term, left-liberal views. Anything that deviates from feminist/politically-correct dogma you consider to be 'offensive'. The New Puritanism indeed!

I thank all members with whom I have had some great debates and have not taken personal offence, even sharing the odd joke, and also, of course, the tiny band of courageous contributors who have occasionally supported me! For the most part, I have enjoyed my time immensely here and I honestly didn't expect it to end like this. It is disappointing.

As the criticism regarding myself was made public I would now take the opportunity to request the administrator to withdraw my name from the list of For3 members with immediate effect. I would have much preferred to go 'quietly' in such a situation but I've been left with little alternative, have I?!!

Good Luck To All!

scottycelt.

[MrGongGong]

As the criticism regarding myself was made public I would now take the opportunity to request the administrator to withdraw my name from the list of For3 members with immediate effect. I would have much preferred to go 'quietly' in such a situation but I've been left with little alternative, have I?!!

Good Luck To All!

scottycelt.

Don't be daft matey
and don't take things to personally ......... have a dram and sleep on it !

[french frank]

Before I close scotty's account I would simply point out that what I said was that I did not think he was '100% respectful'. That would apply to a number of people on these boards. As far as I remember what I said to you 'in confidence', scotty, it was that I did sympathise with you over the constant attacks on your religious views and faith. I'm happy to repeat that. But, as I also said, the quid pro quo for moving the board away from the view of other members who found the wrangling annoying was that people should be left to express themselves freely here.

As the criticism regarding myself was made public ...

I disagree with your views on feminism and equality but respect your right to express them: I don't see that expressing my opinion of your views amounts to 'criticism'.

But if you've finally decided you've had enough, I won't seek this time to dissuade you.