From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 15/4/05 1:00, in article BE83EFAA.11D8C%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
    wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE844D27.9DE2%wally@wally.world.net on 4/14/05 1:37 AM:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> I didn't realize you made any browsing restriction as public as the   
   >>>>>>>> posting   
   >>>>>>>> of the url was!.....you did didn't you?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Not sure what you mean.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It's simple, if you post an url to a portion of a site and it is only   
   >>>>>> that   
   >>>>>> portion that you want accessed it would be prudent to inform people of   
   >>>>>> that fact, bearing in mind of course that you would have to be pretty   
   >>>>>> naive to think that such instructions would be adhered to, but at least   
   >>>>>> that would add some weight to the complaints that you now bring, no   
   >>>>>> matter   
   >>>>>> how absurd they may be, so did you include restrictions on viewing when   
   >>>>>> you invited visitors?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I disagree with your premise.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Never doubted that you would!   
   >>>   
   >>> Fair enough - now, can you support it?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Uuummmmm! What exactly would you like supported?   
   >>   
   >> 1) "It's simple, if you post an url to a portion of a site and it is only   
   >> that portion that you want accessed it would be prudent to inform people of   
   >> that fact,"   ........that's just plain common sense!   
   >   
   > Not at all.  If I post a link to one page, there is nothing implying I   
   > expect others to datamine my site.  Sure, I would not be wise to have easily   
   > accessible info about me or something - but that was not what the data in   
   > question was.  Elizabot found images my wife had taken and posted... there   
   > was *nothing* wrong with my wife and I posting such images.  To insinuate or   
   > state that there was is a faulty premise.   
      
   Nobody is suggesting that there is anything wrong with posting pictures on   
   your site, but to post pictures that you admit you knew may be used against   
   you in an area open to all and sundry.....well I ask you, how stupid was   
   that?   
   You really ought to read or get someone to explain 1) above to you....   
      
   >> Or   
   >>   
   >> " bearing in mind of course that you would have to be pretty naive to   
   >> think that such instructions would be adhered to," ....that too is obvious!   
   >   
   > So why even suggest that I do so?  You are negating your own comments.   
      
    really? Above you said... " there was *nothing* wrong with my wife and I   
   posting such images." even though you previously admitted that you knew that   
   said images were likely going to be used against you...that sounds pretty   
   naïve to me!   
      
   >> or   
   >>   
   >> " but at least that would add some weight to the complaints that you now   
   >> bring, no matter how absurd they may be," .....it's true, you would not look   
   >> as silly as you now do!   
   >   
   > There is nothing silly about pointing out how Elizabot datamined my site in   
   > a rather obsessive and... well... bizarre way.  You saw the same links - did   
   > you datamine my site as she did?  I doubt it... why would you?   
      
   Newsflash! Making these sorts of accusations without any form of proof at   
   all, does indeed make you look silly.   
   It's strange that in my case you say that you doubt I datamined your site   
   don't you have the ability to *know* if I did? the same way perhaps that you   
   *know* that someone did datamine your site!   
      
   >> Or   
   >>   
   >> " so did you include restrictions on viewing when you invited visitors?"   
   >> Did you not notice that that was a question? You wish me to support a   
   >> question!   
   >>   
   >> Blowing smoke is fine Snit but it doesn't work very well when you are using   
   >> it without any thought at all!   
   >   
   > Well, then, why are you doing so?  Thanks, though, for admitting your antics   
   > do not work very well...   
      
   I have made no unfounded accusations, you have!, and if true to form they   
   will remain unfounded accusations!   
      
   >>>>> If I invite a neighbor into my house, that does not imply permission to   
   >>>>> check my dresser drawers for what they may find.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Firstly of course I would suspect that you know your neighbor so the need   
   >>>> to   
   >>>> leave such an invitation in a public place doesn't really apply but anyway   
   >>>> what if you left a sign outside your house inviting you neighbor to   
   visit?,   
   >>>> clearly you would have no control over who visited and where they went, it   
   >>>> would be incumbent on you to safeguard your property failure to do so is   
   >>>> your problem, not much good complaining afterwards!   
   >>>   
   >>> I have had neighborhood BBQ's at my house.  I have let people enter my   
   house   
   >>> to use the restroom.   
   >>   
   >> " to use the restroom" do you understand the term restrictions? In your   
   >> analogy you have determined those ie..." to use the restroom" I asked you   
   >> above if you specified such restrictions " so did you include restrictions   
   >> on viewing when you invited visitors?" you have not answered so I assume you   
   >> did not, if you are going to use analogies at least try and have them   
   >> remotely resemble the topic at hand!   
   >   
   > With the visitors I told them where the restroom was.  The restriction was   
   > implied.   
      
   Implied therefore open to interpretation!.   
      
   > I did not tell them "the restroom is down the hall to the left...   
   > but *do not* enter anywhere else!".  I merely told them where the restroom   
   > was... with the site I did not post "click this link but *do not* look   
   > anywhere else".  I merely posted a link to a single page   
    > I used the same "restrictions" in both instances... though I will   
   > acknowledge that data mining a web site is not as serious of an offense as   
   > doing so in a house!   
      
   Until such times as you provide proof it is only an alleged 'offence' at   
   this point it is no more than a hypothetical situation.   
      
   >>>  If I caught one of them going through my possessions   
   >>> in my bedroom - or wherever - you better believe I would have a problem   
   with   
   >>> it.   
   >>   
   >> You would indeed have a problem especially it the alleged offender could   
   >> show that you had invited such behavior....in the case of your site,   
   >> behavior such as modifying images of you, without stipulating any   
   >> restrictions (ooop's there's that word again) as to where those images were   
   >> to be obtained from.   
   >   
   > Do you really think it is OK to steal images from someone's site, edit them   
   > - even by adding feminine hygiene products - and then posting those images   
   > in a public forum?   
      
   Considering that you can be shown to be encouraging the posting of altered   
   images of yourself I am surprised that you find anything to complain about!   
      
   > Are you really defending such actions?   
      
   This comment "even by adding feminine hygiene products" seems to suggest you   
   have a 'hang up' with such products, is that the case?   
      
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I posted url's to some pages... the person in question went to other   
   >>>>>>> pages   
   >>>>>>> that were not linked from them... in fact, the person went to every   
   page   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)