>I replied when the topic shifted from spam to privacy. Like it or not,
>online privacy is not a given, never has been. If you want it, you have
>to build it yourself.
as budge said, it's about respect for other people. you mention x-no-archive. don't you think we've been hoping to get him to see that we'd like this as a fucking option? we've been trying to get him to see that there are options to protect people from the kind of thing we all know happens to people with our politics. he wants everyone to spill their guts about income and sex, but he doesn't even have the decency to acknowledge that people have very real concerns about current and potential employers.
not EVEN to mention that someone on this list didn't get a job because someone else took his archived posts and used them as evidence as to why he shouldn't get the job! as i recall, doug thought that was pretty shitty thing to do. go figger!
> > but he just doesn't give a shit because he participates in some sort of
> > warped bourgeois consciousness about his ownership of the list.
>
>What is the warped consciousness that makes it Doug's responsiblity as
>list manager to obfuscate certain people's identities because they are
>uncomfortable with their posts being viewable by others?
context: doug ignored joe and insulted him by accusing joe of harboring notions of bourgeois privacy. i'm turning the table because the accusation was really pathetic.doug disingeuously asked (to paraphrase) "what are people afraid of, sharing their dick sizes, their sex lives, their income...?"
absofuckinglutely absurd. why did he not tell justin to chill out then? huh? no, instead he told me to chill out about suggestions that were much like yours: protect your own damn privacy because doug doesn't give a shit about doing even the simplest things.
given that, there has to be another explanation for his refusal to countenance munging addresses before posts are archived. there also has to be a related explanation for the fact that doug wants to pay $200 a month for a list that people have offered for three years now to host for free.
so, since doug thinks he can give joe a little left analysis of joe's bourgy consciousness, then he's fair game.
bourgeois ownership: he wants complete control over the list. he refuses to countenance discussions about privacy because it makes him feel guilty about his desire for and enjoyment of owning the list in order to have _complete_ control. bourgeois ownership.
it's fine with me. i could give a rat's ass about doug's hang ups and i don't really judge him for wanting to control the list. it's a perfectly typical and possibly even reasonable desire living in this world.
but i do care that he 1. complains aobut how much it costs and 2. i do care that he refuses to even countenance the discussion, denies even a simple solution, and demeans my best friend because he doesn't like dealing with his own contradictory feelings about that ownership.
kelley