The HR implications for anyone posting can be very severe. I've seen a number of cases in which rather minor criticisms have led to dismissals. Even pseudonyms may not help as pressure can be put on ISPs and so on the reveal identities. In a recent UK case, two boys were imprisoned for 6 months on what appears very scant evidence (if any at all) before a jury pretty summarily threw out the case. They seem to have done little other than engage in a daft fantasy. More important than these pressures, I have recently witnessed first hand the extent to which establishments still engage in character assassination against whistle-blowing and their willingness to engage in routine lying. I doubt any of us would have much to fear if we could rely on some kind of fair play and publicly scrutinised investigation, but HR and legal systems are often little more than gossip systems. The two boys arrested as a serious threat to their school and classmates above actually appear very normal. When I drew attention to very disturbing essays and actual violet behaviour by a student some years back it was ignored. He killed two plastic surgeons near Wakefield. I have recently witnessed much worse than this.
We should, of course, be able to provoke, engage in fantasy, suggest thought experiments and so on - these have long been standard thinking and dramatic tools. Often one has to scratch the liberal to find the bigot and so on. I wonder where the lines are and when they need to be broken. On 17 Sep, 15:43, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree Chris. But often posting under a pseudonym from time to time > can lead a careful observer to the actual person doing the posting. > And I expect HR groups would want those pseudonyms anyway. Jim > > On Sep 16, 9:09 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I speak openly and frankly on this forum without fear of such consequences, > > and post with my real name. Anyone concerned about those issues has the > > ability to post under a pseudonym, and many do. I think much would be lost > > in nuestra cosa if the frankness of our conversation was gone. > > > [ Attached Message ]From:retiredjim34 <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:20:44 -0700 > > (PDT)Local:Wed, Sep 16 2009 8:20 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] CAUTION > > > In reading some threads recently, I noticed how open and frank some of > > the posts were. They talked about scamming the system, legendary > > promiscuity, and not quite being the real thing for example. > > Given the degree to which electronic gadgets and social sites > > have invaded our lives, and the degrees to which some will go when > > vetting a job applicant, I suggest that it behoves us all to rein in > > our occassional frank and revealing comments. If a prudish HR staff > > member happened to come across such comments, they might be shocked, > > or worse. And we well might be asked to lead them to such comments by > > listing all social sites we patronize. > > Just a word of caution. > > By the way, does anyone know the post retention policies of Minds > > Eye? I fear that it they may keep our posts forever. Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
