You know me so well... My FaceBook and MySpace are different. Facebook I generally only have people I already know and trust. MySpace I ... uh.. have few hundred more. But I've wittled away a thousand or so. I actually had 8 I specifically had to completely remove from my MySpace -- 4 who were WAY too local for my comfort. Luckily my legal name is not the same as my Birth name.
:) On Sep 18, 4:01 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Bother you? From what I can tell, you encourage them! ;) > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Eternity <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks SD! Wow, that must have been exciting! Worrying about stalkers > > is different than worrying about being fired for what you're saying, > > thats for sure. I have a fairly good following of Internet Stalkers, > > which doesn't bother me too much -- I did change things around, and > > there are certain things that I never give out under any circumstance > > as extra precaution. > > > On Sep 17, 6:53 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well there's a voice to be heard. Thanks Eternity! > > > > I do say what I want and pose my thoughts in a candid manner. > > > However, let it be known that in the past, at least ten years ago, > > > when I used my real name, I did eventually receive phone calls to my > > > home which set off some marital discord and in one instance a woman > > > approached me in the parking lot of my employ excitingly announcing > > > her Internet pseudonym, "It's me!" she declared. At that very moment > > > I knew the time was ripe to disappear as much as I could on the > > > Internet, and as you all should very well know there have been many > > > instances of Internet stalking and crime due to openness which is > > > basically vulnerability. As it turned out I wasn't the father of her > > > Internet baby. LOL > > > I just heard on the news earlier today that there is a legal software > > > people can buy that allows the "hijacking" of your cell phone > > > conversations. I'm looking into it further but don't really have much > > > to report other than it is some version of a spyware for cell phones. > > > There is peopledata.com and zabasearch.com which both locate people > > > and give current and past residential addresses aside from other > > > information, birth date, phones etc. > > > > Look yourself up! > > > > Sincerely; > > > Slip Disc > > > also known as Gadfly and Slippy Fishy (thanks to Orn and Gabby) LOL > > > > On Sep 17, 2:57 pm, Eternity <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, but this is really when we as citizens have to stand up for our > > > > rights. We are perfectly able to stand for what we believe it. And > > > > we're called to do it! > > > > > If you're worried about what somebody else thinks or feels in regards > > > > to your own thoughts, feelings, and actions then perhaps you should > > > > reconsider your stance, or perhaps you should call them out on theirs. > > > > > In fact, in the US today is Constitution Day. . . So I encourage > > > > Americans to take a look and re-read what we're supposed to ensure > > > > we're protecting. > > > > > ~Eternity~ > > > > > On Sep 17, 9:33 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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- Hide > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
