Jeff, you coward

[Anonymous]

I enjoyed learning about Muffy's posts/blog. But no need to call Jeff a coward. (did not read the thread, however) read her blog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surely someone with several personal blogs has put thenselves out there as a public figure though, yes?

Does that mean we have the right to go through and post any and all information available about them, so long as doing so doesn't violate any laws? I don't think so. I don't think becoming famous, whether a lot or a little means that a person has no privacy. And I'm no Muffy fan; just saying that other thread had a lot of info, info none of us needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely someone with several personal blogs has put thenselves out there as a public figure though, yes?

Does that mean we have the right to go through and post any and all information available about them, so long as doing so doesn't violate any laws? I don't think so. I don't think becoming famous, whether a lot or a little means that a person has no privacy. And I'm no Muffy fan; just saying that other thread had a lot of info, info none of us needed.

Well, someone on the earlier blog posted the truth about Muffy, i.e. her given name (not the faux preppy names she uses), this image that she has created for herself, blah, blah, blah.

This is the Internet. If you don't want people to call you out as you really are, then don't create a personal blog, Facebook page, Twitter, etc. Or, if you do want to create your idealized image of yourself, just own up to it - or people will call you out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely someone with several personal blogs has put thenselves out there as a public figure though, yes?

Does that mean we have the right to go through and post any and all information available about them, so long as doing so doesn't violate any laws? I don't think so. I don't think becoming famous, whether a lot or a little means that a person has no privacy. And I'm no Muffy fan; just saying that other thread had a lot of info, info none of us needed.

Info that was already out there on the internet, and is still out there for anyone to find even though the thread has been taken down.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who names her blog "The Daily Prep" is obviously not one. What a dull, uninteresting blog. She sounds about as authentic as Ralph Lauren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff's sandbox. You play by Jeff's rules (he can delete as he sees fit). If you don't like it then you are free to take your Barbie and head to another sandbox.

Obviously he can do whatever he wants. That doesn't mean readers of the forums cannot have opinions about it.

The only opinion that counts is Jeff's. He doesn't poll before deleting or have a group to make the decision. Frankly your opinion doesn't matter. He rarely deletes anyways.

You're stating the irrelevance of my opinion (which I already said matters only to me), while pushing your own opinion. Hah! Why are you trying to pick a fight?

At any rate, apparently my measly opinion was worthy of a reply, which Jeff already gave me.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the Muffy thread was an exception, but I am personally getting tired of OPs getting posts deleted for much lesser reasons, like regretting posting the topic. These are threads users have become invested in, and spent time thinking about and replying to. It seems unfair for the OP to then just go and request a deletion because he or she doesn't like the responses.

Please understand that I am cognizant of the bolded point and it's something I take into consideration. The number of threads that I delete due to an OP's request is very small -- probably less than one a month. I guess it might seem like a lot if you happened to have posted in most of them, but it is really very few. Of those, most are removed because the poster unintentionally revealed too much personal information.

Thanks Jeff -- that is good to know.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decisions should be made to delete, not through bias, emotion, or malice, but whether or not the law was violated. If the posts made about this couple were found through public record, they are legal to repost, though I would advise the one reposting to be sure the sources are verifiable

Our bar is much lower than whether a law is violated. That is particularly true where anonymous users discussing named individuals is concerned. There is a certain hyprocrisy in demanding both perfect anonymity for yourself and total freedom to post information about others who are identified by name.

No one demands anonymity. It is granted in the privacy policy on this site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decisions should be made to delete, not through bias, emotion, or malice, but whether or not the law was violated. If the posts made about this couple were found through public record, they are legal to repost, though I would advise the one reposting to be sure the sources are verifiable

Our bar is much lower than whether a law is violated. That is particularly true where anonymous users discussing named individuals is concerned. There is a certain hyprocrisy in demanding both perfect anonymity for yourself and total freedom to post information about others who are identified by name.

No one demands anonymity. It is granted in the privacy policy on this site.

It's an ethical choice on the part of the poster. Dog someone in public?. Man up and identify yourself.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Decisions should be made to delete, not through bias, emotion, or malice, but whether or not the law was violated. If the posts made about this couple were found through public record, they are legal to repost, though I would advise the one reposting to be sure the sources are verifiable

Our bar is much lower than whether a law is violated. That is particularly true where anonymous users discussing named individuals is concerned. There is a certain hyprocrisy in demanding both perfect anonymity for yourself and total freedom to post information about others who are identified by name.

No one demands anonymity. It is granted in the privacy policy on this site.

The privacy policy describes the use and protection of personally identifying information. Expectations here go far beyond the protection of PII. But, not surprisingly, you miss the point. Many users here want the freedom to publish information about others while having the the same information about themselves protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely someone with several personal blogs has put thenselves out there as a public figure though, yes?

Does that mean we have the right to go through and post any and all information available about them, so long as doing so doesn't violate any laws? I don't think so. I don't think becoming famous, whether a lot or a little means that a person has no privacy. And I'm no Muffy fan; just saying that other thread had a lot of info, info none of us needed.

Well, someone on the earlier blog posted the truth about Muffy, i.e. her given name (not the faux preppy names she uses), this image that she has created for herself, blah, blah, blah.

This is the Internet. If you don't want people to call you out as you really are, then don't create a personal blog, Facebook page, Twitter, etc. Or, if you do want to create your idealized image of yourself, just own up to it - or people will call you out.

What in the world did family obits have to do with "calling people out"? And again, to "call someone out" from a place of anonymity is cowardice, and this isn't the platform.

[Anonymous]

Where is the privacy policy for this site? Just curious. Thanks.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the privacy policy for this site? Just curious. Thanks.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/privacy

There is a link to it at the bottom of the menu on the left.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the privacy policy for this site? Just curious. Thanks.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/privacy

There is a link to it at the bottom of the menu on the left.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely someone with several personal blogs has put thenselves out there as a public figure though, yes?

Does that mean we have the right to go through and post any and all information available about them, so long as doing so doesn't violate any laws? I don't think so. I don't think becoming famous, whether a lot or a little means that a person has no privacy. And I'm no Muffy fan; just saying that other thread had a lot of info, info none of us needed.

Well, someone on the earlier blog posted the truth about Muffy, i.e. her given name (not the faux preppy names she uses), this image that she has created for herself, blah, blah, blah.

This is the Internet. If you don't want people to call you out as you really are, then don't create a personal blog, Facebook page, Twitter, etc. Or, if you do want to create your idealized image of yourself, just own up to it - or people will call you out.

What in the world did family obits have to do with "calling people out"? And again, to "call someone out" from a place of anonymity is cowardice, and this isn't the platform.

Family obits? What are you talking about?

I was talking about stating the truth about a public person on the Internet. Kind of similar to someone pointing out that a photo of a celebrity on the Internet has been photoshopped. What's so bad about that?