The OP was not bullying anyone. The OP was only stating an opinion like everyone else on DCUM so there was no need for Jeff to take the extra step by saying he knew something personal about the OP

When Jeff says that an individual is posting something as "anonymous" a reasonable person would believe they are doing so anonymously.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff Steele owns DCUM which gives him the power to know IP Addresses, but that power does not give him the rights to use his insider information to creep out this particular OP.

There were many ways in which he could have challenged the issues raised by the OP without stating with absolute certainty that he/she was at work.

He diliberately left out the fact that he may not have known exactly the name of the OP for one reason and one reason only. The reason is because in a diliberate and calculating way he wanted to creep out the OP.

Jeff Steele has the power delete anything he wants, but he does not have the rights to use insider information to creep out his followers who have trusted him to maintain their anonominty.

Nonsense. What a tempest in a teapot. Don't want to get called out on your hypocrisy? Don't be a hypocrite. Don't like the owner of the forum being able to trace your IP? Make your own.

The only ones "creeped out" are those stupid enough to believe in anonymity on the internet in the first place. Grow up.

...more sheltered place to be.

You and the OP are using this board entirely of your own volition. The FAQ makes it very clear that IP addresses or information gleaned from them may be used by the administrators for any reason. Furthermore, if you've read Jeff's blog posts and discussion postings, you'll see that he dislikes bullies and enjoys mocking them.

Jeff has every right to out the fact that the OP was posting from work. If this is enough to make you feel vulnerable, you need to find a much more sheltered place to

Anonymous wrote:Jeff Steele owns DCUM which gives him the power to know IP Addresses, but that power does not give him the rights to use his insider information to creep out this particular OP.

There were many ways in which he could have challenged the issues raised by the OP without stating with absolute certainty that he/she was at work.

He diliberately left out the fact that he may not have known exactly the name of the OP for one reason and one reason only. The reason is because in a diliberate and calculating way he wanted to creep out the OP.

Jeff Steele has the power delete anything he wants, but he does not have the rights to use insider information to creep out his followers who have trusted him to maintain their anonominty.

Give me a break! This reminds me of people who whine and complain about Facebook privacy settings. It is a free service for you, people! If you don't like the way it is run, then go away.

Jeff Steele owns DCUM which gives him the power to know IP Addresses, but that power does not give him the rights to use his insider information to creep out this particular OP.

There were many ways in which he could have challenged the issues raised by the OP without stating with absolute certainty that he/she was at work.

He diliberately left out the fact that he may not have known exactly the name of the OP for one reason and one reason only. The reason is because in a diliberate and calculating way he wanted to creep out the OP.

Jeff Steele has the power delete anything he wants, but he does not have the rights to use insider information to creep out his followers who have trusted him to maintain their anonominty.

This thread scares me.

Jeff has every right to check IPs whenever he wants to. There is no internet 'Bill of Rights', and no internet courts to send Jeff off to.

Anonymous wrote:Well, to be fair to OP, the teacher is supposed to provide "sight and sound" supervision of kids that age per licensing so she should actually not be sleeping, reading or otherwise engaged.

but personally, it wouldn't bother me if she surfed the web or read as long as she remained in the room.

Preschool administrator here. Since when has "sight and sound" supervision prohibited reading or being otherwise engaged? Preschool teachers (and parents, I might add) have always completed tasks while supervising children. Whether it's reading to a small group in the library corner while keeping an eye on that rambunctious foursome in blocks, or using the computer to enter data on student levels while helping monitor the group while your assistant reads a story, or researching ideas for lesson plans on your laptop while the kids are asleep, sight and sound supervision has never prohibited other activities.

Now, posting to DCUM is not what most administrators would want, but frankly if a teacher wants to take a break to recharge and then write those lesson plans from home I don't care. If they're posting to DCUM and then not meeting deadlines or getting work done, id o care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally support Jeff in this. He used his inside knowledge to try to prevent unethical use of the forum

Is this from you, Jeff, logged in as anonymous? It's bad business to go against posters isn't it?

No, it's me -- anonymous. I actually support Jeff in this, as do some others. I suspect people checking in at work won't be afraid of being outed after this, unless they are hypocritically criticizing others for doing exactly what they are doing.

By the way, any chance you're the same person posting over and over again, just waiting for Jeff to call you out on it so you can criticize him even more?

Well said, anonymous! I couldn't agree with you more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally support Jeff in this. He used his inside knowledge to try to prevent unethical use of the forum

Is this from you, Jeff, logged in as anonymous? It's bad business to go against posters isn't it?

No, it's me -- anonymous. I actually support Jeff in this, as do some others. I suspect people checking in at work won't be afraid of being outed after this, unless they are hypocritically criticizing others for doing exactly what they are doing.

By the way, any chance you're the same person posting over and over again, just waiting for Jeff to call you out on it so you can criticize him even more?

Teacher here as well. Posts like this are just ridiculous. I'd be worried if teacher wrote "reading DCUM while kids are running with scissors". Give me a break. I consider myself dedicated, but do spend time at work on some websites. That's my way of relaxing for a few minutes while my students are at recess, etc... in order to be 100% present when they're back in. I also spend on average 2 hours a night doing school work at home....

I teach Pre-K as well. I work for five hours with sometimes nary a bathroom break before my kids go down for their rest/nap. Only then, when all is quiet, do I sit down at the computer, peek at my email, read DCUM for a few moments (and maybe even have the gall to actually respond to a post), and check Facebook. Total viewing time is about 15 minutes. Then it's off to my half hour lunch break when my assistant returns from hers. I refuse to feel guilty for this time.

I have a child in a DCPCS PS classroom. I'm totally ok with my child's teacher popping into DCUM during naptime/their break. My kid's teachers work plenty hard and deserve a break. S/he probably wants to see what is being said about the school where s/he works - like many of the rest of us.

I'm also in favor of Jeff's calling out the OP on posting from work, just as the teacher was doing.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff - You have no idea what OP is doing at work: you have no idea if he was on his break or was working; you have no idea if he had down time during his time at DCUM. You should be thankful that people are interested enough to look at DCUM during their work day - if in fact you know that OP was at work during the time. How do you know if he was at work? Why would you criticize OP for his post? Probably the issue that OP had was that the preschool teacher was in charge for the PS kids safety and well being. Jeff, do you know whether the OP was in charge of the safety of children when he made the posting?


I'm sure that OP will never return to DCUM during work as many other people do......... You should not have disclosed that OP was at work, not good for your business of attracting people to your website in order to gain revenue from advertisements, right?

Any answers?

Anonymous wrote:I totally support Jeff in this. He used his inside knowledge to try to prevent unethical use of the forum

Is this from you, Jeff, logged in as anonymous? It's bad business to go against posters isn't it?