Ignoring your personal attacks, which I will just say in passing are utterly unfounded, the fact of the matter is that you DO have to justify your preference. Obviously, since these features were accepted and included in the LiveJournal source, the powers-that-be made a decision that this information should be available. If you want that changed, you're going to have to convince them, not us. We're just a bunch of volunteers who think FOAF is cool.
I would like to have a reasoned discussion on the points you bring up just after calling me an arrogant twat, because I think that your viewpoint is interesting. However, because you have demonstrated an inability to be civil thusfar, I'm less than enthusiastic to attempt to engage you in such a discussion.
I would also note that there is a simple method, discussed elsewhere, by which you can disable the export of the bulk of the FOAF data. Specifically, you can enter any string into your "External FOAF URL" field at http://www.livejournal.com/editinfo.bml which will cause the FOAF to be mostly empty. Before you get upset about the data which is still exposed, you should know that there is a fix pending for the Date of Birth.
There is room for discussion on this, because while most of the people participating in this community can't make the decisions, we can certainly write the code. Calling names and using dramatic rhetorical devices aren't likely to put the people who fit that description in a mood that is well suited to considering your point of view.
But you are not being civil.sacundimMarch 1 2004, 14:29:56 UTC
Ignoring your personal attacks, which I will just say in passing are utterly unfounded
But you did treat me like I'm a moron, by giving me a boilerplate answer ("it's already public") to a complaint against that very same boilerplate answer.
However, because you have demonstrated an inability to be civil thusfar, I'm less than enthusiastic to attempt to engage you in such a discussion.
I'm not willing to concede that you have been civil at all. You couldn't be bothered to actually answer what I said, and restated one of the points that was being questioned. You were clearly not out to have a discussion. Which discounts you from the world of "civility".
You people are showing an enormous lack of will to even see how the changes you're advocating affect my capability to control exactly how information about me is disclosed. I think the disregard for other people's privacy that crschmidt and you are showing here is extremely disrespectful. As is the unwillingness that you both show to address these, which was evident before I showed up here. For example, I'll quote from the text of this entry:
I've seen a couple of weblog entries about how FOAF is a violation of the privacy of the users on the site, and so on and so forth.
There is no summary of any reasons why somebody would object to FOAF. There isn't a link to some such weblog entries. The "and so and so forth" is dismissive. What I see is somebody stonewalling on the issue, now that the admins have implemented his pet project.
Re: But you are not being civil.vanbeastMarch 11 2004, 18:28:38 UTC
If you don't like it, download the LJ source, change it to suit your needs, lock it up behind some .htaccess and SSL, and hide in your little corner of the web all by yourself. YOU have the choice.
I would like to have a reasoned discussion on the points you bring up just after calling me an arrogant twat, because I think that your viewpoint is interesting. However, because you have demonstrated an inability to be civil thusfar, I'm less than enthusiastic to attempt to engage you in such a discussion.
I would also note that there is a simple method, discussed elsewhere, by which you can disable the export of the bulk of the FOAF data. Specifically, you can enter any string into your "External FOAF URL" field at http://www.livejournal.com/editinfo.bml which will cause the FOAF to be mostly empty. Before you get upset about the data which is still exposed, you should know that there is a fix pending for the Date of Birth.
There is room for discussion on this, because while most of the people participating in this community can't make the decisions, we can certainly write the code. Calling names and using dramatic rhetorical devices aren't likely to put the people who fit that description in a mood that is well suited to considering your point of view.
Reply
But you did treat me like I'm a moron, by giving me a boilerplate answer ("it's already public") to a complaint against that very same boilerplate answer.
However, because you have demonstrated an inability to be civil thusfar, I'm less than enthusiastic to attempt to engage you in such a discussion.
I'm not willing to concede that you have been civil at all. You couldn't be bothered to actually answer what I said, and restated one of the points that was being questioned. You were clearly not out to have a discussion. Which discounts you from the world of "civility".
You people are showing an enormous lack of will to even see how the changes you're advocating affect my capability to control exactly how information about me is disclosed. I think the disregard for other people's privacy that crschmidt and you are showing here is extremely disrespectful. As is the unwillingness that you both show to address these, which was evident before I showed up here. For example, I'll quote from the text of this entry:
I've seen a couple of weblog entries about how FOAF is a violation of the privacy of the users on the site, and so on and so forth.
There is no summary of any reasons why somebody would object to FOAF. There isn't a link to some such weblog entries. The "and so and so forth" is dismissive. What I see is somebody stonewalling on the issue, now that the admins have implemented his pet project.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment