Cross country to Canada

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
Idiot. Did you ask anyone about this sort of trip?

What makes him an idiot? For that matter, what gives you the right to sit
in judgment regarding whether he's an idiot or not?


Wolfgang: see? All you have to do is post using a fake name...no need to
use x-no-archive. You can behave as badly as you like, all you want,
without fear of someone attributing it to you. No one ever has to know it's
you being such a jerk.

Pete

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
Just being able to access data about someone means power.

Really? Just like that? I guess an employee should never go out in public
then. You never know who might see them DO something. Their employer could
find out, and then they would have POWER!

Forgive me if I don't share your paranoia.

[...]
But maybe not a justified one, and not one they have a right to make.
The employer just want to buy the employee's work, not marry him/her.
So they should get information that enables them to judge the person's
work quality, but none about their private life. If that can be
avoided, why not do it?

Why not just tell an employer they aren't allowed to use that data, if you
think it's such a bad idea.

But beyond that, it's simply not true that an employer has no interest in
anything other than "the employee's work". In most cases, the employee will
need to work with others. Especially given that an employer can be sued for
the behavior of one employee toward another, the employer has every right
and justification to learn about an employee's personality, in addition to
their ability to do their work.

Frankly, I don't think that many people -- employers or otherwise -- are
going around using Usenet archives for profiling. But even if they are, so
what? Assuming they understand the limitations of the medium, the
information is public and freely available and they have every right to use
it. Even if they don't understand the limitations, that's their
problem...the information they think they've obtained will be inaccurate,
but it's their prerogative to use inaccurate information if they want.

Again...don't want to make a bad impression? Then don't make a bad
impression.

Nobody can be perfect all of the time.

So what? Everyone I know KNOWS that nobody can be perfect all of the time,
and people who are imperfect only once in awhile aren't judged for that.
It's only the person who is imperfect ALL of the time who needs to worry,
and frankly the rest of world has a right to know about people who are
imperfect ALL of the time.

Every person has a right to control where their stuff gets archived.

No, actually they don't. If I wanted to archive everything I saw on
rec.aviation.piloting, for example, I may. I have no legal requirement to
respect the x-no-archive field, nor any other indication from someone they
don't want their post archived.

That's justification enough. The employer example is not a
justification, I just made it to illustrate how privacy is important in
real life.

Privacy doesn't apply to a public forum. It's PUBLIC. By definition,
PUBLIC is not PRIVATE.

And why can't I x-no-archive if it works for me? Whose business is that
other than mine?

I never said you couldn't. I just said doing so was silly. As far as whose
business it is, it's the business of everyone with whom you interact in the
PUBLIC forum. As participants in Usenet, we have a social contract made of
written and unwritten guidelines, and inasmuch as anyone does something on
Usenet that affects anyone else, it's everyone's business.

[...]
It's called "data protection". Control about your personal data is a
constitutional right here in Germany.

A post you make to Usenet isn't "personal data". Your birthdate, phone
number, credit rating, educational history, those kinds of things are
"personal data". A post to Usenet is a public statement.

Makes sense doesn't it?

Protecting personal data makes sense. A post to Usenet isn't personal data.

If you
Americans think more loosely about that subject and have no problems to
hand power to those who have power already, have fun. But not everyone
shares your views, and why should they?

Well, a) I seriously doubt that Germany protects a person's right to not
have their Usenet posts archived, but b) even if they did, if and when
Germany rules the world, I suppose they can impose that rule on the rest of
us. Until then, a single nation's laws aren't relevant to Usenet,
especially if they do something silly like trying to restrict the free flow
of public information.

We all know that but that is not the issue. The power of that tool is
limited, but why not use it? Why should an outsider complain if someone
uses it?

Why shouldn't they? It's a free world. Just as a person can try to argue
that their posts shouldn't be archived if they don't want them, another
person can complain about them trying to accomplish that.

No one is obliged to answer a post on Usenet, and if they choose to reject
posts with x-no-archive for consideration of a reply, it's their right to do
so.

Pete

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
Many people see using fake names as a worse breach of netiquette than
x-no- archive (which most see as none).

So? If you're going to breach etiquette, who cares how you do it?

I don't agree with those people,

So anonymous posting is fine with you. Okay.

I think either should be allowed and is no business of others.

So why would someone use x-no-archive? It's entirely unreliable, while
posting anonymously is entirely reliable (assuming you don't do something
that will invoke a right to a subpoena, of course).

If you are concerned about profiling, anonymous posting is the only way to
go.

Abuse is never acceptable of course.

Of course. Don't see what that has to do with the question of x-no-archive
though.

Pete

Morgans wrote:

Also, having also spent some time in the Amazon's rain forests, you need
much more than the Deepwoods Off, up north. There is a deet product that
you can get that has much more deet than Off, and works a million times
better. I can't remember right now, but I think it is 20% deet, in a small
bottle.

You are probably thinking of the regular Off! products.

Deep Woods Off! contains typically 25 to 30% DEET, and is available in
concentrations up to 100% DEET. The most useful products are about 25
to 30%, such as their Sportsman sprays and lotions. Higher
concentrations can cause skin irritation, and in some people, allergic
reactions.

The lower concentrations often have ingredients that prolong the
effectiveness of the chemical. In most cases, the 25-30 percent
formulations will provide protection for something like 6 hours.

http://www.offprotects.com/sportsman.asp

Not to say that OFF! is the only product available, just that it is easy
to find almost everywhere.

Here is a discussion of protection against insects that might be
informative.

http://www.henryfordhealth.org/115027.cfm

For those not familiar with DEET, be aware that it is a good paint
remover, and will soften plastics. Therefore, don't apply concentrated
amounts to automotive finishes, synthetic clothing like Spandex, watch
crystals, and eyeglass or sunglass frames.

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
Idiot. Did you ask anyone about this sort of trip?

What makes him an idiot? For that matter, what gives you the right to sit
in judgment regarding whether he's an idiot or not?


In Happy Dog's world, everyone is an idiot!

"Bloviating idiot"
"Babbling idiot"
"F****** idiot"
"Idiot boy"
"Ineducable idiot"

List goes on and on and on.....

Check out Google Groups / "Happy Dog" + idiot

But yeah, I'll watch you and HD go a few rounds. Good luck. :-)


Montblack

"Montblack"
Idiot. Did you ask anyone about this sort of trip?

What makes him an idiot? For that matter, what gives you the right to
sit in judgment regarding whether he's an idiot or not?

In Happy Dog's world, everyone is an idiot!

"Bloviating idiot"
"Babbling idiot"
"F****** idiot"
"Idiot boy"
"Ineducable idiot"

List goes on and on and on.....

Check out Google Groups / "Happy Dog" + idiot

But yeah, I'll watch you and HD go a few rounds. Good luck. :-)

It's Usenet. Strictly entertainment. But, I admit, I should, on occasion
wait at least a few exchanges before using the 'i' word. My apologies...

moo

Happy Dog wrote:

"Bloviating idiot"
"Babbling idiot"
"F****** idiot"
"Idiot boy"
"Ineducable idiot"

It's Usenet. Strictly entertainment.

Obviously there are many different ideas what entertainment is.

Stefan

("Happy Dog" wrote)
It's Usenet. Strictly entertainment. But, I admit, I should, on occasion
wait at least a few exchanges before using the 'i' word. My apologies...


I'm guessing no more than two exchanges would suffice :-)

Some posters, sooner. g

Thanks Happy Dog.


Montblack

Idiot. Did you ask anyone about this sort of trip?

What do you think he's doing now? He's asking about this sort
of trip before he does it. As far as the radio license stuff goes, he
can forget worrying about that. Light airplanes in Canada don't need
station licenses anymore, haven't for some years now. His FAA pilot's
certificate should cover the rest.

When you call someone an idiot, you must qualify the comment,
explaining why he's wrong. Otherwise, you risk identifying yourself as
one who barks all night at the moon.

Dan

wrote in message
Idiot. Did you ask anyone about this sort of trip?

What do you think he's doing now? He's asking about this sort
of trip before he does it.

No. He said it couldn't be done.

As far as the radio license stuff goes, he
can forget worrying about that. Light airplanes in Canada don't need
station licenses anymore, haven't for some years now. His FAA pilot's
certificate should cover the rest.

Correct. If you're legal to fly an N registered plane in the US, you can
fly it in Canada.

When you call someone an idiot, you must qualify the comment,
explaining why he's wrong. Otherwise, you risk identifying yourself as
one who barks all night at the moon.

hehe. Could be. Mostly low now though.

moo

See?