(December 31, 2013 at 12:59 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(December 31, 2013 at 12:35 pm)houseofcantor Wrote: From what I read, Jacob issued a challenge and Rayaan answered it. Whatever happened in PM is between the communicators, and in this case it appears Jacob violated his own privacy.

I saw that too. I think there was a miscommunication about what was happening there. Jacob got more than he bargained for but in a sense only because he issued the 'dare'.

Still I think the critique about the privacy policy as stated and as practiced is still valid.

There's a "still?"

I like to think that the "atheist position" is a fluid one, where new evidence leads to new doctrine, but I'm not really seeing that here. What I do see is a member clutching at moral straws to add validity to his argument.

There is no 'atheist position' regarding anything other than deities.

The privacy policy should be adhered to and if there is a situation where what the privacy policy states is unclear and there may or may not be a violation, then the privacy policy should be evaluated and judged.

(December 31, 2013 at 12:59 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(December 31, 2013 at 12:35 pm)houseofcantor Wrote: From what I read, Jacob issued a challenge and Rayaan answered it. Whatever happened in PM is between the communicators, and in this case it appears Jacob violated his own privacy.

I saw that too. I think there was a miscommunication about what was happening there. Jacob got more than he bargained for but in a sense only because he issued the 'dare'.

Still I think the critique about the privacy policy as stated and as practiced is still valid.

Just for clarity, Rayaan has done his investigating before I asked him to impress me with HOW he knew who I was. I'd forgotten that he was a mod and thus had my email address (making it a lot less impressive). The only difference me asking made was that I got to know what he'd already discovered. It was not the reason for the investigation. That has been defined variously as, "because I was bored" and "because I was suspicious".

Suspicious, I understand... remember, jacob, when I compared you with a recently banned member, known as catfish?... I believe I said it on your second day around here, perhaps on your intro thread...
As for being bored, well, if he was trying to dig up something on you, that just made him spend more time doing it, which leads to discovering more info.
As far as I see it, rayaan apologized... maybe not in the way most of people would like, but the guy is a bit socially awkward... If it was me in that situation... I'd probably apologize the same way he did... provide the justification that led to the behavior and say "I'm sorry". He did those.
Then again...I'd probably not show you photos of your family, even if I had access to them...

Hopefully, rayaan has learned to refrain from going that deep with his suspicions, or with the info he discloses about what he gleams about the users...
And hopefully, all other admins will, in the future, be sensible about such information.

In the meantime, stay safe on the interwebz, create e-mail addresses for registering on certain sites, avoid posting too much private info and photos, try not to reuse passwords and always be wary of admins... you never know who's on the other side.

(December 31, 2013 at 1:56 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: There is no 'atheist position' regarding anything other than deities.

I would disagree, but that's why I put it in quotes. For instance, when someone makes an online presence and includes "atheism" or "atheist" in the title, I would assume rational skepticism and use of the scientific method. Again, perhaps this is just me...

---

(December 31, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(December 31, 2013 at 12:59 pm)whateverist Wrote: I saw that too. I think there was a miscommunication about what was happening there. Jacob got more than he bargained for but in a sense only because he issued the 'dare'.

Still I think the critique about the privacy policy as stated and as practiced is still valid.

Just for clarity, Rayaan has done his investigating before I asked him to impress me with HOW he knew who I was. I'd forgotten that he was a mod and thus had my email address (making it a lot less impressive). The only difference me asking made was that I got to know what he'd already discovered. It was not the reason for the investigation. That has been defined variously as, "because I was bored" and "because I was suspicious".

I don't see the issue, and I think you should stick around, 'cause you alright.

(December 31, 2013 at 2:40 pm)houseofcantor Wrote:

(December 31, 2013 at 1:56 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: There is no 'atheist position' regarding anything other than deities.

I would disagree, but that's why I put it in quotes. For instance, when someone makes an online presence and includes "atheism" or "atheist" in the title, I would assume rational skepticism and use of the scientific method. Again, perhaps this is just me...

---

(December 31, 2013 at 1:58 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Just for clarity, Rayaan has done his investigating before I asked him to impress me with HOW he knew who I was. I'd forgotten that he was a mod and thus had my email address (making it a lot less impressive). The only difference me asking made was that I got to know what he'd already discovered. It was not the reason for the investigation. That has been defined variously as, "because I was bored" and "because I was suspicious".

I don't see the issue, and I think you should stick around, 'cause you alright.

I'd much like to. I shall await clarification on the privacy policy. I am aware that people can and do cross reference stuff on the Web but there is a difference between knowing it can happen and being part of a forum where the Admin team actually announce up front that the will do so on an ongoing basis. It's like the difference between knowing the need to shred your documents and being Ok with someone overtly rummaging through your dustbin on your front lawn... Then wanting to have a chat with you.

Taking precautions is wise and yes I have an email address I use for "dodgy" sites where I worry about being spammed or tracked. I didn't use that one here. One lives and learns.

Just because we know something bad goes on, does not make it OK IMO. And I still don't see the need. Seems to me too high a price to pay for a very little more safety from sock puppets.

(December 31, 2013 at 2:54 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Just because we know something bad goes on, does not make it OK IMO.

No, it doesn't; but I'm a moral relativist. Stick around, cause you alright. Furthermore, join TTAF.

(December 31, 2013 at 2:33 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Suspicious, I understand... remember, jacob, when I compared you with a recently banned member, known as catfish?... I believe I said it on your second day around here, perhaps on your intro thread...

I never thought jacob was terribly vague on his position, once I looked into red letter christianity. Besides catfish was a antagonistic troll, that purposely kept his beliefs vague to piss people off. They don't even type in a even similar style, jacob's wording and style is laid back and easy, catfish typed like a drunk ex boyfriend looking for a fight.

Where? Link please.

I like Edward Snowden

"Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%."

(December 31, 2013 at 2:59 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Where? Link please.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rrer=14829

Make another referral pour moi.