Revolution RUMORS!

[David Burgun]

On 14 Feb 2006, at 17:10, Stephen Barncard wrote:

> You're obfuscating the fact that he POSTED the information on this  
> forum, not that he got 'stuck in the site'.

Yes, in order to stop other people getting into the same position.  
Once the cat was out of the bag there was no need for anyone to go to  
the site again. It could be argued that he should be praised for his  
selfless actions and RunRev chastised for their unsafe site! If this  
was a real house and someone got stuck like this, the house owner  
could possibly be sued!

I really don't see what the problem is/was in posting the information  
in the first place, I mean *anyone* could have obtained the  
information and *anyone* could have posted it *anywhere* they like.  
For instance, Richmond could have posted under an alias to *any* of  
thousands of mailing lists or *any* of thousands of news groups. But  
in fact he chose to send it to this list using his real name. He  
could have privately emailed people from the list and they could have  
accessed the information themselves and banning him served no purpose  
at all and would not stop this from happening again, since it would  
be easy for him (or anyone) to sign up to the list under an alias and  
do exactly the same thing.

As far as I can see he exercised his right to free speech and that's  
all. RunRev didn't like it presumably because they felt that he owed  
them a debt of silence. How do other people feel about this? Do you  
think you owe RunRev the right to be silent about this kind of  
information when it is not secured safely?

What I am unclear about is whether he was banned from the list for  
posting to the RunRev list or for posting to *any* list. For instance  
if he had posted to the Real Basic (if there is one) list, would he  
still have been banned from the RunRev list? Was the crime the  
publishing or the place of publishing? Also can one be banned from  
this list for posting to another list or newsgroup?

> Please end this thread.

Would have been ended!
>
>> On 14 Feb 2006, at 04:28, Judy Perry wrote:
>>
>>> I would agree, however, RunRev clearly didn't want this information
>>> available now.  Sure, they may have forgotten to 'lock the door',  
>>> but
>>> that's not a good excuse to go inside anyway.
>>
>> The point is that it was hard to back out, the window was stuck  
>> "open" in the Browser.

Interesting point, if you leave your car unlocked or something  
valuable on display and then the car is stolen of broken into the  
insurance company may well refuse to pay out and the police will not  
be very responsive.

There is a responsibility on the owner to make sure that possessions  
are properly safeguarded.

Take Care and Happy 2.7ing!
All the Best
Dave