Comments on: Blinded by the (Sun-)Light http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:32:09 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » Sign a Petition, Get Posted to a Witchhunt http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-171337 Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » Sign a Petition, Get Posted to a Witchhunt Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:36:04 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-171337 [...] Privacy for me, but not for thee if you oppose me. Where have I heard that before? [...] [...] Privacy for me, but not for thee if you oppose me. Where have I heard that before? [...]

]]> By: Dana http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-132482 Dana Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:44:29 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-132482 Mr Trejbal sacrificed his own anonymity, by publishing under a by-line. Our esteemed host's only failure is that he failed to include Mr Trejbal's home telephone, cell phone and e-mail addresses. Mr Trejbal sacrificed his own anonymity, by publishing under a by-line. Our esteemed host’s only failure is that he failed to include Mr Trejbal’s home telephone, cell phone and e-mail addresses.

]]> By: Anwyn http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-131678 Anwyn Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:32:42 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-131678 This week in Trejbal's world, we're "criminal" if we dry our clothes in, you know, clothes dryers. This week in Trejbal’s world, we’re “criminal” if we dry our clothes in, you know, clothes dryers.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-131338 Xrlq Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:20:42 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-131338 FG: I agree Vermont-style carry is the ideal, but I'm not sure it would fly here politically (even if it passed the General Assembly, Gov. Kaine would almost certainly veto it), and even if it did it could cause problems for Virginians traveling to other states. If I were king of the commonwealth for a day, I'd decree <em>Alaska-</em>style carry, making it legal for residents to pack without a permit but still issuing voluntary permits to those who choose to apply for them and meet the requisite criteria. And as long as even voluntary permits exist, there will still be a list, and dammit, it needs to be kept private in all but a few narrow cases (<cite>e.g.,</cite> where there is evidence of corruption). FG: I agree Vermont-style carry is the ideal, but I’m not sure it would fly here politically (even if it passed the General Assembly, Gov. Kaine would almost certainly veto it), and even if it did it could cause problems for Virginians traveling to other states. If I were king of the commonwealth for a day, I’d decree Alaska-style carry, making it legal for residents to pack without a permit but still issuing voluntary permits to those who choose to apply for them and meet the requisite criteria. And as long as even voluntary permits exist, there will still be a list, and dammit, it needs to be kept private in all but a few narrow cases (e.g., where there is evidence of corruption).

]]> By: Anwyn http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-131248 Anwyn Sat, 17 Mar 2007 03:21:12 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-131248 I was speaking as him, mind. Any sentence ending in ! was his POV. Funny enough, people frequently don't quite see the equivalence when something they do is done to them in turn. Especially when they think they had a good reason. I was speaking as him, mind. Any sentence ending in ! was his POV.

Funny enough, people frequently don’t quite see the equivalence when something they do is done to them in turn. Especially when they think they had a good reason.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-131245 Xrlq Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:40:10 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-131245 <blockquote>Why, you were published for doing something people disapprove of!</blockquote> So was he. He published my address simply for holding a permit to carry, which <i>some</i> people disapprove of but most don't. I published his for being a prick, an act which nearly everyone (including, oddly enough, most pricks) disapproves of. Then again, your basic point is right. The minute he admits that he <i>doesn't</i> approve of having his personal data spread all over the Internet is the minute he admits that his cheap stunt on gun owners amounted to something other than spreading "sunshine."

Why, you were published for doing something people disapprove of!

So was he. He published my address simply for holding a permit to carry, which some people disapprove of but most don’t. I published his for being a prick, an act which nearly everyone (including, oddly enough, most pricks) disapproves of.

Then again, your basic point is right. The minute he admits that he doesn’t approve of having his personal data spread all over the Internet is the minute he admits that his cheap stunt on gun owners amounted to something other than spreading “sunshine.”

]]> By: Anwyn http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-131242 Anwyn Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:25:50 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-131242 Nice try, Xrlq. Disclaimer: I'm not saying I think it was a particularly bad thing to publish the man's info--how hard did you have to look to find it? the phone book? Anyway, but your "platinum rule," while it sounds good, doesn't apply in this case--of course he doesn't *wish* to be treated the way he treated all of you gun owners. Why, you were published for doing something people disapprove of! Nobody could possibly disapprove of letting the public know who has guns, and comparing their owners to sex offenders! In short, he certainly doesn't wish to have disapproval visited on him any more than you did. He can stack up his case all he wants for "it's not wrong," but his reaction to having his info published might actually tell where the croquet ball lies--i.e. if he squeaks, all his arguments for having published your info are right out. That's assuming he's dumb enough to squeak, since if he did all his arguments would be right out. Nice try, Xrlq. Disclaimer: I’m not saying I think it was a particularly bad thing to publish the man’s info–how hard did you have to look to find it? the phone book? Anyway, but your “platinum rule,” while it sounds good, doesn’t apply in this case–of course he doesn’t *wish* to be treated the way he treated all of you gun owners. Why, you were published for doing something people disapprove of! Nobody could possibly disapprove of letting the public know who has guns, and comparing their owners to sex offenders!

In short, he certainly doesn’t wish to have disapproval visited on him any more than you did. He can stack up his case all he wants for “it’s not wrong,” but his reaction to having his info published might actually tell where the croquet ball lies–i.e. if he squeaks, all his arguments for having published your info are right out.

That’s assuming he’s dumb enough to squeak, since if he did all his arguments would be right out.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-131238 Xrlq Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:52:10 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-131238 Under the circumstances, I <i>don't</i> believe it to be wrong. My moral code allows for revenge, as long as it targets only the offender and does not exceed the gravity of the original offense. Tit for tat, but no more. He published my home address, I published his. It doesn't get any tittier or tattier than that. But the notion that it was OK for me to wrong him in proportion to his wronging of me is all <i>my</i> perspective, not his. From his, neither of us wronged the other at all. You seem to be operating according to the golden rule. I prefer the platinum rule: treat others as <i>they</i> wish to be treated, not necessarily as you would want to be treated if you were them, which you're not. Under the circumstances, I don’t believe it to be wrong. My moral code allows for revenge, as long as it targets only the offender and does not exceed the gravity of the original offense. Tit for tat, but no more. He published my home address, I published his. It doesn’t get any tittier or tattier than that.

But the notion that it was OK for me to wrong him in proportion to his wronging of me is all my perspective, not his. From his, neither of us wronged the other at all. You seem to be operating according to the golden rule. I prefer the platinum rule: treat others as they wish to be treated, not necessarily as you would want to be treated if you were them, which you’re not.

]]> By: the friendly grizzly http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-131226 the friendly grizzly Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:04:16 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-131226 This all ignores the fact there should not be such a list in the first place, as there should not be a permit required in the first place. As for publishing the good Mr Trejbel's address, I say good on you for doing it. I am willing to bet he knew precisely what he was doing: making trouble for folks who have conformed with the law. Nertz to him. This all ignores the fact there should not be such a list in the first place, as there should not be a permit required in the first place.

As for publishing the good Mr Trejbel’s address, I say good on you for doing it. I am willing to bet he knew precisely what he was doing: making trouble for folks who have conformed with the law. Nertz to him.

]]> By: Jody http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/comment-page-1/#comment-131174 Jody Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:11:52 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/03/15/blinded-by-the-sun-light/#comment-131174 <i>Besides, since Trejbal himself thinks it’s OK to publish people’s home addresses, how is doing that to him a “wrong” at all?</i> Because you (and I) believe it to be wrong. Besides, since Trejbal himself thinks it’s OK to publish people’s home addresses, how is doing that to him a “wrong” at all?

Because you (and I) believe it to be wrong.

]]>