Deletion of posts, or all personal information from all former posts

[lydgate]

First, a couple of things:

(1) Please don't assume this is a drama queen response.

(2) I'm not an idiot and spare me the lectures on the Internet being a public space.

That having been said:

The fact that I have NO legal right -- no control whatsoever, and legally that is not an exaggeration -- to protect the many many words I have written on these forums over the last 9 months, leaves me feeling profoundly vulnerable. (I checked this with my lawyer, an ex-boyfriend.)

I'm not going to leave the forums. But I am considering deleting the vast majority of my posts. (Maybe to no good effect since there are probably print-outs.) I do NOT want the legal right to those words to be in the hands of an incorporeal corporation.

Am I over-reacting? Perhaps, but I don't think so. I've dealt with publishers/media houses before. Oh yes I have. And have dealt with the venality of publishers and media big-wigs, big time. Erm, have I have mentioned that I know several, and that they are all despicable?

The issue again is one of future possibilties. Without a reassurance from corporate HQ and a rephrasing of the "terms of use" I will continue to feel vulnerable.

Fucking hell, I hate this. This space is literally my one poz support group. You (whoever you are) try living in semi-rural Iowa.

Ugh.

Jay

[AustinWesley]

You might want to consider deleting that nude picture.   For someone concerned about privacy you seem to have no issue sharing nude pictures with the rest of us. 

Frankly, I find that offensive and distasteful.   And, I'm not trying to be mean.  I really do find it inappropriate!

[lydgate]

Wes, why are you flame-baiting me? The picture is NOT of me but of a great contemporary painting, as my caption makes clear.

[AustinWesley]

I don't know what flame baiting is.

I just assumed that was a picture of you.  How would I know that?   Thanks for explaining!

I still find it offensive and that's the reason I don't direct young adults such as my nephews here.   

But I guess I don't have any legal rights either!


I've come back to edit this post for all those who've been reading this ridiculous thread!   In this, I was trying to illustrate a point.   

Maybe I didn't do the best job of it, but I will admit after having a thread intentionally highjacked for the purpose of instilling fear and panic in the group I'll admit I was exasperated.   To top it off, a few other in the trouble making clique took an easy shot by posting totally irrelavent and snide remarks in other subjects I'd started.   These are the few Bad apples trying to Rot the bunch and it's clear as day.   It's my opinion the forum would be a better place without them!

[Miss Philicia]

Flame baiting would be me saying something like "Gee, what a bunch of wilting daisies we have on the forums tonight!"

[edfu]

Flame baiting would be me saying something like "Gee, get a little education and learn that Lucian Freud is one of the greatest contemporary painters and that Leigh Bowery was one of the greatest performance artists of the twentieth century and that he died of complications from AIDS.  Also, do not let any young adults go to any contemporary-art museums lest they spy the offensive Mr. Freud hanging on the walls."   

[Miss Philicia]

If I have to start taming myself so that somebody's little nephew can read these forums then I'm going to have to find that offensive and distasteful.

[lydgate]

Issues of flame-baiting and philistinism aside, let's get back to the main topic.

[Miss Philicia]

Ok, I'll bite.  If you're worried about it then delete them.  I think it's overkill but hey, that's just me.

I mean, what nefarious possibilities are you envisioning every night while you're trying to fall asleep?  Rape and pillage of your inner soul by some punk writer trolling for ideas on the internet?  I'd assume that goes on all the time.

And no, I don't even read the mumbo jumbo legalese bullshit when I sign up on a web forum.  Why bother?  IT'S THE INTERNET.  It's basically the same as standing on a crowded street corner and shouting out things to passersby that you don't know at all.

Tempest in a teapot if you ask me, as is a prudish disgust of a painting of Leigh (who I once saw at am after hours club dancing with a toilet seat lid as a hat, face covered in feces... NOT PRETTY!)

[skeebo1969]

    And, I'm not trying to be mean.  

  I doubt that very seriously!


  Jay,

     I do not like the fact that it has come down to this, but unfortunately I do not think you are over-reacting.  I do hope you reconsider though...

  T

[AustinWesley]

I wasn't, but I don't care for the picture at all.

[dtwpuck]

This is a public forum.  It always has been.  The fact that the information you've posted can be used to identify you is a surprise to no one, except maybe you.   If you're worried about it, do what others do and use a picture of something else besides yourself and don't put anything in your posts like "hi, I'm John Smith and I live at 123 mockingbird lane".

Sorry you feel so violated, but, seriously, nothing about the nature of posting on the Internet has changed.  Even with the silly CSI forum, there isn't anything that couldn't have happened already.

[allopathicholistic]

hey j

if deleting makes you feel safer then go ahead but have some ben-gay, icy-hot or tylenol on hand (for your hand). instead of posting you can just pm people. i am gonna guess that to some, that art avatar looks like lipodystrophy (buffalo) and we have members here with lipo. just something to consider

[ndrew]

Hi Jay,

Well I think it would be negative karma to recoil what you have laid out thus.  Yes, the world is full of assholes. 

Movin' foreword,
Drew

[Grinch]

  I'm of the opinion that the people that feel vulnerable feel that way for the simple reason that before the CSI forum, this was a safe place to speak openly simply because it was below the radar of the main stream.  Unless you were specifically looking for it you didn't find it.  Even if you did you were unlikely to read through the forums.

   Now we're getting exposure on prime time TV.  It's kind of like having a safe little hole in the wall bar that you can hang out in and be comfortable that all of a sudden gets world wide exposure.

  I feel as if the general public that comes to check out the CSI forum will likely come "Check out all the AIDS people"
I understand having multiple accounts is a bannable offense but frankly I'd prefer to have a CSI forum only log in. One that can be separate from this one.

Austin.... how come you've never complained about all the other avatars that fit your idea of "body beautiful?"

[DanielMark]

It's really easy not to see anyone's Avatar. Just check the box beside: Don't show users' avatars in your profile setup page. Of course that only functions if you're logged in. I've chosen not to see them mostly because I find them visually distracting.

Daniel

[Peter Staley]

Jay -- I'm trying to keep my temper in check, but this is really a hit below the belt.  I would strongly advise you not to corrupt our forums by taking such a drastic action.

If you empty your posts, you will be doing an injustice to all the members who replied to your posts, because their replies will then be nonsensical.  The threads in question won't make sense, or will make less sense.  

We've had a couple of folks do this in the past, and I've always viewed it as a highly selfish form of "forums vandalism."

The legal language of our terms of use is what it is, pretty broad legal language, written by a lawyer, to assure that S+S maintains broad legal protection for it's past and future activities.  It is NOT a reflection of how we actually operate.  You have our long history to look at before deciding whether we are worthy of your trust.

If you want to start stirring up fears in these forums that we're about to morph into something we're not, that we're going to start raping and pillaging the personal lives of people living with HIV, then I suggest you find some other forums to post to.

I'm really pissed about this Jay.  This is way over the top, and those of us that run these forums don't deserve your implications.  What's so incredibly bizarre about this is that you asked one of our moderators if you could join our blogging team just a few days ago -- AFTER the CSI forum opened.

Somebody please calm me down.  It's been a very long week.  I'm sorry if I've overreacted here.  Maybe I need to step away from the forums for the weekend.  Ugghh.

Peter

[koi1]

Peter,

As someone who has brought up concerns to you before, and with your strong voice of reason calmed me down, I can say that you are not overreacting. I wish people would see the greater picture. It seems to me an extreme form of narcissim to think that there are nefarious sources somehow plotting to destroy the lives of people here. That said common sense should still be the ultimate rule of posting. If an individual chooses to post his or her picture, along with detailed sexually entertaining yet possibly illegal activities, it is at that person's own risk. No need to consult a lawyer. By the way, I have one between my legs right now. He quoted case law that states that no reasonable person has an expectation of privacy in a public forum, period.

Also again, let's return to the narcissism. Though we enjoy the stories of piquant members, I don't think any of us are out to expose anybody for their libertine adventures. More power to those individuals provided they are not harming anyone else in the process. I would be hard  pressed to find members of the Bush administration trolling this website to prosecute meth/coke/ and gerbil abusers. Although PETA might have something to say. 

rob

rob

[Miss Philicia]

What's so incredibly bizarre about this is that you asked one of our moderators if you could join our blogging team just a few days ago -- AFTER the CSI forum opened.

"bizarre" is probably a rather generous word for you to use for this situation!

[dtwpuck]

Peter... which begs the question... most of the busy forums I've been a part of (usually sports or political) have a time limit after which the writer can edit a posting, usually a few hours or so... mostly just to be able to fix typos and stuff.  It is usually a standard feature in the software and is implemented just for the purposes mentioned here.     It is somewhat unusual that this forum has no limit like that.

[koi1]

Case in point, you have a right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you (but only if you become a born again prude.) LOL

rob

[DanielMark]

It seems to me an extreme form of narcissim to think that there are nefarious sources somehow plotting to destroy the lives of people here. That said common sense should still be the ultimate rule of posting.

Spot-on, Rob!

The thing is, what used to be known as “common” sense seems not to be so common anymore, online or off alas.

Daniel

[Miss Philicia]

Peter... which begs the question... most of the busy forums I've been a part of (usually sports or political) have a time limit after which the writer can edit a posting, usually a few hours or so... mostly just to be able to fix typos and stuff.  It is usually a standard feature in the software and is implemented just for the purposes mentioned here.     It is somewhat unusual that this forum has no limit like that.

Glad you mentioned that as I was going to suggest it myself.  I think going back and deleting and majorly editing a post days and months later is the height of on line depravity and cowardice, but then I'm kind of pet peeve-ish about such things as I've been posting on forums for a decade.

Someone who was banned here recently (*cough*) did this very same thing to cover up why they were banned I guess, but it really frustrates my research department.

[Razorbill]

If you've had a rough week, Peter, it's your own fault.  You sowed the wind, now reap the whirlwind.

[Lisa]

Hi Jay,
I understand your concern. If I remember right, I believe that Peter made it clear, that the CSI writers, producers, et al were to utilize the CSI forum only, and the remainder of the forums were to remain just as they have since the inception of the site.
I truly believe in my heart of hearts that Peter's intention was to utilize this opportunity as a mass teaching tool, for both the production team, and the audience at large.
I have been watching very closely over the last four or so days, and have noticed a definate increase in Peter, and Tim's participation of the forums, along with Ann, and Andy. They have been moderating, and keeping close watch over the flock to make sure our other regular forums are not disturbed, or invaded by curiosity seekers.
So far, I think things have gone well. Two mornings ago I spotted a new person who started a thread in Living, They had titled their thread something like "I'm not HIV+ but...." I reported it, and it was moved to the approrpriate forum within the minute.
If we really want to educate the public, we need to be unified in our message, and know that our individual lives will not be put under a microscope. There just simply are too many of us, for anyone to pick out a certain person. If anybody needed to be frightened, I guess it should be me, but I'm not.
Even Tim wasn't exactly enthusiastic about the portrayed mode of contact, but we also know that the public at large probably accepted this without judgement. If it were portrayed in a usual manner, the audience wouldn't have been able to make it to second base, because of their collective judgement being clouded. The simple truth is, that you almost have to give them pablum in order to work your way up to real truths.
Ahhhhhh, I'm babbling.
I do understand your thought process, but would ask you to think carefully before deleting all of your posts. The people who will find this site, will likely only read what is on the current pages anyway.
I like to look upon this as an opportunity to educate the public on the realities of our lives with HIV/AIDS. Once they make it past the pablum, they can read about the real facts.(meat&potoates)

[kcmetroman]

The legal language of our terms of use is what it is, pretty broad legal language, written by a lawyer, to assure that S+S maintains broad legal protection for it's past and future activities.  It is NOT a reflection of how we actually operate.  You have our long history to look at before deciding whether we are worthy of your trust.

And what the hell is that supposed to mean?  Don't try to pull the proverbial wool over the member's eyes here,  Peter. You are every bit as much of a puppet to S&S as the members here are to you. I have no doubt that when you sold out to the devil for your moments of fame, that the members here were the last thing on your mind. The mere plot is evidence of that.  It represents not even a fraction of the true incidence.   If members here were your priority, you would have a) set the forum up in the manner that Grinch states, as a completely separate forum, or b) none at all.  Once again the stigma is fortified.

 I think the concept was a terrific idea, had the potential vector of transmission been truly in line with the "real world."  That is apples to oranges from the true motive, however.

[Peter Staley]

Peter... which begs the question... most of the busy forums I've been a part of (usually sports or political) have a time limit after which the writer can edit a posting, usually a few hours or so... mostly just to be able to fix typos and stuff.  It is usually a standard feature in the software and is implemented just for the purposes mentioned here.     It is somewhat unusual that this forum has no limit like that.

Thanks for the suggestion!  I just checked our software manual, and we DO have that option.  I've set the time limit for editing one's posts to 48 hours.

Peter

[Razorbill]

There is a limit to modifying.  I can't modify posts more than 10 days old I think.  I tried to remove some personal stuff, but can't.  At least I got to some of the recent stuff.  I have too many posts to modify anyway.  I talk too much I guess.  If I could push a button and wipe out all my posts I would.  In any event, the wise ones siding with Staley have pointed out the narcissism of worrying about ones posts and the futility of thinking we're safe here.  There are no safe harbours.  I'm gonna do a little thinking, and maybe just leave these forums all together.  The Founder and his sycophants can post nice, clean, impersonal, safe stuff.  Time to have a bowl of soup and decide.
Razorbill

[Razorbill]

Peter's post appeared as I was posting mine.  I understand.  That's that.

[lydgate]

Peter, pissed as you are, the post was NOT a "hit below the belt." In my own opinion of course. Go back and read my original post, and other related posts.

First, I did NOT imply that ANYONE had any malign intentions. Moderators, forum members, S+S management etc. This is in fact what you assume I intended or implied.

Second, my beginning this thread has NOTHING to do with the CSI forum issue. Zip.

Third, my blogging idea was of Someone Anonymous -- someone who can write about living with HIV and yet remain, in Ralph Ellison's words, an Invisible Man. Which is kind of an important point for many people. I had several pages ready, but obviously, it would seem, the whole thing is now moot. Your implication that blogging=blatant self-exposure is simply limited and unimaginative.

Fourth, your accusations. Corrupting the forums. Forum vandalism. Stirring up fears. Morphing. Way over the top. This, in response to my expressing a legitimate concern. A concern that is shared by many. I'm not angry, though perhaps I should be. You have my 900+ posts to read to see whether I have been a temperate poster or not. If anything, your response is what is intemperate.

Fifth, the legal language. You say: The legal language of our terms of use is what it is, pretty broad legal language, written by a lawyer, to assure that S+S maintains broad legal protection for it's past and future activities.  It is NOT a reflection of how we actually operate.  You have our long history to look at before deciding whether we are worthy of your trust.

Who's the naive one here, me or you? (Ad hominen: in a recent post you described yourself as a "media whore.") I've been burnt, very badly, by just this sort of "broad legal language" in the past. Since when do good intentions get covered by "broad legal language"? And that language may be standard lawyerese, but does that mean I'm not allowed to feel violated by its breathtaking implications and possibilities? Peter, my next suggestion is you re-read Matt's (newt's) thread on this topic. I started this thread after posting in that one, to highlight the fact that most forum posters aren't even aware that their words and life stories are someone else's property. I merely asked, as did Matt, that that aspect of the forums be reconsidered.

Sixth, if there's ANYTHING below the belt in any of this is your decision -- unilateral once again -- to time-limit the editing options. Great. I now can't take any measures I feel might be necessary to protect myself. You can have fantasies all day long if you like of an ultra-paranoid Jay (or paranoid forum members in general). By imposing, dictatorially, a 48-hour time-limit on post-modification, you've sort of proved how little control I or anyone has on his or her words. Lesson learnt.

Feel free to apologize. Or not.

Jay

Edited to add, well within the time limit, a link to Matt's thread titled The answer to Mr Staley's email to me asking if I'm off is "yes, probably" -- http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=9034.0 Matt's original post, and my response in that thread, is the context for this one.

[DingoBoi]

regarldless of what I post on this forum, I retain copyrights to it

Fun things are copyright laws.

although you do give usage rights to the owners. 

Best think about what you post before posting it.  After all... Zuiker already wants to make a book out of us. 

edit:  cross posted from off-topic:

I support this decision in general because if you say it, you own it and must deal with the consequences.

But the current fact is that some people here feel they did not expect the random influx of csi people to inspect and review their posts and that is a breach of 'confidentiality' in many peoples opinions.

Yes, it is a public website, but with FEW viewers who have a vested interest, either in fears or in support.

Making it a public spectacle seems... wrong.

In this context, preventing the deletion of prior posts is wrong, because THIS is not what we signed up for and if somebody wants to delete all their posts because their MOTHER or somebody else watches CSI should be permitted ini my book.

Peter, remove this restriction and let people do what the want because THIS is not what some signed up for and there may be REAL consequences for them.

This place just doesn't feel 'safe' anymore.

[Grinch]

We've invited the world into our sanctuary.  Guess it's time to clam up and post in a manner that does not include  deep feelings, fears or any other such thing that can hurt me.   For me it was worth the risk before we invited the world.  Now it's just not worth it.

[dtwpuck]

Jay...  I think that you have some valid concerns, but I would point out that this forum has two legal characteristics that you have not addressed:

1.  It is owned and operated not by the members, but by the owner of the domain.  I assume that's a corporation, but it doesn't really matter.  You use it at their discretion.  You will find this to be the case in any Internet forum.   They are not democracies and have the right to make policies which best suits their perceived goals.  They are under no obligation to consult anyone.  They are providing us with a free service.   You are not paying for it.  A poster has as much legal right to their words posted in a forum as they are granted by the terms of service agreement  In short, it is not a democracy. 

2.  If you disagree with a policy of a forum owner, your legal recourse is to start your own Internet board. 

I got to deal with these issues first hand when I was a forum moderator and owner.  It's tough, and some people feel they have some kind of rights on this issue, but "rights of use" here are not granted by anything but the right of the owner to grant that use, to change the policies etc. 

I think it's pretty amazing that these forums are available at all.  While I don't necessarily agree with everything they do, it really isn't that much of an imposition to follow the rules.

[DingoBoi]

that's the core of the issue.. respect for users who DO feel a 'sense', however impractical in this medium, of privacy.

That 'sense' has been abused by this decision.

Now, overall, I do like having CSI here.  Please don't misunderstand.

But I will also feel much more guarded in being honest and what I post knowing that MANY more people are reading this forum.

Such as:  claiming a fraudulent $4000 claim on my health care spending account... It's easy.. they just want to see a receipt... easy to make on your computer.

Such as:  claiming a hardship withdrawal from your 401k plan for 'eviction'.  It's easy.. they just want to see a letter from 'your' leassor.

Now, I'm not saying I have personally done either.   But I also do what I need to survive realistically.

These are two very simple examples of things that could bring hardship upon people who do post their real actions and feelings here.

Not to mention, possible exposure to employment discrimination because your boss, who just happens to be a CSI fan and has too much time on his hands (and what boss doesn't, they don't DO anything) visits this forum.

There are not only privacy issues but also potentially criminal ones that 'thus far' have been 'under the radar'.

Now, with such a direct link... um... yeah... I'm innocent... I didn't do any of the above.

[lydgate]

Jay...  I think that you have some valid concerns, but I would point out that this forum has two legal characteristics that you have not addressed:

1.  It is owned and operated not by the members, but by the owner of the domain.  I assume that's a corporation, but it doesn't really matter.  You use it at their discretion.  You will find this to be the case in any Internet forum.   They are not democracies and have the right to make policies which best suits their perceived goals.  They are under no obligation to consult anyone.  They are providing us with a free service.   You are not paying for it.  A poster has as much legal right to their words posted in a forum as they are granted by the terms of service agreement  In short, it is not a democracy. 

2.  If you disagree with a policy of a forum owner, your legal recourse is to start your own Internet board. 

I got to deal with these issues first hand when I was a forum moderator and owner.  It's tough, and some people feel they have some kind of rights on this issue, but "rights of use" here are not granted by anything but the right of the owner to grant that use, to change the policies etc. 

I think it's pretty amazing that these forums are available at all.  While I don't necessarily agree with everything they do, it really isn't that much of an imposition to follow the rules.

I agree that these forums are amazing. I also agree that Internet forums aren't (and cannot be) ideal democracies. I would add that the moderators are also amazing and have been doing a pretty swell job of keeping this place, yes, amazing.

As for the rest... I respectfully diasagree.

(1) Just cuz Internet forums aren't full or ideal democracies (and cannot be) doesn't mean that they can't be more democratic. I'll spare examples for the moment.

(2) There is nothing innate or automatic about forum "material" being the owner's/corporation's property. It's simply set up that way in many cases, for all sorts of reasons. It's perfectly possible -- yes, I checked with other forum "owners" and a lawyer -- to have a flourishing Internet forum where the posts remain the property of the posters. Or at least have some control over the use of their posts (including the right to modify or delete). Even when forums are provided as a free service. As some of the UK posters have pointed out, it's a question of dignity and respect.

Trust me, nothing about this is a tempest in a teapot. Or bizarre. Which is of course only my own opinion.

Jay

[AustinWesley]

Second, my beginning this thread has NOTHING to do with the CSI forum issue. Zip.

Well Jay then why did you hijack the thread: Formal Complaint About CSI?

I understand your feelings and I wouldn't have been as upset if you hadn't derailed my own topic and I'll admit it was immature of me.   For that I appologize.

Seriously, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from and what your intent is?  


But I won't appologize to the other clique of regulars who have intentionallly repeatedly derailed topics I've either started or contributed to!  You can see some of the antagonistic intentions earlier in this thread!   From now on I will just report those people to the moderators and set these people to ignore because I'm certain they have nothing to contribute other than the occasional witty insult they've spent all day cooking up!

Wesley  

[DingoBoi]

it's hard to think up witty insults all day.  You think this is EASY?

And if other topics were derailed, it's usually because they were downright stupid (in the cliques humble opinion) and deserved to be smote from the forums (or at least locked by a moderator).

Now that some have got their panties in a grannie bunch™ (please do not picture this), ya'll need to just convert to aupountillism.

PS:  Corporations, including this one,  S U C K !

Disclaimer:  No offense was intendend in the prior commentary and was only presented in an alcohol induced state... um... it's only 4:46pm?  No shit?!?  Um.... well.. then I meant it.

[Ihavehope]

Girls

Please stop all this mumbo jumbo fears about people stealing your life stories or some excutive at CBS investigating who you are. What you wrote you already did and if you had a pic of yourself in the avatar and now are freaking out that people will see you then you should have thought about that b4. Thats why I don't post pictures of myself because I am a private person and I am not proclaiming to be spreading my coodies and having coke binges like a few gals in here. If you didn't type anything wrong or illegal in here then why worry. Spilling your guts and fears here isn't gonna contribute to anything bad even if CBS or anyone else reads it.

DRAMA.

[Miss Philicia]

As far as I know it's not illegal to say you had a coke binge.  It is illegal, however, to be in possession of cocaine.  Let's not confuse the issue and inflate things.

Thanks.

[DingoBoi]

all those in possesion of cocaine should prompty mail it to me for proper disposal.

Hey, I'm a giver and have your best interests at heart.

[aupointillimite]

all those in possesion of cocaine should prompty mail it to me for proper disposal.

Hey, I'm a giver and have your best interests at heart.

Bailey, if you need help... I would be proud to help you purge the cocaine from these forums.  By coming over to your house and making sure it's disposed of properly.

Sometimes, I'm such a good person, it makes me wish I could fellate myself...

[DingoBoi]

you can come in my house as much as you like. 

[dtwpuck]

I agree that these forums are amazing. I also agree that Internet forums aren't (and cannot be) ideal democracies. I would add that the moderators are also amazing and have been doing a pretty swell job of keeping this place, yes, amazing.

As for the rest... I respectfully diasagree.

(1) Just cuz Internet forums aren't full or ideal democracies (and cannot be) doesn't mean that they can't be more democratic. I'll spare examples for the moment.

(2) There is nothing innate or automatic about forum "material" being the owner's/corporation's property. It's simply set up that way in many cases, for all sorts of reasons. It's perfectly possible -- yes, I checked with other forum "owners" and a lawyer -- to have a flourishing Internet forum where the posts remain the property of the posters. Or at least have some control over the use of their posts (including the right to modify or delete). Even when forums are provided as a free service. As some of the UK posters have pointed out, it's a question of dignity and respect.

Trust me, nothing about this is a tempest in a teapot. Or bizarre. Which is of course only my own opinion.

Jay

Your points are noted.   In a completely unrelated world, I used to be a submissions editor for a poetry website, and had to spend more time dealing with personal attacks in the 'criticsm' section than actually deciding what should be showcased and why.  It was just amazing to me the amount of invective that gets piled on moderators and website owners for what is, essentially, a free service.  Anyway, there are some curious and untried laws out there as yet regarding copyrighted content in forums such as these, however I would be willing to bet that because of the so-called boundary-less nature of the Internet, that almost none of the laws could ever be enforced anyway.

I think that whether or not a forum could be more democratic, that, I think, might be an interesting discussion, albeit an idealistic one.

[edfu]

Peter,

If it's been a very long and unpleasant week for you, it may be because playing a whore for  the media sometimes upsets the members of your family.   

[lydgate]

Quote from another thread (the one started by POZ's editor):

"If we all assume that all that we type becomes the property of this website and cyberspace in general, maybe this will be a great motivator to use common sense while posting."

And what does that common sense entail? Not telling our life stories, not spilling our guts out? Not say ANYTHING that might be injurious to us in the future, in the one space that one had assumed it was safe to do so? Because of the misguided, naive assumption that we had some rights to our words and our stories?

(Once again: I'm not imputing malign intentions to ANYONE. Nor am I disputing that the Internet is a very public space. I sense that many people are conflating two separate issues: privacy and control.)

Think for a moment: how bland would these forums be -- how meaningless in fact -- if we used "common sense" while posting in the sense suggested above?

Sure, people would post about meds and side effects, and the Off Topic forum would flourish. But what about the rest, if we all become wary and conservative and not bare ourselves in the hope of finding love and compassion and support? That is what is at stake here, and that is why I cannot understand why this would be dismissed as a tempest in a teapot issue.

Jay

[Miss Philicia]

Can you give an example, a hypothetical, of what dire event will come to pass under the current structure?  I'm having trouble grasping this, though I was called "dumb" today earlier so maybe that's it.

I asked yesterday but for some reason my request was ignored.

[Cerrid]

[DingoBoi]

philly, you must be in a different time zone and the effects thereof... many of which can be traced back to Ann posting in the forums here and burning harmful fossil fuels on the Isle of Man. 

Yup, you can blame ann for all this.  It's all her damn fault.

[lydgate]

Can you give an example, a hypothetical, of what dire event will come to pass under the current structure?  I'm having trouble grasping this, though I was called "dumb" today earlier so maybe that's it.

I asked yesterday but for some reason my request was ignored.

You're not dumb. So I'm surprised you can't come up with a single hypothetical. Try coming up with a few; take it as a dare or a challenge if you like.  

I'll quote Matt on this:

It's really about respect, respect for the individual HIV+ voice.

Reading the Zuiker interview on POZ I can see an attractive proposition arising from Mr Z's (rather vain IMHO) statement in answer to the Q "What will you do with the content of the Forums?"

"I think about me publishing those and putting that on the marketplace and having the proceeds go back to a non-profit AIDS organization. Perhaps we can package these stories, sell them and have the proceeds go to Kaiser. It would be so cool, right? Like the day we made history. BOOM. And all of a sudden we’d be selling this book of stories of people living with HIV, with all the profits going to the foundation. That would be so cool. It also might make for a powerful forward written by myself."

So what's to stop our lives and experiences becoming a fundraisier for an AIDS not-for-profit without so much as a say so?

I consider us all suckered unless S + S give (A) an unqualified assurance that we will be asked before any of our stories (ex CSI forum) won't be used without permission outside POZ/AM, cos as things stand I think they think they can take and do what they want with the content.

And (B) do the decent thing and return copyright of posts to the original poster, but I'd settle for (A)

Suckered.

Besides, the "event" doesn't have to be "dire." The fact that said hypothetical event can take place "without so much a say so." Peter Staley's reassurances and good intentions notwithstanding.

Second besides: just the possibility of said hypothetical event (dire or otherwise) is enough to make some people -- and not people who are cowards, as you implied earlier -- very uncomfortable. And make them therefore reticent. Or leave. That's what I'm trying to get at.

No, my knickers are not in a twist.

But there's something wrong about this game of cricket.

Jay

[Miss Philicia]

I really don't see it happening.  Seems like a lot of hand wringing.

So the only hypothetical is that this producer for CSI ran off a bit at the mouth with some lame idea that has probably 1% chance of actually happening and everyone's going ballistic and boycotting the board?

Color me skeptical.   

[Longislander]

this is the first post in 6 hours that helps me understand what went on here while I was on vacation.

PETER- I'd really like to thank you for putting that 48 hour thing into place without warning. As I grew more anxious as the days reading here went on , I went in to see if I still had body shots on that porn thread, so I could remove those pics. Those pics are used in dating websites as well, and some of those sites have my face pic.

I may be more paranoid about being "outed'  by this CSI thing, but mind you, I live in New York. CSI:NY. Since I couldn't find a thread explaining what this CSI thing was about, and how it would pertain to the forums, I went to CBS.COM and right there, on page one, was a link to this forum. I'm not pleased. Of course, I don't own the site, and you guys can do as you please. But damn, I'd wish I'd been told.

As stated above, this was a relatively safe haven for me (as well as many others). As I become more comfortable with the fact that I'm living with HIV now, I changed my avatar to my own eye, not the generic choice. I posted some body shots in the porn thread, and temporarily posted a face pic. Thank God I removed that back then. Today, in the beginning of my catching up, I posted in my PR thread, and put up a pic, including my face, from the trip. Thankfully I was able to remove it as I kept reading. If not, all New York state and city CSI fans would likely have come across it.

All of those who think that someone who sees a pic in here will never be known to you, think again. TWICE, in the past 2 years, has someone approached me in a bar because they recognized my face pic on a dating (not sex only) site, and they even knew what town I lived in.  Shit does happen. I would hate to leave this place. I've made some good friends here, and I enjoy most posters.

Of course the forums, the internet are open for all to see. But it was definitely a lot safer here before it got hawked on national TV as a place for fans of a TV show to come watch our lives.

Don't think there aren't a whole bunch of gay drama queens out there who wouldn't invite themselves in to see if they can see anyone they may know so they can find out who has HIV.

I suppose from here on in my posts will be quite generic. No longer will I say where I've been , where I'm going or what I'm really doing. This is pretty sad.

Peter, Tim, Ann, or Andy, if you please remove my pics in the porn thread, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks,
me

[RapidRod]

Longislander, all you have to do is modify your post and edit out the picture you want to remove. 

[Longislander]

Thanks for the advice Rapid, but they're no longer 'modifiable'-

[Miss Philicia]

If I was worried about my parents, friends or co-workers finding out I was either gay and/or had HIV I'd not be posting pictures, travel plans and detailed biographies on line in the first place.  I don't care what site we're talking about.  I just don't get it.

I'm even OUT of the closet with everything with my family and I still don't put my picture out often on the internet, though I've sent it to people in PM's, simply because I don't like it being out there.  It's like passing out fliers on a street corner I tell ya.  Plus I was sexually stalked seven years ago by someone I met on line so I'm super aware of stuff like that.  Totally feared for my life-- this guy was certifiably insane.

And trust me, I know what it's like to have to compartmentalize the HIV issue -- I did it for almost a decade.  I can't imagine having gone on the internet back then and posting images of myself.

I'm sure anything horribly dire in that regards can be taken care of by a moderator.

[Longislander]

Philly, if you had carefully read my post, you would have noticed where I stated that I was slowly getting more comfortable with my status, and being the place this WAS, I was getting braver, hence the pics. Maybe you can get it now?  If someone recognises me on a gay dating site, all well and good, because they'd also be gay. If not, and they approached me, I get to inquire as to why the hell they were looking there in the 1st place. Same scenario for this HIV site. But now, you're average CSI NY fan can see me. I didn't sign up for that.

You did post a link to your vacation pics, and I do believe you're standing in one of them.

And I hope you're right. I will PM the moderators, and ask them to remove those pics.

[Tucsonwoody]

Hey RR - just a quick FYI

Today Peter decided it was best to only allow posts from the last 48 hours to be modified/removed.

[Miss Philicia]

Live and learn, I guess.  Hopefully they'll delete what you want.

[lydgate]

One more clarification: privacy issue and rights/respect/control issue. The two are related, but I started this thread about the second, not the first.

[sweetasmeli]

I've set the time limit for editing one's posts to 48 hours.

Peter
Umm this suddenly implemented time limit thing for editing posts was a bit surprising and isn't sitting too comfy with me.

Isn't it taking all control of what we say and how we feel about what we say out of our hands? Many people's moods change from day to day - whether it be from hormones, drugs, meds, drink, circumstances or just being plain old moody. People also often have a change of heart, sometimes from regret, afterthought, fear or whatever. Doesn't this time limit rule take away our right to have second thoughts about what we post and our right to change what we post? Am just thinking, not all members have the opportunity to come on every day or every 2 days or so to check the forums or to readdress what they may have written.

Incidently, shouldn't this new rule have been made public to members in a new thread? I only became aware of it through this thread in Off Topic:  http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=9167.0 and then by chance when I read your post quoted above.

With respect
Melia

[RapidRod]

Melia, you are given 48 hours to modify your post. I don't see anything wrong with what Peter enacted. The likelihood that you are going to change something in your post after 2 days is remote. If you are embarrassed about something you posted, it will be to late anyway, everyone has already read it. 

[skeebo1969]

  I'm just glad I saw this coming and pulled all my kids pics and other personal pics down yesterday!!!   Whew (wipes brow)... That be a close one Uncle Tom!!   

  I'm going to go check out AC in KC's wedding pics now....  I like weddings they make me all warm and fuzzy inside...

[RapidRod]

Thomas, get that wedding stuff out of your head. 

[skeebo1969]

  Rodney... are you coming to mine?   I can promise warm weather...lol!!

[RapidRod]

ROFL, yes spring is coming.

[ACinKC]

  I'm just glad I saw this coming and pulled all my kids pics and other personal pics down yesterday!!!   Whew (wipes brow)... That be a close one Uncle Tom!!   

  I'm going to go check out AC in KC's wedding pics now....  I like weddings they make me all warm and fuzzy inside...

I pulled that link weeks ago.  And added the caveat that I would happily send it to those who wanted it.  I still would have no problem if it had remained up for the world to see.  I am out to VERY few people.  But I realize what I get into with the internet.

[AustinWesley]

I just read this and have to wonder what parent would put their child's pictures on this site?   Was that for real?   

That seems not responsible to me!   I hope it was a joke.

[Longislander]

Wesley, yes it was for real, and so was the pic of Jan's (anniebc) granddaughter. Some people have found the people at this site to be like extended family.

[AustinWesley]

Hey LongIslander,

Thank you for clarifying that for me.   As a victim of child sexual abuse I am of the opinion to protect children at all costs especially in light of some of these shows recently.  No telling what freaks are after your children.

I understand the online family as well, but my suggestion would be to share those photo's via PM or email and not risk exploiting them anywhere online that someone could figure out private information.

My own neice became the naive victim of an online stalker who found their family address.   The whole thing escalated out of control and he ended up making threats against my neice and sister.   He even went so far as to apparently dedicate a website to her and stole her pictures off her profile and it was a serious nightmare and scared the crap out of them for several months.   Just as a warning people can often get your name and address from a yahoo email which is how he got theirs I'm assuming.

Just how I feel about the subject.

Wesley

[Longislander]

Yup, this is gonna become a great place to hang out.

[swede_dish]

OK here is my two pesos.

Don't be dumb. If you're worried about someone finding you out, then don't use your personal information...don't use your pictures. It's not hard. Just takes a little brainpower.
I could really give a flying f' about who knows I come on here. I understand that some people have to be more descrete...but that's your beef not mine.  I have no problem with the time limit. It's a bit of tough love. Now if you go to post your address or something equally as revealing, you might think twice. It may just help you on other sites too.  Think twice YA'LL.

Anyway.

My address is......
6969 Hot Bod Ave.
Sweetiepie, MI 49101

My phone number is 1-800-JEN-BABES

[NycJoe]

Exactly..to be on the safe side no matter WHAT site you are on, send most PERSONAL things via email or pm.  But thats how  I was taught to use the internet no matter what site is used years ago.  It's not rocket science.  You can still get plenty of support on here and information without revealing personal information and or pictures via the forum.  That can be done in a pm.  Again..it is a choice.

[Miss Philicia]

deleted

[Miss Philicia]

Yup, this is gonna become a great place to hang out.

What's THAT mean?

[Boo Radley]

In December, 2005, I was wrestling with post-Katrina stress disorder and severe depression.  For inexplicable reasons I edited the contents of about 50 - 75 recent posts, leaving them virtually blank.  After the cloud ascended somewhat I felt like an idiot and thought the best action would be to ask the mods to delete my user (which would delete all of my posts).  My foolish impulse left gaps in threads which made them incomprehensible to a new reader.  To delete all of a prolific poster's messages will have the same effect on this forum, especially if several people make the request.

I understand the feelings of those concerned about maintaining relative anonymity on AM.  On that point I hope the mods will work with anyone who has posted pics or links to personal info or written identifying information in posts.

For the rest of us I don't understand what all the fuss is about.  Unless you are worried someone who doesn't know your poz status will identify you due to the temporary influx of "interlopers" why are you concerned?    Most of them will disappear soon.  ANYONE can find you by googling the right term and that has been the case since creation of the forum. 

As far as the TOU vs. the TOM I know I didn't see anything but the TOM when I joined but took the TOU for granted.   I've never joined a web community that didn't have the right to use my posts/pics/artwork/etc. for any purpose.  Somewhere in all the legalese there is a paragraph or two about the site's rights to use content.  I pity the site which looks to me for publishable material, unless it's a deviant psychology text or the like.   

If anything I've posted is reproduced and someone else profits (right...) I just have to live with it.  For all I know some of my brilliant gems are in print and someone is making a handsome profit as I type.  I seriously doubt it, though.

Also, I don't think anyone gives up the right to use her/his posts in another format (e.g., magazine article, book, etc.) but I may be wrong.    S+S doesn't have exclusive rights to my added content, does they?

Boo

[Longislander]

Contrary to the 5-10 posters who continually post throughout the day, many others have realized, (thanks to all the rocket scientists), that they can't post about what they're doing , where they're going or where they've been.

Yes, we NOW all have to think twice about what we say. Will make for interesting conversations.

No one is talking about giving out their address or phone #.  In the course of many posts, over a period of time, it can be figured out whereabout someone lives and , if seen by someone who already knows the person, they can be figured out.

I really don't understand why some of you can't see that. But then again, I guess I can see why.


EDITED, (BOO posted`)

 

Unless you are worried someone who doesn't know your poz status will identify you due to the temporary influx of "interlopers" why are you concerned? 

That's EXACTLY my concern. I have decided my family doesn't need to know at this point. I've also decided every gay Tom, Dick , and Harry in my area doesn't need to know my status.

I'm not pissed because the forums will have more new people. But these new people are not HIV + people, they're just nosey neighbors.

[AustinWesley]

Hey LongIslander,

I'd politely disagree on the nosey negative neighbor comment.  This isn't the only HIV site and if people really wanted to they'd probably go look up on Positive personals sites.   I don't know about your family, but I can't imagine mine being on here.

There are already negative people on here whether they have a loved one with HIV or are an activist.     

Some are just people who've had what they consider a scare or what not.   They've been here all along.

Wesley

[Longislander]

Wesley, yes they have been. I saw #s similar to this, but definitely not quoting accurately; used to be 1500 views, Wednesday nite 4500.

If your family were into computer chatting and blogging about their fave TV show, and CSI:NY happened to be one of them, they just might be here, now.

[Boo Radley]

Yes, we NOW all have to think twice about what we say. Will make for interesting conversations.

Longislander, I think your situation is unique if one assumes CSI:NY is popular with NYC natives so more people from your geographic location may be here, but I'm not sure the assumption is correct.   I think I've seen a couple of posts from people in NY but the posts were in CSI:NY only.

No one is talking about giving out their address or phone #.  In the course of many posts, over a period of time, it can be figured out whereabout someone lives and , if seen by someone who already knows the person, they can be figured out.

I really don't understand why some of you can't see that. But then again, I guess I can see why.

I realize someone could "put the pieces together" and recognize, or think they recognize, a forum member, but how many such revealing posts have you made?  With millions of people in NYC I think the chances someone could clearly identify you would be small, but I don't really know.  Like I said, I hope the mods will work with anyone who has such concerns and remove pics or other personal info you posted.

I understand your situation and realize the forum seems less comfortable than it was before.  Don't you think most of the CSI:NY members will leave after the story finishes?  At this time the forum may seem less safe but I truly believe we'll return to "normal" in a short time.   

I'd hate to lose you as a member because of this issue.

Boo

P.S. (edited because I saw LI's edited response to my previous post)  I see clearly why you are concerned, LI, and hope you have nothing to truly worry about, but in your shoes I'd feel the same.  Again, I hope the mods will help you edit posts which you are worried about.  I believe most of the CSI:NY members will quickly fade away and hope once they leave you feel safe again.   Also, just a thought -- how many people will want to wade through 13 pages of posts in the porn thread?  Unless your revealing posts are on or near the first page I'd think you'd be pretty safe but that's conjecture...

[Longislander]

Boo, you're not going to lose me as a member. I love this place. I just have to be very careful from here on in. I did post a thread about my vacation last week, and everyone I work with and know , know where I went. But that thread is or already has dropped to page 2.

Secondly, you're posts of late have literally had me jumping out of my deskchair, rolling on the floor with laughter!!

BTW, I'm kinda popular here in my area!!

BTW, Peter has very graciously , but with sadness, removed my body shots from the porn thread. I'm saddened you guys can't see me either, as I love that thread!

[Boo Radley]

Boo, you're not going to lose me as a member.

Excellent!!  You're too valuable!

BTW, Peter has very graciously , but with sadness, removed my body shots from the porn thread. I'm saddened you guys can't see me either, as I love that thread!

Dammit!! Will you send them to my email address?  noremacr@cox.net  I missed them completely!!

Boo

P.S.

BTW, I'm kinda popular here in my area!! Wink Wink

I bet you're pretty popular wherever you are!

[Longislander]

You are sweet  Boo, they're on their way~

[lydgate]

(1) The drastic action I suggested in my original post had little to do with privacy (I know about the Internet etc etc) and much more about certain rights. Certain rights and protections I feel strongly about, as is my prerogative; others don't, and that certainly is theirs.

(2) If we come to the question of trust... I do not trust media houses to hold my best interests at heart. (A recent, very close, case in point being CBS and le egregious Zuiker. I'm not some ultra-leftist anti-corporation fanatic. But, intentions aside, the "bottom line" is perhaps always going to be, What's the entertainment value, How many viewers/readers/listeners, How does this generate revenue growth?) And and I do not trust extremely sweeping language that doesn't have some protective clauses. Even if I trust Peter et al, and Peter et al trust S+S or CDM execs or whoever else, trust is not necessarily "transmitted" or "filtered down" that way.

I talked of future possibilities. And that doesn't have to mean next year but even a decade or more from now. The moderating team might have changed, for all sorts of reasons; the very ownership of the corporation(s) controlling/owning all this "material" might have changed. What then? Perhaps nothing. Equally possibly -- something. In whatever media, remember. Without so much as a by your leave. Some people don't care about that. Fine. Others do. (Picture me as a comic Cassandra in drag.  )

(3) For the many reasons that many have pointed out, in this thread and others, the 48-hour time limit is, IMHO, just plain wrong. I am amazed that Ann thought six hours should be the limit. I suppose advance notice couldn't be given -- because then people would have been scrambling to delete lots of stuff.

Leaving many of threads genuinely incomprehensible. And genuinely do I understand that fear.

What I have to suggest then, to quote Boo: "I understand the feelings of those concerned about maintaining relative anonymity on AM.  On that point I hope the mods will work with anyone who has posted pics or links to personal info or written identifying information in posts."

Highly selective deletion then (which would leave virtually all threads comprehensible). On an individual case-by-case basis. Headachey, but the decent thing to do. Because I simply do not buy the contention, "You've made your verbal bed, now lie in it!" That, to me, is callous.

(4) On the question of forum vandalism or betrayal. Let me quote a famous phrase of E.M. Forster's:  "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." When individual rights are sacrificed -- as I believe in these cases they have been -- for group interests, I am immediately suspect. I do not think any long-term good comes out of it. That's where I'm coming from. (I know I'll probably be dismissed for being too high-falutin or making grandiose comparisons.)

I hope I don't write many more posts about all of this. I said recently that I'm happy to sound like a broken record about this; but today I'm a-weary and have lots of other things to attend to (see, we're changeable that way). It just seems, right now anyway, that all that has to be said on this, by me anyway, has been said -- said too many times even.

Jay

[allopathicholistic]

Jay I'll put your quotes in colors.

What me and some others want -- a revision of some sections of the TOS -- seems precisely what's not going to happen. A revision that would give back to the HIV-positive individual posting here the ethically correct right to his or her own words and life stories. Either in the form of (1) giving copyright back outright, or (2) some form of legally binding statement/reassurance that no "material" will be used, ever, without the individual's express permission.

And and I do not trust extremely sweeping language that doesn't have some protective clauses

For the many reasons that many have pointed out, in this thread and others, the 48-hour time limit is, IMHO, just plain wrong.

Highly selective deletion then (which would leave virtually all threads comprehensible). On an individual case-by-case basis. Headachey, but the decent thing to do. Because I simply do not buy the contention, "You've made your verbal bed, now lie in it!" That, to me, is callous.

From the above it sounds like you desire:

(1) Modifications to the TOU, TOS, TOM or TOTO whatever (I'm getting dementia from all this)
 (1a) Protective clauses, warnings, disclaimers, yadda yadda
(2) Editing ability regardless of age of post OR
 (2a) the right to request an edit/deletion via Moderator

Are these the four things you desire?    If you've got more, I suggest you put together a Power Point presentation. Use flowcharts, colors, animation if necessary. That's what's done in corporate America (and I'm being totally serious)

[lydgate]

Jay I'll put your quotes in colors.

What me and some others want -- a revision of some sections of the TOS -- seems precisely what's not going to happen. A revision that would give back to the HIV-positive individual posting here the ethically correct right to his or her own words and life stories. Either in the form of (1) giving copyright back outright, or (2) some form of legally binding statement/reassurance that no "material" will be used, ever, without the individual's express permission.

And and I do not trust extremely sweeping language that doesn't have some protective clauses

For the many reasons that many have pointed out, in this thread and others, the 48-hour time limit is, IMHO, just plain wrong.

Highly selective deletion then (which would leave virtually all threads comprehensible). On an individual case-by-case basis. Headachey, but the decent thing to do. Because I simply do not buy the contention, "You've made your verbal bed, now lie in it!" That, to me, is callous.

From the above it sounds like you desire:

(1) Modifications to the TOU, TOS, TOM or TOTO whatever (I'm getting dementia from all this)
 (1a) Protective clauses, warnings, disclaimers, yadda yadda
(2) Editing ability regardless of age of post OR
 (2a) the right to request an edit/deletion via Moderator

Are these the four things you desire?    If you've got more, I suggest you put together a Power Point presentation. Use flowcharts, colors, animation if necessary. That's what's done in corporate America (and I'm being totally serious)

Alex this reeks of snide dismissiveness, and maybe I'm being over-sensitive but deliberate hurtfulness.  The quotes are taken from two different threads and divorced from the sometimes subtle context in which they were written. I'm also not crazy about the implication you make (here and in another thread) that I'm an unreasonable "I want this, I want that, Everything has to suit me" type. Which is your portrayal. If these requests, yadda yadda, seem unreasonable to you please at least provide a civil response explaining why, rather than this.

A puzzled and somewhat concerned Jay

[allopathicholistic]

JAY. WTF?  I'm trying to be pragmatic!! 

I worked in corporate America for a full decade and when things got hairy Microsoft Power Point saved the day in most cases

If you want to add subtleties to a Microsoft PP presentation, it will allow you to do so!

Edited to add: You wouldn't believe how fast and effectively Microsoft PP can clear the air. Okay, fine, you hate the suggestion. Sheesh

And I know your quotes came from 2 different threads. I'm asking you to have mercy on us and propose all the desires into one consolidated treatise because you're all over the place. N.B.: I said "the" desires, not "your" desires cuz I know it's *not* all about you (see reply #85)

[allopathicholistic]

I know it's not "all about you"

The first sentence in your first quote which I colored in teal (a lovely color BTW) proves that

[Boo Radley]

Also, I don't think anyone gives up the right to use her/his posts in another format (e.g., magazine article, book, etc.) but I may be wrong.    S+S doesn't have exclusive rights to my added content, does they?

No one has answered this question although it may be irrelevant to Jay anyway.  If you collected your posts to AM and published them in serial or bibliographic form would S + S have the right to sue you for copyright infringement?  Again, maybe that's not even an issue but I don't know that you give up your right to use your material by giving S + S the right to use it...

Jay, I guess I don't understand your objection to potential future use of AM posts in another format/medium.   First, I think it highly unlikely anyone will ever do such a thing, but even if it occurred wouldn't the publication be comparable to an anthology or, more accurately, collected oral history?   If such a collation was useful to the general public or newly diagnosed people or whomever wouldn't you be satisfied with your contribution?  You're not worried about someone making a mint from AIDSmeds posts, are you?  If so, do you really think it's likely to occur?

I don't know if there is a backup somewhere but just last week Peter deleted the entire archive of the old forums, didn't he?  I imagine that's what will eventually happen to our posts.  The old forums might have been a valuable resource for anyone doing research on the history of HIV in the USA but they were gone in an instant, and our posts are as ephemeral.   They will be around for a few years and with a software change will be too cumbersome to carry over to the next best thing and, voila, disappear.  That may not reassure you now but I sincerely believe it will happen.

Boo

P.S.  I'm going to watch Spike Lee's When the Levees Broke and have a good cry...

[Jeff64]

Paranoia is treatable....seek help!

[allopathicholistic]

Anyway.

My address is......
6969 Hot Bod Ave.
Sweetiepie, MI 49101

LOL - Look, her reply was #69 too 

[Jeff64]

LOL - Look, her reply was #69 too 

Bwahahahahahaha

That was a great call...


Jeff...who knows there is no privacy on this planet.

[lydgate]

Boo, as for the potential use -- I'd be happy if my posts or anyone's posts were used to benefit the cause of HIV/AIDS. If I haven't made that clear, I should do so now. If I had copyright, I would grant use (if I deemed fit). If I don't have copyright but still some rights in terms of my permission being asked, I would grant that permission (if I deemed fit).

But circumstances can change (my health; what I don't consider "sensitive" today but might later; ownership; a whole laundry list of things).

What disturbs me is that I don't have to be asked about this, anthology, oral history, musical, or whatnot.

That's paranoia? Which is, ah, treatable. I would never have known that.

Over-cautious maybe. And past experiences, to remain unspecified, have made me that in certain areas.

At any rate no one has yet answered your question or many of mine. (And your very interesting SECOND question about what if I published my posts here in a pamphlet or whatever, which I might, with reasonable intentions, want to do -- am I liable for infringing S+S's copyright? It would seem so, unless I got "clearance" from them.) Wait and see I guess. World is still turning. I suppose the feverish activity in the two forums I recently started will die down soon enough. But some answers, responses, eventually anyway, would be nice.

Apologies to Alex for miscontruing your color-coded reply.

And now I must eat ice cream and watch TV.

Jay

 

[AustinWesley]

Jay, I have nothing personal against you however I fail to see how any of this will benefit anyone.   

[skeebo1969]

I just read this and have to wonder what parent would put their child's pictures on this site?   Was that for real?   

That seems not responsible to me!   I hope it was a joke.

   Ohhhh Whatnotly you're half the man I'll ever be in this regard.... especially at my worst!!

Hey LongIslander,

Thank you for clarifying that for me.   As a victim of child sexual abuse I am of the opinion to protect children at all costs especially in light of some of these shows recently.  No telling what freaks are after your children.

Whatnotly,

      I've read a study that some children think they deserve the abuse they get.  While I thought it sick, I think it had you in mind.. 

      Place your bets folks... this one will be a KO !!!!

[AustinWesley]

You feel free to share your feeling that child sexual abuse is a comical issue!   I'm sure that will help with your collection of dysfunctional friends.

As a child victim I don't find this remotely amusing!

Wesley

[koi1]

Yeah,

Let's keep this forum friendly guys. I know we can can all get hot headed...Let's keep making fun of child abuse out of it.

rob

[md]

First, a couple of things:

(1) Please don't assume this is a drama queen response.

(2) I'm not an idiot and spare me the lectures on the Internet being a public space.

I didn't assume either of those things.

I read through this entire thread trying to figure out what all the fuss was really about.

At the end the simplest explanation appears to be that either (1) or (2) or, possibly both of them, is true.

[skeebo1969]

You feel free to share your feeling that child sexual abuse is a comical issue!   I'm sure that will help with your collection of dysfunctional friends.

As a child victim I don't find this remotely amusing!

Wesley

Yeah,

Let's keep this forum friendly guys. I know we can can all get hot headed...Let's keep making fun of child abuse out of it.

rob

[AustinWesley]

   Ohhhh Whatnotly you're half the man I'll ever be in this regard.... especially at my worst!!

Whatnotly,

      I've read a study that some children think they deserve the abuse they get.  While I thought it sick, I think it had you in mind.. 

      Place your bets folks... this one will be a KO !!!!

To be honest in my personal case I did feel responsible in some way or that is was my fault that I'd been sexually abused.   That is why I never reported it as a child.   I was also a rape victim and I'm sure you will find that absolutely hysterical in your deluded mind.   

You have followed me around and it's evident from all of your posts.   Anyone can take a look and see all of your idiotic trash by looking at your posts.  You contribute nothing to this site and guess what.   I'm not a little kid anymore and I'm not afraid to tell.   So, yes, I did report you for this!

I don't know what your problem is, but you have gone too far!

[skeebo1969]

  Yes Whatnotly your jackass opinions don't sit well with this man who lost his father to a war that did not make sense....  You can cry victim all you want, but your assholish ways have rubbed many here wrong... trust me on that because I have the PM's to prove it.    I will tell you this much you little sniveling piece of crap.. I will take 30 days for you...  Talking about a man's nephew who died?  You are the lowest of low and to think you  talk about going to far?!?!

[AustinWesley]

[Andy Velez]

OK, guys. Enough.

Skeebo & Wesley, enough with the back and forths. You've gone way off topic here and are now just locked in an exchange that has led to nowhere good. And from experience I will say is only likely to get worse.

Stop it now and consider yourselves warned.

[Andy Velez]

OK. Or rather NOT OK.

This thread has gone way off of its original theme about which there's been an airing of opinions.

Now it's just a back and forth between Skeebo and Wesley putting each other down.

In the flack the very serious subject of child abuse has been used to attack each other. Cut it out, guys! It stops here and consider yourselves warned.

After giving it further thought I'm locking this thread.

 

[Ann]

I'm adding a warning to Skeebo to this thread. Skeebo, we have many members in these forums who have been the victims of sexual abuse either as children or adults or both. It is NO laughing matter and if I EVER again see you making the type of comments about sexual abuse as you have in this thread, you WILL be given that 30 day time out you seem to want. You will not have prior warning, even if it happens a year from now.

Ann