Huzefa Kapasi to Panini Press: "You Bastard...you are admin for namesake , not for taking selfish and unilateral actions"

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:28 pm

In an earlier post Huzefa Kapasi writes to Panini Press:

you bastard, you disallowed us from posting your employer's name or your name by program without informing us or stating a policy. you are admin for namesake not for taking unilateral and selfish actions.

https://such.forumotion.com/t9079p100-any-admin-requests#183602

---
The crux of Huzefa's criticism is that if someone tries to type Charvaka's real name or employer name in a forum post one will not be able to do so. In that sense Charvaka has given special protection to himself so far as his own privacy is concerned.

In the case of Flimflam ( michelle2), considering that Charvaka obviously knows his real name is being used and considering that his real name has been used on several occasions in the past, shouldn't michelle2 have been given similar protection by Charvaka? Or should Charvaka alone continue to benefit by the programmatic protection he has given to himself ( and that too secretly)?

by smArtha Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:41 pm

Are you suggesting that all posters here disclose their real name and identity to the Admin to ensure that his programs/policies protect such 'disclosed' privacy?

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:43 pm

smArtha wrote:Are you suggesting that all posters here disclose their real name and identity to the Admin to ensure that his programs/policies protect such 'disclosed' privacy?

No. Only those who choose to do so.

by smArtha Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:Are you suggesting that all posters here disclose their real name and identity to the Admin to ensure that his programs/policies protect such 'disclosed' privacy?

No. Only those who choose to do so.

So do you have information that michelle/flimflam had 'volunteered' for such an 'enhanced' protection and denied? If not, why are you volunteering him/her?

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:00 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:Are you suggesting that all posters here disclose their real name and identity to the Admin to ensure that his programs/policies protect such 'disclosed' privacy?

No. Only those who choose to do so.

So do you have information that michelle/flimflam had 'volunteered' for such an 'enhanced' protection and denied? If not, why are you volunteering him/her?

Michelle2 has publicly made the same complaint that Huzefa is making now. On more than one occasion.

by confuzzled dude Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:In an earlier post Huzefa Kapasi writes to Panini Press:

you bastard, you disallowed us from posting your employer's name or your name by program without informing us or stating a policy. you are admin for namesake not for taking unilateral and selfish actions.

https://such.forumotion.com/t9079p100-any-admin-requests#183602

---
The crux of Huzefa's criticism is that if someone tries to type Charvaka's real name or employer name in a forum post one will not be able to do so. In that sense Charvaka has given special protection to himself so far as his own privacy is concerned.

In the case of Flimflam ( michelle2), considering that Charvaka obviously knows his real name is being used and considering that his real name has been used on several occasions in the past, shouldn't michelle2 have been given similar protection by Charvaka? Or should Charvaka alone continue to benefit by the programmatic protection he has given to himself ( and that too secretly)?

I didn't quite get your point, are you agreeing with the violator or with Flimflam? You can't be agreeing with both.

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:00 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In an earlier post Huzefa Kapasi writes to Panini Press:

you bastard, you disallowed us from posting your employer's name or your name by program without informing us or stating a policy. you are admin for namesake not for taking unilateral and selfish actions.

https://such.forumotion.com/t9079p100-any-admin-requests#183602

---
The crux of Huzefa's criticism is that if someone tries to type Charvaka's real name or employer name in a forum post one will not be able to do so. In that sense Charvaka has given special protection to himself so far as his own privacy is concerned.

In the case of Flimflam ( michelle2), considering that Charvaka obviously knows his real name is being used and considering that his real name has been used on several occasions in the past, shouldn't michelle2 have been given similar protection by Charvaka? Or should Charvaka alone continue to benefit by the programmatic protection he has given to himself ( and that too secretly)?
I didn't quite get your point, are you agreeing with the violator or with Flimflam? You can't be agreeing with both.

I am agreeing with both since both are making the case for a uniformity in the rules of the forum. There cannot be separate or special rules for Charvaka since this is a forum of former Sulekha posters and when this forum was established Charvaka had assured everyone that he will be an ordinary poster like every other poster on this forum and there will be no special privileges for him.

by confuzzled dude Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In an earlier post Huzefa Kapasi writes to Panini Press:

you bastard, you disallowed us from posting your employer's name or your name by program without informing us or stating a policy. you are admin for namesake not for taking unilateral and selfish actions.

https://such.forumotion.com/t9079p100-any-admin-requests#183602

---
The crux of Huzefa's criticism is that if someone tries to type Charvaka's real name or employer name in a forum post one will not be able to do so. In that sense Charvaka has given special protection to himself so far as his own privacy is concerned.

In the case of Flimflam ( michelle2), considering that Charvaka obviously knows his real name is being used and considering that his real name has been used on several occasions in the past, shouldn't michelle2 have been given similar protection by Charvaka? Or should Charvaka alone continue to benefit by the programmatic protection he has given to himself ( and that too secretly)?
I didn't quite get your point, are you agreeing with the violator or with Flimflam? You can't be agreeing with both.

I am agreeing with both since both are making the case for a uniformity in the rules of the forum. There cannot be separate or special rules for Charvaka since this is a forum of former Sulekha posters and when this forum was established Charvaka had assured everyone that he will be an ordinary poster like every other poster on this forum and there will be no special privileges for him.

AFAIK, Flimflam didn't ask the admin to put special rules in place to remove posts that reference his real name. Your agreeing with HK tells me that you're OKAY with him violating forums privacy policy because that's precisely what HK or Chutiya appears to have done, based on what I read. In this case either you're with FF or against him, your reasoning for agreeing with both of them sounds highly illogical to me.

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:55 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In an earlier post Huzefa Kapasi writes to Panini Press:

you bastard, you disallowed us from posting your employer's name or your name by program without informing us or stating a policy. you are admin for namesake not for taking unilateral and selfish actions.

https://such.forumotion.com/t9079p100-any-admin-requests#183602

---
The crux of Huzefa's criticism is that if someone tries to type Charvaka's real name or employer name in a forum post one will not be able to do so. In that sense Charvaka has given special protection to himself so far as his own privacy is concerned.

In the case of Flimflam ( michelle2), considering that Charvaka obviously knows his real name is being used and considering that his real name has been used on several occasions in the past, shouldn't michelle2 have been given similar protection by Charvaka? Or should Charvaka alone continue to benefit by the programmatic protection he has given to himself ( and that too secretly)?
I didn't quite get your point, are you agreeing with the violator or with Flimflam? You can't be agreeing with both.

I am agreeing with both since both are making the case for a uniformity in the rules of the forum. There cannot be separate or special rules for Charvaka since this is a forum of former Sulekha posters and when this forum was established Charvaka had assured everyone that he will be an ordinary poster like every other poster on this forum and there will be no special privileges for him.
AFAIK, Flimflam didn't ask the admin to put special rules in place to remove posts that reference his real name. Your agreeing with HK tells me that you're OKAY with him violating forums privacy policy because that's precisely what HK or Chutiya appears to have done, based on what I read. In this case either you're with FF or against him, your reasoning for agreeing with both of them sounds highly illogical to me.

Flimflam has complained about the special privilege Charvaka has extended to himself (by not allowing anyone to mention Charvaka's name or his place of work in a forum post ) on several occasions. Huzefa Kapasi is also making the same complaint. So, with respect to their opposition to Charvaka extending special treatment to himself, both Flimflam and Huzefa are in agreement.

by southindian Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:03 pm

Teacher: "Kids,what does the chicken give you?"
Student: "Meat!"
Teacher: "Very good! Now what does the pig give you?"
Student: "Bacon!"
Teacher: "Great! And what does Rashmun give you?"
Student: "Terabytes of nonsense!"

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:13 am

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:Are you suggesting that all posters here disclose their real name and identity to the Admin to ensure that his programs/policies protect such 'disclosed' privacy?

No. Only those who choose to do so.

So do you have information that michelle/flimflam had 'volunteered' for such an 'enhanced' protection and denied? If not, why are you volunteering him/her?

i have no interest in participating in this forum and this is my last post because if any discussion follows, it will be more bullshit by idefix to cover his ass and i am not interested in it. i am making this post because some dunces like you have not understood what happened.

this is the privacy policy. it contains an edit that idefix introduced WITHOUT CONSENT/DISCUSSION.

https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy#78363

Idéfix wrote:SuCH is based on the principle of free speech. It is a forum where members participate on the basis of anonymity. The only restrictions to free speech on this forum are those that violate the privacy of members. This forum strictly and absolutely discourages the disclosure of personal information of other members. This policy covers any information regarding a member that the member considers private. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

name
location and address (physical, email or other virtual identifiers including but not limited to social networking IDs)
contact information (telephone, email, etc.)
name, address and location of employment
family details -- names, locations, addresses, contact information and employment information about the family members of members

No member shall disclose any purported information regarding another member that is covered by this policy. Any violation of this policy can be brought to the attention of the forum administrator at the discretion of the members concerned. Whether or not the information disclosed is true has absolutely no bearing on the applicability of this policy.

If you are the member who has disclosed purported personal information of any other member, you can request the removal of this information. You have two options for doing this:

Send a personal message to the poster Idéfix requesting that the post be edited/deleted. The message should contain a link to the post that contains the information that violates this privacy policy.
Post a request on the admin requests thread, with a link to the post containing the information that needs to be removed.

If you are the member whose purported personal information has been disclosed by another member, you can request the removal of this information. The information in question may be outside the specific items listed above, but is something you consider private. You have two options for making this request:

Send a personal message to the poster Idéfix requesting that the post be edited/deleted. The message should contain a link to the post that contains the information that violates this privacy policy. You do not need to comment on the accuracy of the information that has been disclosed.
Post a request on the admin requests thread, with a link to the post containing the information that needs to be removed. You do not need to comment on the accuracy of the information that has been disclosed.

Any posts that violate this policy will be removed by the forum administrator if -- and only if -- either of the two parties concerned report the matter using one of the two options available to them. As discussed previously, this forum is not actively moderated, and it is not the forum administrator's job to actively moderate this forum.

Edit added by Admin on May 12, 2014: if frequent violations involving the same word(s) are brought to the notice of the administrator for action, then the administrator may add the word(s) or variations thereof to the forum's banned words list. This is a way for the administrator to prevent such violations in future, without actively moderating the forum. To reiterate: this forum is not actively moderated, and it is not the forum administrator's job to actively moderate this forum.

As mentioned at the outset, this forum is based on the principle of free speech. This policy is designed to minimize arbitrariness and the forum administrator's discretion in matters of privacy. This policy prevents calls for editing or deletion by unaffected third parties. It minimizes the potential for disruptive moderation and the need for too much moderation.

If you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions about the privacy policy of SuCH, this is the place to raise it. This thread will be made a sticky on the next admin login.

ignore the free speech and egalitarian jargon in it -- it is hogwash.

you wrote:

So do you have information that michelle/flimflam had 'volunteered' for such an 'enhanced' protection and denied? If not, why are you volunteering him/her?

so do you have information that michelle/flimflam had 'volunteered" to "inform" idefix to "delete" "my" "post" "that" "contained" "flimlam's""private" "details?" """""have i emphasized enough?""" a complaint is a MUST before a post can be deleted as per the privacy policy drafted by his highness. yes, now idefix will go and edit the policy and then tell you that he is telling you the truth.

read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:37 am

it need not have been FF. someone else could have informed idefix that FF's personal info has been disclosed.

by swapna Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:52 am

chutiya, you say, "I have no interest in participating in this forum, and this is my last post." please keep your word and leave quietly. btw, your earlier name, the one that characterized your intelligence, suited you better.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:57 am

swapna wrote:chutiya, you say, "I have no interest in participating in this forum, and this is my last post." please keep your word and leave quietly. btw, your earlier name, the one that characterized your intelligence, suited you better.

Your current female handles, Swapna and Michelle2, suit you better.

by swapna Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:04 am

Kinnera wrote:
swapna wrote:chutiya, you say, "I have no interest in participating in this forum, and this is my last post." please keep your word and leave quietly. btw, your earlier name, the one that characterized your intelligence, suited you better.
Your current female handles, Swapna and Michelle2, suit you better.

I like them myself; they're nice names.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:10 am

swapna wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
swapna wrote:chutiya, you say, "I have no interest in participating in this forum, and this is my last post." please keep your word and leave quietly. btw, your earlier name, the one that characterized your intelligence, suited you better.
Your current female handles, Swapna and Michelle2, suit you better.

I like them myself; they're nice names.

I didn't say they are not nice names. I just said female handles suit you better.

by truthbetold Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:42 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In an earlier post Huzefa Kapasi writes to Panini Press:

you bastard, you disallowed us from posting your employer's name or your name by program without informing us or stating a policy. you are admin for namesake not for taking unilateral and selfish actions.

https://such.forumotion.com/t9079p100-any-admin-requests#183602

---
The crux of Huzefa's criticism is that if someone tries to type Charvaka's real name or employer name in a forum post one will not be able to do so. In that sense Charvaka has given special protection to himself so far as his own privacy is concerned.

In the case of Flimflam ( michelle2), considering that Charvaka obviously knows his real name is being used and considering that his real name has been used on several occasions in the past, shouldn't michelle2 have been given similar protection by Charvaka? Or should Charvaka alone continue to benefit by the programmatic protection he has given to himself ( and that too secretly)?
I didn't quite get your point, are you agreeing with the violator or with Flimflam? You can't be agreeing with both.

I am agreeing with both since both are making the case for a uniformity in the rules of the forum. There cannot be separate or special rules for Charvaka since this is a forum of former Sulekha posters and when this forum was established Charvaka had assured everyone that he will be an ordinary poster like every other poster on this forum and there will be no special privileges for him.
AFAIK, Flimflam didn't ask the admin to put special rules in place to remove posts that reference his real name. Your agreeing with HK tells me that you're OKAY with him violating forums privacy policy because that's precisely what HK or Chutiya appears to have done, based on what I read. In this case either you're with FF or against him, your reasoning for agreeing with both of them sounds highly illogical to me.

Rash,

My recollection is that there was a discussion on privacy. Admin offered to delete posts containing personal information provided the poster makes a request. That is a reasonable condition. Rashmun or other person informing admin that flimflam's real name was used does not meet that criteria. In fact michelle2 and swapna informing admin about flimflam's real identity does not meet the criteria.

Admin offered assistance to protect personal information but flimflam refused to make such request. So your point is moot. Flimflam does not want to make a request to admin. Your repeated efforts to raise the issue is just part of your jealousy driven trouble making.

by confuzzled dude Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:47 am

chutiya #1 wrote:
read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.

What's wrong with that?

by truthbetold Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:53 am

chutiya #1 wrote:
read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.

How can admin know what is a true private information? Whatever the policy may say, admin cannot do about private info unless he check private information of every posters.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:24 pm

swapna wrote:chutiya, you say, "I have no interest in participating in this forum, and this is my last post." please keep your word and leave quietly. btw, your earlier name, the one that characterized your intelligence, suited you better.

ok.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:27 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.
What's wrong with that?

why did he not include flimflams's name in the auto-disallowed program?

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:28 pm

truthbetold wrote:

chutiya #1 wrote:
read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.
How can admin know what is a true private information? Whatever the policy may say, admin cannot do about private info unless he check private information of every posters.

OK. you are chutiya #2. happy?

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:43 pm

HAS [] (ONE OF THE [] MIGHT BY []) EVER COMPLAINED TO IDEFIX? WHAT AUTHORITY DID THE GAY BASTARD, ALSO CALLED IDEFIX, HAD TO DELETE MY THREAD SUMMARILY?

by truthbetold Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:43 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:

chutiya #1 wrote:
read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.
How can admin know what is a true private information? Whatever the policy may say, admin cannot do about private info unless he check private information of every posters.
OK. you are chutiya #2. happy?

Chutiya,

do you think that line of diversionary post going to get you anywhere? do you think that makes you look smarter?

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:51 pm

truthbetold wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:

chutiya #1 wrote:
read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.
How can admin know what is a true private information? Whatever the policy may say, admin cannot do about private info unless he check private information of every posters.
OK. you are chutiya #2. happy?
Chutiya,

do you think that line of diversionary post going to get you anywhere? do you think that makes you look smarter?

what's your point?

here is my answer to your question -- please read the privacy policy and try understand that posts can be deleted only if someone complains. idefiix (fancies himself a french dog now) deleted my post without a complaint. he did it to cover his ass (an arbitrary program function that disallows us from posting his and his employer's name in posts).

your point?

by confuzzled dude Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:56 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.
What's wrong with that?

why did he not include flimflams's name in the auto-disallowed program?

Were you testing admin's integrity when you posted purported real name of FF? He probably didn't do it because it hasn't repeated (in a long while) till your post or was requested by the poster, OTOH, Idefix was a victim in the hands of a habitual offender. Not sure what your gripe is, you can't be both perpetrator and victim.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:56 pm

https://www.google.com/search?q=such+forumotion#q=such+forumotion+site:such.forumotion.com

by truthbetold Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:00 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:

How can admin know what is a true private information? Whatever the policy may say, admin cannot do about private info unless he check private information of every posters.
OK. you are chutiya #2. happy?
Chutiya,

do you think that line of diversionary post going to get you anywhere? do you think that makes you look smarter?

what's your point?

here is my answer to your question -- please read the privacy policy and try understand that posts can be deleted only if someone complains. idefiix (fancies himself a french dog now) deleted my post without a complaint. he did it to cover his ass (an arbitrary program function that disallows us from posting his and his employer's name in posts).

your point?

My point is idefax wrote to admin and admin acted on that. Admin did inform us that these posts can be sent to him through such messages that are not public. In this particular case, idefax may have found a more robust messaging system of sent to self message. That is perfectly justified.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:04 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
read the text in blue. idefix DOES NOT need anyone's "volunteering" to auto-disallow certain private info. in posts made.
What's wrong with that?

why did he not include flimflams's name in the auto-disallowed program?
Were you testing admin's integrity when you posted purported real name of FF? He probably didn't do it because it hasn't repeated (in a long while) till your post or was requested by the poster, OTOH, Idefix was a victim in the hands of a habitual offender. Not sure what your gripe is, you can't be both perpetrator and victim.

NO. it was a sulekha type post. i was shocked by the butchery. i had totally forgotten about the privacy rules of the board and also about idefix's selfish action but was totally shaken when i saw my post deleted without warning.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:08 pm

truthbetold wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:

How can admin know what is a true private information? Whatever the policy may say, admin cannot do about private info unless he check private information of every posters.
OK. you are chutiya #2. happy?
Chutiya,

do you think that line of diversionary post going to get you anywhere? do you think that makes you look smarter?

what's your point?

here is my answer to your question -- please read the privacy policy and try understand that posts can be deleted only if someone complains. idefiix (fancies himself a french dog now) deleted my post without a complaint. he did it to cover his ass (an arbitrary program function that disallows us from posting his and his employer's name in posts).

your point?
My point is idefax wrote to admin and admin acted on that. Admin did inform us that these posts can be sent to him through such messages that are not public. In this particular case, idefax may have found a more robust messaging system of sent to self message. That is perfectly justified.

can you ideFAX this to me? my ideFax NUMBER IS 9830049280. add country code number. you are chutiya #1.5 now sawwwwry.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:10 pm

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:https://www.google.com/search?q=such+forumotion#q=such+forumotion+site:such.forumotion.com

what's your point?

by truthbetold Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:14 pm

Chutiya,

I read your posts and private policy. What exactly is your contention?

Is your contention that " you were not allowed to post idefax name and employer"? What is wrong with that information being blocked?

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:21 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
Beatrix Kiddo wrote:https://www.google.com/search?q=such+forumotiom#q=such+forumotion+site:such.forumotion.com
what's your point?

some old threads were amusing to read.

Anyway, from the search results it looks like starting 2013 admin began deleting threads that were started with FF's name in it. So maybe something happened then.

Now, admin has made it clear many times that if a person reaches out to him regarding personal info or deleting threads, he will do it. but he has not mentioned that he will make that information public. Hence we may want to give a BOD that flimflam made that request. However, seeing FF's behavior it doesn't look like he did.

In that case, I wanna know

- does admin have that right to delete threads in case of repeated offense, and if others have complained to him about it, publicly or privately (we may not know this, but seeing max's response, this can be a possibility).

- also, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:25 pm

truthbetold wrote:Chutiya,

I read your posts and private policy. What exactly is your contention?

Is your contention that " you were not allowed to post idefax name and employer"? What is wrong with that information being blocked?

you are a bigger chutiya than me. but one chutiya to another - let's leave it brother.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:26 pm

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Beatrix Kiddo wrote:https://www.google.com/search?q=such+forumotion#q=such+forumotionsite:such.forumotion.com
what's your point?

some old threads were amusing to read.

Anyway, from the search results it looks like starting 2013 admin began deleting threads that were started with FF's name in it. So maybe something happened then.

Now, admin has made it clear many times that if a person reaches out to him regarding personal info or deleting threads, he will do it. but he has not mentioned that he will make that information public. Hence we may want to give a BOD that flimflam made that request. However, seeing FF's behavior it doesn't look like he did.

In that case, I wanna know

- does admin have that right to delete threads in case of repeated offense, and if others have complained to him about it, publicly or privately (we may not know this, but seeing max's response, this can be a possibility).

- also, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

+1

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:30 pm

truthbetold= wrote:
Is your contention that " you were not allowed to post idefax name and employer"? What is wrong with that information being blocked?

nothing wrong with it. can you similarly deploy an auto-delete mechanism for my name and my employer's name? do i have to send you a request? why did you not delete messages posted by me in my real name? why did you NOT do it for []?

by truthbetold Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:20 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
truthbetold= wrote:
Is your contention that " you were not allowed to post idefax name and employer"? What is wrong with that information being blocked?

nothing wrong with it. can you similarly deploy an auto-delete mechanism for my name and my employer's name? do i have to send you a request? why did you not delete messages posted by me in my real name? why did you NOT do it for []?

Chutiya,

Idefax communicated with admin. Hence admin created safeguards for idefax. Did you or who everelse you are talking about asked/requested for any protection? No ask no action. Any questions?

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:11 pm

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:
- also, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

+ 1. He needs to honor that.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:59 pm

truthbetold wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
truthbetold= wrote:
Is your contention that " you were not allowed to post idefax name and employer"? What is wrong with that information being blocked?

nothing wrong with it. can you similarly deploy an auto-delete mechanism for my name and my employer's name? do i have to send you a request? why did you not delete messages posted by me in my real name? why did you NOT do it for []?
Chutiya,

Idefax communicated with admin. Hence admin created safeguards for idefax. Did you or who everelse you are talking about asked/requested for any protection? No ask no action. Any questions?

i thought chutiya was the highest category of an idiot. you have crossed the speed of light. you are higgs boson. i am left speechless.

edit. tbt, ideFAX and admin are the same person.

by truthbetold Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:07 pm

Chutiya
I can up the stupidity scale million times. Again it does not prove anything.
You have not shown a logical ground for compliant. If you just want to be nuisance. Continue to repeat your name calling. It is not difficult to understand why you cannot overcome your chutiya blinkers.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:53 pm

truthbetold wrote:
I can up the stupidity scale million times. Again it does not prove anything.

It does prove you have ginormous capacity for stupidity. Don't belittle that unique ability.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:29 am

truthbetold wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In an earlier post Huzefa Kapasi writes to Panini Press:

you bastard, you disallowed us from posting your employer's name or your name by program without informing us or stating a policy. you are admin for namesake not for taking unilateral and selfish actions.

https://such.forumotion.com/t9079p100-any-admin-requests#183602

---
The crux of Huzefa's criticism is that if someone tries to type Charvaka's real name or employer name in a forum post one will not be able to do so. In that sense Charvaka has given special protection to himself so far as his own privacy is concerned.

In the case of Flimflam ( michelle2), considering that Charvaka obviously knows his real name is being used and considering that his real name has been used on several occasions in the past, shouldn't michelle2 have been given similar protection by Charvaka? Or should Charvaka alone continue to benefit by the programmatic protection he has given to himself ( and that too secretly)?
I didn't quite get your point, are you agreeing with the violator or with Flimflam? You can't be agreeing with both.

I am agreeing with both since both are making the case for a uniformity in the rules of the forum. There cannot be separate or special rules for Charvaka since this is a forum of former Sulekha posters and when this forum was established Charvaka had assured everyone that he will be an ordinary poster like every other poster on this forum and there will be no special privileges for him.
AFAIK, Flimflam didn't ask the admin to put special rules in place to remove posts that reference his real name. Your agreeing with HK tells me that you're OKAY with him violating forums privacy policy because that's precisely what HK or Chutiya appears to have done, based on what I read. In this case either you're with FF or against him, your reasoning for agreeing with both of them sounds highly illogical to me.
Rash,

My recollection is that there was a discussion on privacy. Admin offered to delete posts containing personal information provided the poster makes a request. That is a reasonable condition. Rashmun or other person informing admin that flimflam's real name was used does not meet that criteria. In fact michelle2 and swapna informing admin about flimflam's real identity does not meet the criteria.

Admin offered assistance to protect personal information but flimflam refused to make such request. So your point is moot. Flimflam does not want to make a request to admin. Your repeated efforts to raise the issue is just part of your jealousy driven trouble making.

As Tracy has pointed out Charvaka has been deleting or editing posts containing FF's purported name on earlier occasions ( and not just now). The question is why did Charvaka not give programmatic protection to FF ( not allowing FF's name to be typed in a forum post) in the same manner that he has given programmatic protection to himself. Had he done so he would not have deleted Huzefa's post in its entirety and there would have been no controversy.
in my opinion you are coming to Charvaka's defense with your flimsy reasons ( which includes your pathetic personal attack on me) because Charvaka is a fellow Telugu and you are one of those who believes in going out of the way to defend fellow telugus ( even if they do something wrong) in keeping with the principle of Tribal Loyalty.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:02 am

It is so obvious that what Panini Press is doing is wrong that explaining Panini's inappropriate conduct seems superfluous. Never the less i will proceed to do so for the benefit of those who came in late:
Panini has given special programmatic protection to himself. Anybody who tries to type his purported name or the company for which he works in a forum post will not be able to do so.
However, Panini refuses to give programmatic protection to any other poster. In the case of michelle2 (FF), Panini has been deleting or editing posts featuring his purported real name but why does Panini not simply give programmatic protection to FF like he gave to himself ? The answer is straightforward:
Panini gets a kick out of being begged by posters to remove private information like purported real names from forum posts. He likes the feeling of power that comes by people sucking upto him. Otherwise the natural thing to do is to give programmatic protection to every single poster whose purported real name is known to Panini. In the case of FF, Panini obviously knows FF's purported real name and has hence been deleting or editing posts containing FF's name.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:27 am

Rashmun, how can he give programmatic protection to anybody without knowing their real names?

by truthbetold Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:21 am

Merlot,

your follow up comments sound more like a jilted lover or scorned women. You seem to have a problem to let go and move on. Grow up.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:48 am

truthbetold wrote:You seem to have a problem to let go and move on. Grow up.

1. Why?
2. Your advice is suspect given the obvious conflict of interest.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:37 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Rashmun, how can he give programmatic protection to anybody without knowing their real names?

The fact is that he has been giving protection to FF by removing FF's purported real name in a forum post by editing a post in which FF's purported real name is mentioned. He has been doing this for some time. He probably got tired of editing posts and in his impatience simply deleted Huzefa's post in which FF's purported real name was mentioned. This was I think the first time in which he has deleted any post because of this reason--earlier he would just edit posts.
Had he given programmatic protection to FF ( in the same manner that he has given to himself) he would not have had the need to delete Huzefa's post and Huzefa would not have been upset about what happened.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:32 am

Rashmun wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Rashmun, how can he give programmatic protection to anybody without knowing their real names?

The fact is that he has been giving protection to FF by removing FF's purported real name in a forum post by editing a post in which FF's purported real name is mentioned. He has been doing this for some time. He probably got tired of editing posts and in his impatience simply deleted Huzefa's post in which FF's purported real name was mentioned. This was I think the first time in which he has deleted any post because of this reason--earlier he would just edit posts.
Had he given programmatic protection to FF ( in the same manner that he has given to himself) he would not have had the need to delete Huzefa's post and Huzefa would not have been upset about what happened.

spot on. he has been removing ff's name for quite some time without a request for deletion from ff and in clear violation of the privacy policy his highness has himself set. this time he deleted an entire post in, what?, 3 minutes of posting!

by Sponsored content