Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #240300 > unrolled thread

Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> - 2021-09-24 13:50 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-09-24 15:30 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2021-09-24 16:20 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> - 2021-09-24 20:00 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-09-24 20:00 +0200
        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-24 21:40 +0200
          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-09-24 21:50 +0200
          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-09-24 23:00 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2021-09-24 20:10 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-09-24 21:50 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2021-09-24 23:40 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-09-24 17:00 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-09-24 20:30 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-24 23:40 +0200
        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-09-25 04:40 +0200
        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-25 15:10 +0200
          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-09-25 16:10 +0200
            Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Jeremy Hendricks <jwh1981@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 19:10 +0200
            Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 13:20 +0200
              Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@netscape.net> - 2021-09-26 13:30 +0200
          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-26 00:40 +0200
            Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 01:50 +0200
              Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 02:00 +0200
                Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-26 02:10 +0200
                Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-09-26 02:10 +0200
                  Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-26 02:20 +0200
                    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 13:10 +0200
                      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-09-26 14:50 +0200
                        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-26 15:00 +0200
                          Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2021-09-26 17:20 +0200
                        Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-26 15:00 +0200
                    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2021-09-26 15:20 +0200
                Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-09-26 16:40 +0200
      Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Thomas Hochstein <thh@thh.name> - 2021-09-25 00:00 +0200
    Re: Privacy and defamation of character on Debian public forums Tom Dial <tddial@comcast.net> - 2021-09-25 07:10 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#240361

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-09-25 at 09:06, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
>> mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 -
>> specifically. the first reply (comment 10).
> 
> Not replying specifically to The Wanderer, but just to this post
> which mentions that the message at issue is #10, and noting that
> message was not written by Chuck and instead written by someone from
> the Debian side at least partially "critiquiing" Chuck's message #5.

FAOD, I understood the question I was responding to as asking which
message it was that contained the comments which Chuck was
characterizing as having "accused [him] in public of wrongdoing" -
which, naturally, would not have been written by Chuck.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240365

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 06:32:16 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-09-25 at 09:06, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 24, 2021 05:31:47 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> >> Based on what I've found in digging earlier, as well as the name
> >> mentioned by Andy Smith in his reply, I think it's probably
> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994899 -
> >> specifically. the first reply (comment 10).
> > 
> > Not replying specifically to The Wanderer, but just to this post
> > which mentions that the message at issue is #10, and noting that
> > message was not written by Chuck and instead written by someone from
> > the Debian side at least partially "critiquiing" Chuck's message #5.
> 
> FAOD,

I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What did I do or 
say to get a response like that?

I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I was 
interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all the criticism.

So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking about, but 
FAOD???

And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate the Debian 
CoC.


> I understood the question I was responding to as asking which
> message it was that contained the comments which Chuck was
> characterizing as having "accused [him] in public of wrongdoing" -
> which, naturally, would not have been written by Chuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240366

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 06:32:16 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> > FAOD,
> 
> I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What did I do
> or say to get a response like that?
> 
> I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I was
> interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all the criticism.
> 
> So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking about, but
> FAOD???
> 
> And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate the
> Debian CoC.

Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles own "it 
knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(

Still don't know what FAOD means.

Ahh, looking harder, apparently means: 	For Avoidance Of Doubt (chiefly 
British)

Have a good day, and sorry for a 2nd misunderstanding.



> > I understood the question I was responding to as asking which
> > message it was that contained the comments which Chuck was
> > characterizing as having "accused [him] in public of wrongdoing" -
> > which, naturally, would not have been written by Chuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240367

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-09-25 at 19:51, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkramer@gmail.com
> wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 06:32:16 PM The Wanderer wrote:
>>> FAOD,
>> 
>> I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What
>> did I do or say to get a response like that?
>> 
>> I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I
>> was interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all
>> the criticism.
>> 
>> So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking
>> about, but FAOD???
>> 
>> And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate
>> the Debian CoC.
> 
> Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles
> own "it knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(
> 
> Still don't know what FAOD means.
> 
> Ahh, looking harder, apparently means: 	For Avoidance Of Doubt
> (chiefly British)
> 
> Have a good day, and sorry for a 2nd misunderstanding.

No worries. I was a bit confused by your first response, but not in the
slightest bit offended.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240368

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:18PM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 25, 2021 06:32:16 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> > > FAOD,
> > 
> > I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What did I do
> > or say to get a response like that?
> > 
> > I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I was
> > interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all the criticism.
> > 
> > So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking about, but
> > FAOD???
> > 
> > And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate the
> > Debian CoC.
> 
> Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles own "it 
> knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(

I've been assuming it was a typo for FOAD, but I don't know what you
said to provoke that reaction.

If it really was FAOD then I have no idea what it stands for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240370

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-09-25 at 20:00, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:18PM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkramer@gmail.com
>> wrote:

>>> I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What
>>> did I do or say to get a response like that?
>>> 
>>> I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I
>>> was interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all
>>> the criticism.
>>> 
>>> So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking
>>> about, but FAOD???
>>> 
>>> And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate
>>> the Debian CoC.
>> 
>> Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles
>> own "it knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(
> 
> I've been assuming it was a typo for FOAD, but I don't know what you 
> said to provoke that reaction.
> 
> If it really was FAOD then I have no idea what it stands for.

rhkramer correctly identified it in the most recent reply: "For
Avoidance of Doubt". It hadn't occurred to me that it wouldn't be
readily recognizable in these circles, or that Google wouldn't find it
easily. (I may actually be more surprised by the latter than by the former.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240392

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 08:10:31 PM The Wanderer wrote:
> rhkramer correctly identified it in the most recent reply: "For
> Avoidance of Doubt". It hadn't occurred to me that it wouldn't be
> readily recognizable in these circles, or that Google wouldn't find it
> easily. (I may actually be more surprised by the latter than by the
> former.)

Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD, but 
without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to actually go 
to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit that actually 
included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I found were for FOAD, 
and I didn't notice the difference.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240400

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:00:06AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD, but 
> without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to actually go 
> to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit that actually 
> included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I found were for FOAD, 
> and I didn't notice the difference.  

Fascinating.  My first page results from Google were all of this form:

  What are long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD)?
  https://www.faodinfocus.com › learn-about-lc-faod
  LC-FAOD are rare, genetic metabolic disorders that prevent the body from breaking down long-chain fatty acids into energy during metabolism.

This is obviously wrong in this context.

The entire first page consisted solely of results like this, so I didn't
even bother going to page 2.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240402

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 08:45:13 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:00:06AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD,
> > but without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to
> > actually go to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit
> > that actually included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I
> > found were for FOAD, and I didn't notice the difference.
> 
> Fascinating.  My first page results from Google were all of this form:
> 
>   What are long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD)?
>   https://www.faodinfocus.com › learn-about-lc-faod
>   LC-FAOD are rare, genetic metabolic disorders that prevent the body from
> breaking down long-chain fatty acids into energy during metabolism.
> 
> This is obviously wrong in this context.
> 
> The entire first page consisted solely of results like this, so I didn't
> even bother going to page 2.

Hmm, I don't remember the eact google query I tried, I might have done 
something like [define: FAOD slang] or something similar (maybe "acronym", but 
maybe more likely "slang").

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240411

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

rhkramer@gmail.com writes:

> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 08:45:13 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:00:06AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD,
> > > but without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to
> > > actually go to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit
> > > that actually included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I
> > > found were for FOAD, and I didn't notice the difference.
> >
> > Fascinating.  My first page results from Google were all of this form:
> >
> >   What are long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD)?
> >   https://www.faodinfocus.com › learn-about-lc-faod
> >   LC-FAOD are rare, genetic metabolic disorders that prevent the body from
> > breaking down long-chain fatty acids into energy during metabolism.
> >
> > This is obviously wrong in this context.
> >
> > The entire first page consisted solely of results like this, so I didn't
> > even bother going to page 2.
>
> Hmm, I don't remember the eact google query I tried, I might have done
> something like [define: FAOD slang] or something similar (maybe "acronym",  
> but
> maybe more likely "slang").

Trying to find out what the fuss was about, my first query was

	FAOD urban dictionary

which yielded

 1. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Faod (not helpful)
 2. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foad

Like rhkramer, I did not notice that the letters were intermingled.

When entering

	FAOD

I get results similar to Greg's. When entering

	FAOD meaning

(as suggested by Google for related searches), I get this among the top  
results:

https://www.acronymfinder.com/Slang/FAOD.html

That, finally, explains it.

Most of the time, I try to stick to acronyms that are found in "The Jargon  
File" (package `jargon`) because these seem to have a pretty agreed-upon  
meaning :)

HTH and YMMV
Linux-Fan

öö

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240404

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-09-26 at 08:45, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:00:06AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Well, to be fair to Google, the first two or three hits did show FAOD, but 
>> without explaining what it meant -- those sites that you have to actually go 
>> to to find the meaning.  I skipped over those to find a hit that actually 
>> included the meaning, and the first (and next) one(s) I found were for FOAD, 
>> and I didn't notice the difference.  
> 
> Fascinating.  My first page results from Google were all of this form:
> 
>   What are long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders (LC-FAOD)?
>   https://www.faodinfocus.com › learn-about-lc-faod
>   LC-FAOD are rare, genetic metabolic disorders that prevent the body from breaking down long-chain fatty acids into energy during metabolism.
> 
> This is obviously wrong in this context.
> 
> The entire first page consisted solely of results like this, so I didn't
> even bother going to page 2.

When I tested (yesterday evening), I got the same result as you report.

I had never heard of this interpretation of the initialism before, and
am moderately surprised to see that Google considers it to be the
top-priority one.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240406

On 9/25/21 5:10 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-09-25 at 20:00, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:18PM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 07:43:04 PM rhkramer@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> I had to look up the meaning of FAOD.  Are you kidding me?  What
>>>> did I do or say to get a response like that?
>>>>
>>>> I may have misunderstood which message you were pointing to -- I
>>>> was interested in the message that Chuck wrote that prompted all
>>>> the criticism.
>>>>
>>>> So a misunderstanding about which message we each were talking
>>>> about, but FAOD???
>>>>
>>>> And if FAOD means what I found on the internet, that must violate
>>>> the Debian CoC.
>>> Oops, I may need to apologize -- I googled for FAOD, but in googles
>>> own "it knows better" manner, it showed me definitios of FOAD :-(
>> I've been assuming it was a typo for FOAD, but I don't know what you
>> said to provoke that reaction.
>>
>> If it really was FAOD then I have no idea what it stands for.

I too had no clue... and was shocked at the FOAD hits I got

today Google is actually different:
10 pages searching for "FAOD"  resulted in nothing but fatty acid links.
then the suggested search: "FAOD meaning" got me to this:

Acronym    Definition
FAOD    Forever and One Day
FAOD    Free App of the Day
FAOD    Fatty Acid Oxidation Disorder
FAOD    Fructosyl-Amino Acid Oxidase (biochemistry)
FAOD    Furry Army of Doom (online group)
FAOD    For Avoidance Of Doubt (chiefly British)

> rhkramer correctly identified it in the most recent reply: "For
> Avoidance of Doubt".
that is comforting
LOL (laughing out loud)
> It hadn't occurred to me that it wouldn't be
> readily recognizable in these circles, or that Google wouldn't find it
> easily. (I may actually be more surprised by the latter than by the former.)
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240410

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:18PM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>Ahh, looking harder, apparently means: 	For Avoidance Of Doubt (chiefly
>British)

It certainly clarified things. :-D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240327

Joe Pfeiffer schrieb:

> Bug number?

994899

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240335

On 9/24/21 05:45, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> I was accused in public of wrongdoing on the
> Debian bug tracking system which is hosted
> on a public, Debian website in response to a
> bug report I made.
> 
> Since Debian's policy is to keep everything
> on its website public, and I was told every
> message I send regarding Debian must be
> put on Debian's public forums, then how
> can I try and work out a disagreement with
> someone in private emails instead of needing
> to expose the dispute in public with all the
> negativity, slander, and defamation that
> might entail?
> 
> I am willing to cooperate with anyone to help
> improve Debian software, but only if they
> agree to not accuse me in public of wrongdoing
> without first discussing the matter with me
> in a private email or other private forum.
> 
> I am not interested in suing Debian for what
> happened to me, but I would not be surprised
> if in the U.S. eventually Debian will get sued
> unless it scrubs its website of some of the
> comments people make about each other on
> Debian public forums.
> 

As far as the US is concerned, a lawsuit might be filed, but the
Communications Decency Act, Section 230 (47 USC 230) is likely to
protect the Debian Project insofar as it is a provider of an information
service in the form of public forums. Under that section, they may
moderate as the administrators or managers think appropriate, including
removal of items they might think defamatory; but moderation is not
required and they are not held liable as "publishers" of what users post.

Individual users might  be sued for allegedly defamatory statements on a
forum. They get no section 230 protection, but the US Constitution's
first amendment and the rather extensive derived jurisprudence protects
a lot of opinionated and arguably rude statements that some might
consider defamatory and that in some countries may be legally actionable
as such.

It is much better, and almost always much more productive, to avoid
personal attacks and maintain polite demeanor in discussions.

Regards,
Tom Dial

> Thoughts?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web