[Vision2020] Re: Dave Budge Violates Internet Ethics

[David M. Budge]

Ted, I have removed the post.  My sincerest apologies for causing a 
kerfuffle.  However, in my defense, I emailed you the minute I made the 
post notifying you that I had done so. I did not give out your last 
name, your email address, or where you live.  And lastly, so few people 
read my libertain rantings that I doubt your good reputation has been 
besmirched (if that is in fact your underlying objection.)

This was no accident. I thought your email was cogent and worth 
posting.  I'll never do it again. 

Sorry again for the heartburn.

db

Tbertruss at aol.com wrote:

>
> All:
>
> Without my consent or even a suggestion that I wanted to participate 
> in his web blog, Dave Budge posted on his web blog a private e-mail I 
> had sent only to him.  Taking private correspondence and making it 
> available to the public without permission by posting it on a web site 
> is certainly a violation of Internet ethics. 
>
> First below my text here is my private e-mail as it appears on his web 
> blog on the first page when you access his web site.  Below that is 
> the copy of the private e-mail I sent him showing the to address as 
> only to him, and revealing no consent presented to make the e-mail 
> available to the public.
>
> I had never said or wrote that I intended to or wanted to participate 
> in his web blog.  I had never visited his web blog till today, after 
> he informed me he had answered the private e-mail in question on his 
> web site.  I at first thought he had offered only his insights on 
> these issues on his web site as a reply, while keeping my e-mail 
> private, as it was intended.  But then I discovered my entire e-mail 
> in question was posted on his web site.
>
> This was no accident.
>
> I have not am not and will not participate in his web blog.  I firmly 
> request that he immediately remove my private correspondence from his 
> publicly available web site.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
> http://davebudge.com
>
> The first page of Dave Budge's web site as it appeared today, but only 
> down the page as far as needed to reveal my private correspondence was 
> posted there:
>
> Dave Budge .com <http://davebudge.com/>
>
> 2/5/2005
>
> Payment-in-kind <http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=143>
>
> Filed under:
> General <http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1>— David @ 10:28 am
> I just love this. Idaho state Rep. Tom Trail writes this to his 
> constituents:
>
>> Pay Your Taxes in Silver and Gold – A north Idaho legislator is 
>> introducing a bill which would allow taxpayers to pay their taxes in 
>> silver or gold. There is a historic precedent – In the early days in 
>> the state of Virginia, taxpayers could pay their taxes in industrial 
>> hemp. This law was in effect for more than 150 years. I suspect the 
>> real problem would be electronically transmitting your silver gold to 
>> the tax commission.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I like the hemp idea much better, but hey, paying one’s taxes with an 
> inflationed hedged commodity? Sounds good to me.
> Comments (0) <http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=143#comments>
>
>
>
> 2/3/2005
>
> Brookhiser the Great <http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=142>
>
> Filed under:
> General <http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1>— David @ 7:18 pm
>
> Rick Brookhiser over that the NRO blog points this out:
>
>> ACRONYMS [Rick Brookhiser]
>> I became less tired of our modern acronyms–SOTU, POTUS, SCOTUS–when I 
>> saw that John Quincy Adams’s diary called the president PUS.
>
>
>
> I wonder why The New York Observer never lets Rick add any humor to 
> his columns. I think he’s missed his calling.
> Comments (0) <http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=142#comments>
>
> Wingnuts and Moonbats <http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=141>
>
> Filed under:
> General <http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1>— David @ 6:45 pm
>
> A friend writes me this:
>
>> Dave:
>>
>> I sometimes view political systems like ecosystems: the more 
>> diversity the more strength and resilience in the system to survive 
>> change. So I really don’t want to see one party gain too much 
>> control, like the Republican’s have right now.
>> I particularly dislike the conservative to liberal linear manner of 
>> pigeonholing viewpoints. At least we should adopt an XY coordinate 
>> system of describing political ideology. One way of doing this is to 
>> have four directions of political thought, depending on extent of 
>> government regulation of various aspects of life. The current 
>> Republican’s would be strong on government regulation of individual 
>> freedom, while advocating less regulation of capitalism. The Green 
>> party promotes less regulation of personal freedom, similar to some 
>> Libertarian views, but much stronger on government regulation of 
>> capitalism. Libertarians of course want the least government possible 
>> in all respects. And finally, for our fourth political direction on 
>> the XY grid we have Socialism in the strong sense, government 
>> regulation of much of people’s lives.
>> Odd that the current USA Republican party calls people “Socialists” 
>> as a dirty word when Republican’s promote Socialist style government 
>> control of peoples personal choices and lives. I see the current 
>> Republican’s as a fascist oriented party clamping down on individual 
>> freedoms similar to a Socialist dictatorship (not there yet but 
>> heading that direction), while promoting the capitalist sector at the 
>> same time, appealing to some Libertarians,.
>> The Democratic party here in the USA currently is a watered down 
>> mixture of Libertarian views on personal freedom on some issues, 
>> Green party views on Capitalism, and a few Socialist ideas like 
>> universal health care, that given the current world political 
>> spectrum is really a very middle of the road government program to 
>> care for low income people who cannot afford the outrageous costs of 
>> medical care in our modern world.
>> That a government offers universal health care hardly makes it a 
>> Socialist State in the strong sense of this word, which implies 
>> government ownership of the major sectors of the economy. Many 
>> governments that are accurately described as political democracies 
>> today offer some form of universal health care, while maintaining a 
>> strong capitalist sector, and protecting rights of free speech, free 
>> association and personal freedom for the individual.
>> Ted
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A copy of my private e-mail to Dave Budge:
>
> Subj: Re: Ted In Moscow: Re: Just saying "hi" 
> Date: 2/3/2005 1:23:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From: Tbertruss <mailto:Tbertruss>
> To: dave at davebudge.com <mailto:dave at davebudge.com>
>
>
> Dave:
>
> I sometimes view political systems like ecosystems: the more diversity 
> the more strength and resilience in the system to survive change.  So 
> I really don't want to see one party gain too much control, like the 
> Republican's have right now.
>
> I particularly dislike the conservative to liberal linear manner of 
> pigeonholing viewpoints.  At least we should adopt an XY coordinate 
> system of describing political ideology.  One way of doing this is to 
> have four directions of political thought, depending on extent of 
> government regulation of various aspects of life.  The current 
> Republican's would be strong on government regulation of individual 
> freedom, while advocating less regulation of capitalism. The Green 
> party promotes less regulation of personal freedom, similar to some 
> Libertarian views, but much stronger on government regulation of 
> capitalism. Libertarians of course want the least government possible 
> in all respects.  And finally, for our fourth political direction on 
> the XY grid we have Socialism in the strong sense, government 
> regulation of much of people's lives.
>
> Odd that the current USA Republican party calls people "Socialists" as 
> a dirty word when Republican's promote Socialist style government 
> control of peoples personal choices and lives.  I see the current 
> Republican's as a fascist oriented party clamping down on individual 
> freedoms similar to a Socialist dictatorship (not there yet but 
> heading that direction), while promoting the capitalist sector at the 
> same time, appealing to some Libertarians,.
>
> The Democratic party here in the USA currently is a watered down 
> mixture of Libertarian views on personal freedom on some issues, Green 
> party views on Capitalism, and a few Socialist ideas like universal 
> health care, that given the current world political spectrum is really 
> a very middle of the road government program to care for low income 
> people who cannot afford the outrageous costs of medical care in our 
> modern world. 
>
> That a government offers universal health care hardly makes it a 
> Socialist State in the strong sense of this word, which implies 
> government ownership of the major sectors of the economy.  Many 
> governments that are accurately described as political democracies 
> today offer some form of universal health care, while maintaining a 
> strong capitalist sector, and protecting rights of free speech, free 
> association and personal freedom for the individual.
>
> Ted
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050205/db153c8b/attachment-0001.htm