[Vision2020] Re: Dave Budge Violates Internet Ethics

Sat Feb 5 12:32:25 PST 2005

Ted,

One more thing.  Could you have just simply objected to me personally or 
was it your intention to put me out as a complete schmuck to all the 
members of this discussion group?  Actually, I'm a pretty nice guy and I 
never intended to piss you off.  If you objected to this on the grounds 
of privacy, then why did you copy it to the public domain through 
vision2020?

Or is it your intention to object to my politics by bringing my ethics 
into question?

To the rest of you.  I will not post any commentary again from 
vision2020 without express consent.  I don't want to violate any 
internet protocols, written or not.

db

David M. Budge wrote:

> 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
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050205/6546a4e7/attachment.htm