A Conversation for people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese Posted Jan 10, 2002
typo: 'are have fallen' -> 'or have fallen'
There still is 1st person there, and balance missing (Hell, Silverfish and others pointed that out already). How about the *advantages* of passports? I can sell my car to anyone and be quite sure that I know *who* that is who owes me money or drives around for a couple of days while the thing is still licensed to me ? I wouldn't trust in driving licenses or social insurance badges etc.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Tonsil Revenge (PG) Posted Jan 11, 2002
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Tonsil Revenge (PG) Posted Jan 11, 2002
On the other hand, it has been my experience that it is a mistake to sell a used car to anyone you know too well...
or to try to sell a used car to anyone who knows you too well...
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
xyroth Posted Feb 24, 2002
sorry, I have had to be away from writing entries for a while due to ill health.
I am slowly recovering, and should be able to get back to doing updates shortly.
sorry for the inconvenience.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Giford Posted Feb 25, 2002
Two very late off-subject replies; latest version of Word will spit out 'color' when set to UK English. The spell-check is pretty good, the grammar check isn't.
And the OED (rather than the Concise OED) is a multiple-volume (20 I think) work that took 70 (?) years to compile and gives complete etymologies of every word in English. Webster's doesn't even come close. No dictionary in any language comes close.
Best argument I have heard against ID cards is that they're pointless. What would they do that a passport wouldn't? Anyone who can get a fake passport (or more than one 'real' passport, i.e. issued by the Passport Office, not forged) could get a fake ID card. So, expensive, intrusive and pointless - run the 'pro' arguments past me again?
Gif
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Zarquon's Singing Fish! Posted Mar 29, 2002
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
xyroth Posted Apr 2, 2002
not only was I still under the weather (but still improving), but I have had to do quite a bit of house sitting for friends, and thus have not had access to an internet connection for blocks of 4 days at a time. this seriously puts a crimp in your output!
This definately deserves an update, but I just have not had enough time when I could be online to update it.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Ausnahmsweise, wie üblich (Consistently inconsistent) Posted Apr 2, 2002
Hi,
Glad to hear that your're getting better.
You don't have to have Internet access to work on the entry. I often save a copy of an entry I'm working on in Word or even Notepad. Much easier than working in this small TextBox.
There's been a lot of good critique here in PR, but I don't see any material changes to the entry since November.
There are lots of grammatical and punctuation errors.
e.g.
A simple case of this is looking in the DVLC database for all the green cars and who own them.
Should be "who owns them".
They can find out that the car that they can put at the scene
This has the words "They", "can" and "that" repeated twice. There must be a better way of expressing it.
and generally makes you life less simple
Should be "your life".
they completely miss the libertarians reply
and
why the libertarians reasons
Should be "libertarians'" or possibly "libertarian's".
how would you feel if your boss had the right to look at your home phone records, and your credit card records to see that you are not communicating with their competitors.
This rather long sentence is actually a question. Should end with "?"
The "their" does not does not refer back to anything. Boss is singular. The (implied) company you work for, likewise.
"to see if you are not" is probably not the sense you intended. A more proactive "to see if you are" might be stronger.
I could go on...
Awu.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Wayfarer-- I only wish I were crackly Posted Apr 2, 2002
ps: you don't even need to have computer access to make changes, if you print out a copy and make changes on it with a red pen or something. then you can make the actual changes easily as you already know what they should be.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
xyroth Posted Apr 3, 2002
I don't need the computer access for the changes, but for the record of all the good criticism in this thread.
after all, it is a bit hard to take into account (especially the spelling) if I can't actually access it.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Wayfarer-- I only wish I were crackly Posted Apr 3, 2002
with some semi-careful formatting, deleting excess spaces between posts etc. you could even copy the whole thread and print it out, too. should only take a few pages i think...
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Wayfarer-- I only wish I were crackly Posted Apr 3, 2002
strike that-just the first dot of the thread is 11 pages.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Dr Hell Posted May 3, 2002
Hello,
I've been away from this converstaion and this entry for a while to keep me neutral and to see how things evolve after a longer period.
IMO my basic criticism still holds:
The major problem of this entry is that it is too subjective and rhetoric. Partly because of the frequent use of 1st and 2nd persons.
Minor problems include: Spelling and NEAs (not-explained Abbreviations). Reading 'people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed' three times in a row. Nothing noticeable has changed since my last posting.
I'll be away for another time and come back later, hoping to see some progress. I might add that it should not become a standard in PR to wait for so many major modifications for such a long time. You might consider removing the thread and reposting it again when it's ready.
HELL
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Zarquon's Singing Fish! Posted May 3, 2002
I know what you mean, Hell. I don't know what the 'normal' time for an entry to be in PR (no doubt Bossel could tell us). I'm in two minds about the problem; taking an entry out of PR could either serve as an inducement to get it into shape or could be a demotivator.
Could be a discussion issue for scouts, maybe.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Dr Hell Posted May 3, 2002
I'm also two minds on this problem, but in this case: I am sure Xyroth knows the ropes, he's been here (h2g2) long enough not to get demotivated... Anyhow it would be better if HE removed it.
HELL
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Silverfish Posted May 3, 2002
I've had another look at the entry, and it still suffers from the lack of balance, and a bias towards the libertarian point of view.
In particular, I think the example of exployers having access to credit card records, and phone records seems like a particular extreme situation, that seems nothing like the sort of thing anyone is likely to propose.
The authoritarian arguments seems to be mainly about the government (or rather law enforcement bodies), these powers, rather than the employer, and usually the argument is for cases of suspected crime, certainly more serious cases than employer disloyalty.
That example is not as reasonable as looking on the DVLC database for the owner of a car that was involved in a hit and run, so your claim that "This is just as "reasonable" as the other claims" is completely unjustified IMO. There are many examples where the claims of the authoritarians are much more justified, such as when data is used in catching terrorists, or other criminals.
Basically, I don't see much point in this being in Peer Review, if the long promised update is not likely to be forthcoming. I think that xyroth should move the entry from peer review, if it is not going to be changed for a while, and re-submit it when and if it is updated, so we can make some more comments.
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
xyroth Posted May 3, 2002
your wish is my command.
I will try and remove it in the next day or two, and then hopefully get around to updating it soon.
Thanks for puting up with this for so long.
Key: Complain about this post
A657137 - people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
- 41: Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese (Jan 10, 2002)
- 42: Tonsil Revenge (PG) (Jan 11, 2002)
- 43: Tonsil Revenge (PG) (Jan 11, 2002)
- 44: Galen (Feb 22, 2002)
- 45: xyroth (Feb 24, 2002)
- 46: Galen (Feb 25, 2002)
- 47: Giford (Feb 25, 2002)
- 48: Zarquon's Singing Fish! (Mar 29, 2002)
- 49: xyroth (Apr 2, 2002)
- 50: Ausnahmsweise, wie üblich (Consistently inconsistent) (Apr 2, 2002)
- 51: Tonsil Revenge (PG) (Apr 2, 2002)
- 52: Wayfarer-- I only wish I were crackly (Apr 2, 2002)
- 53: xyroth (Apr 3, 2002)
- 54: Wayfarer-- I only wish I were crackly (Apr 3, 2002)
- 55: Wayfarer-- I only wish I were crackly (Apr 3, 2002)
- 56: Dr Hell (May 3, 2002)
- 57: Zarquon's Singing Fish! (May 3, 2002)
- 58: Dr Hell (May 3, 2002)
- 59: Silverfish (May 3, 2002)
- 60: xyroth (May 3, 2002)
More Conversations for people with nothing to hide wouldn't be so opposed
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."