Jump to content

Mystery Ramsey Girl


Recommended Posts

Anyone know who this girl is?

 

And if the answer had been "She's Jane Doe from 123 High Street and her phone number is 123456"? What then? She might object to her contact details being posted in a public forum.

 

There was a bit of a fuss recently when a female member had previously posted the name of the street where she lives and when it cropped up again in a more recent thread there were a number of posts deleted at her request even though she'd posted the info herself some time previously.

 

What if I ask is anyone knows Chinahands details? Would you be happy is someone posted them here?

 

The OP could have rephrased his request a lot better and there probably wouldn't have been the fuss there has.

Old Git, here you are raising worthwhile issues that can be discussed with out crudities about masterbation and all the usual agro.

 

Personally I've been debating for a long while if, like Stu Peters and Matt Bawldwin I should be public about who I am.

 

Many people posting on here are happy to have public Facebook pages, but post on here anonymously. The anonymity of the Forums definitely encourages bad behaviour - but also it allows people to be candid and post while at work so its swings and round abouts!

 

That said I think it would be an abuse for someone to try to use MF to get private information about people, but I don't think this was CJW's intention.

 

I've agreed CJW could and probably should have done this better. But no one has posted identifying infromation and, as you know, doing so would breech the terms and conditions of using this Forum.

 

I do not think CJW would have expected anyone to post or pass on the girls name and telephone number. I'd have expected a reply saying something like - "I know her, and have told her about it".

 

That would be the correct netiquette for this type of situation.

 

I have no problem with someone posting a picture taken in a public place to give the person so pictured the opportunity to get a copy for themselves.

 

No private information should be asked for, or given in such circumstances.

 

CJW didn't phrase it particularly well, and surprise surprise there is more internet sound and noise than a real discussion.

 

Candid photography of people in public is a major part of the camera's art. The world would be a poorer place if such photography was driven to the margins due to over-sensitivity.

 

I understand Cret's point of view, but I think other people can have a different opinion and I'm glad they do - street photography gives an insight on life.

 

Giving the people so photographed an opportunity to know they've been photographed and see the result is, in my view, a good thing. But needs to be done to maintain confidentiality - CJW could have done it better I agree, but the agro and accusations made in this thread aren't a good way of improving netiquette, quite the opposite, its been the usual MF yuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Good to see the usual standard of help is still available on MF. Remembering why I stopped visiting.

I wonder did she know she was being stalked?!

Speaking of which, whoever the toe-rag is who has stolen my copy of MS office please return it ASAP or I will report it to the Police.   You have my Word!!!

Posted Images

 

I understand Cret's point of view, but I think other people can have a different opinion and I'm glad they do - street photographygives an insight on life.

 

Not suggesting this isn't considered the case anyway, but for the record I'm keeping well out of this scrap. I'm not comfortable with doing candid photography of random people myself but I fully appreciate why people want to as such. Probably just confidence I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I've been debating for a long while if, like Stu Peters and Matt Bawldwin I should be public about who I am.

 

I too have thought about doing that. I do have an account under my real name with about six posts and I have been tempted to ask the mods to merge this account with my real name on. I don't think it would make any difference to my posting style at all.

 

I've agreed CJW could and probably should have done this better. But no one has posted identifying infromation and, as you know, doing so would breech the terms and conditions of using this Forum.

 

I do not think CJW would have expected anyone to post or pass on the girls name and telephone number. I'd have expected a reply saying something like - "I know her, and have told her about it".

 

That would be the correct netiquette for this type of situation.

 

That was the crux of my position. No problem with photo, but there seemed a real chance of someone posting personal information about the girl that she most likely wouldn't want made public knowledge. The fact that no one did post any info was lucky as sometimes people don't always think before posting.

 

Candid photography of people in public is a major part of the camera's art. The world would be a poorer place if such photography was driven to the margins due to over-sensitivity.

 

I like good candid / street photos and have some in my photo library and blog. I takes a lot of guts to do it properly, especially with a more normal 35 or 50mm lens rather than sniping from a distance safely behind a long lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know who this girl is?

 

And if the answer had been "She's Jane Doe from 123 High Street and her phone number is 123456"? What then? She might object to her contact details being posted in a public forum.

There was a bit of a fuss recently when a female member had previously posted the name of the street where she lives and when it cropped up again in a more recent thread there were a number of posts deleted at her request even though she'd posted the info herself some time previously.

Hang on a minute Old Git.... the female poster in question had originally posted about something happening near to where she lived and indeed stated the name of the area, a couple of years back. What followed recently was someone else taking it upon himself to publish that location information in relation to a post she made on an unrelated thread. It was at this point that an entirely different poster pointed out that it really wasn't good form to do this sort of thing and the offer was then made by those involved to happily remove all reference to it if she wished, which offer she accepted. Not sure how that amounts to a 'fuss'. Just to put the record straight here.

Edited by Gilly G. Ossenfeffer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilly - I was just using it of an example where a female wasn't happy about details of the street where she lived being brought up again. Other women agreed and posts were deleted. I wasn't getting at anyone involved, just trying to use it an an example and point out that people need to be careful about posting information about others. Perhaps I should have said "unhappy" or "uneasy" instead of fuss?

Edited by The Old Git
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to get drawn into the legalities etc of taking and posting the picture.

 

Identifying the person photographed and posted with a name and address and phone would invade their privacy and would probably be against the T&C

 

Please don't.

 

PM the OP if you have the info and feel you can trust someone who hides behind an alter ego and who you don't know? And ask if you would want yourself to be identified to someone else in that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I've been debating for a long while if, like Stu Peters and Matt Bawldwin I should be public about who I am.

 

I too have thought about doing that. I do have an account under my real name with about six posts and I have been tempted to ask the mods to merge this account with my real name on. I don't think it would make any difference to my posting style at all.

 

 

I used to see a car driving around with a number plate of "Old Git" in the rear window and I assumed it was you. Not that I was any the wiser who you actually were :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Post by Jump Up removed)

You're full of shit. If you're going to insult someone at least get the name right you fucking idiot

Thank you BM. However, by replying to this annoying little shit it means I get to see his comment and I have him on blocked as he is a retard who gets his rocks off from following me obsessively around MF. Sad little man. Just block him until he gets bored and goes away!

Edited by Gilly G. Ossenfeffer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I've been debating for a long while if, like Stu Peters and Matt Bawldwin I should be public about who I am.

 

I too have thought about doing that. I do have an account under my real name with about six posts and I have been tempted to ask the mods to merge this account with my real name on. I don't think it would make any difference to my posting style at all.

 

 

I used to see a car driving around with a number plate of "Old Git" in the rear window and I assumed it was you. Not that I was any the wiser who you actually were smile.png.

 

Not me - I've never seen it smile.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law needs to be changed, I wouldn't want anyone taking a photo of me and posting it on a website without my knowledge. If this is the law ie anyone can photograph who they like, without having any say in the matter. Why did Google Streetview decide to blank everyone out?

 

If I set up a camera + tripod on Stand Street and photographed every good looking woman walking past this would be legal?, very worrying if true!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law needs to be changed, I wouldn't want anyone taking a photo of me and posting it on a website without my knowledge. If this is the law ie anyone can photograph who they like, without having any say in the matter. Why did Google Streetview decide to blank everyone out?

 

If I set up a camera + tripod on Stand Street and photographed every good looking woman walking past this would be legal?, very worrying if true!!

 

The UK DPA law states (indirectly) that it becomes illegal if you indentify them unless you're the press.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law needs to be changed, I wouldn't want anyone taking a photo of me and posting it on a website without my knowledge. If this is the law ie anyone can photograph who they like, without having any say in the matter. Why did Google Streetview decide to blank everyone out?

 

If I set up a camera + tripod on Stand Street and photographed every good looking woman walking past this would be legal?, very worrying if true!!

If you go into Douglas and do an average shop - you'll find you're already on about 20 cameras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...