From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sat Apr 20 00:02:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 20 Apr 2002 07:02:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 62296 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2002 07:02:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2002 07:02:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (216.231.54.78) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2002 07:02:01 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16yotR-0007CS-00 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:02:45 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:02:44 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] where the mailing lists lie Message-ID: <20020420070244.GT28651@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020418222728.049dde70@digitalkingdom.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20020419173804.04b5eec0@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419173804.04b5eec0@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Robin Lee Powell X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=66827819 X-Yahoo-Profile: robinleepowell X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14064 On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 06:08:03PM -0400, lojbab wrote: > At 01:09 AM 4/19/02 -0600, Jay Kominek wrote: > >Yahoo is making it quite clear that they have no respect for our > >privacy, by running around with these plans to sell off our personal > >information. > > They're running a business, and need to make a profit or sooner or > later the service will no longer be available. That's part of the point. What do we do then? > > > Other than catering to some people's preferences (and the nature > > > of those preferences or the tradeoffs have not really changed > > > since we set up the list), > > > >The tradeoffs have indeed changed since Yahoo started wanting to sell > >our personal information. > > They've ALWAYS wanted to sell your personal information. You could > tell them no before, and you can tell them no now, Except that they switch it back. > >It isn't so much a matter of advantages, as lists are relatively > >simplistic things. Rather, it is what disadvantages we can avoid. > > And for all the complaints, I haven't seen anything new. They stuck > in a new few options, and used it as an excuse to make it necessary > for everyone to say no again. They've done it before. Life goes on. Who is 'they'? And has it occured to you that if people take it into their heads to bitch about this on a regular basis, there might be a *reason*? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/