Our procedures state that disagreements should first try to be resolved in-thread.
Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
If someone posted MY political contributions here without my consent, I'd be plenty annoyed.
Just to clarify -- I absolutely think it was rude. But since it's publicly available information, I don't think we should stomp it. Have we ever stomped any post that wasn't spam or a spoiler?
I'm having Google/CNET deja vu.
I find it interesting that, according to the user ID number, this person is not a newbie (relatively, anyway).
I'm having Google/CNET deja vu.
No kidding. It's one reason I haven't chimed in. I think it's rude, but not out of line.
I've seen similar information posted about other Jossverse people, though probably on LiveJournal rather than here. I don't find it offensive, but I understand why someone might.
I'm not crazy about it, either. OTOH, similar to what Lyra jane says, I saw a post on another board quantifying the donations Rafael Palmeiro made to GWB, and didn't bat an eyelash. Unfortunately, the information is public.
It's been edited.
Unfortunately, the information is public.
Meta-issue, but I don't see that as unfortunate at all. I'm glad I have the right to know who's funding our politicians. Money is so important to our electoral process, and it's nice to know who's behind it. (It's also really useful information for journalists.)
Opensecrets.org provides name, zip and employer, not actual personal data.
It wasn't just the link that bothered me, really, but that there was a specific link to a politicians voting record whom Tim supported. It seemed accusatory and weird.