Staten Island Web logo

On 10/28/99 2:51:07 PM, ~*Donna*~ wrote:
>It's quite shocking to be
>catching up on some of the
>back posts here and actually
>see a post with specific names
>and addresses mentioned in it.
>Gina....Was there no other way
>to get this information to
>I know. We're living in a
>world today where information
>of all kinds is right at our
>sincerely...that does not mean
>that we have to run amok with
>In my estimation, posting the
>names, addresses and personal
>information of people who
>literally came from (and may
>still be in) our own back yard
>....was highly inappropriate
>to say the least.
>The people in this story are
>This was THEIR information to
>either give....
>...or not give.
>I think we would have gotten
>the gist of what the Staten
>Island Orphan Train was all
>about quite well WITHOUT all
>of the personal data.
>At the core of every human
>being there is a
>inner child. It's a very
>sacred place and for some
>(unfortunately) a very scared
>place. At some point in ALL
>of our lives I'm quite sure
>that we've all felt a twinge
>of being "left out" or
>"alone". I'm also sure that
>there were times in our lives
>when we've all experienced the
>feeling of "exposure". If you
>let yourself think back,
>you'll recall that neither
>feeling is wonderful.
>Maybe we were in grade school
>and we got a test mark that we
>weren't exactly proud of.
>Maybe we got scolded for
>talking when we shouldn't
>have. Maybe we weren't chosen
>for a team in Gym Class. Maybe
>we we got free lunch. I don't
>know! We could "maybe"
>forever. As I'm sure we all
>know, the possibilities are
>endless, but they aren't
>really important anyway. The
>feelings of those involved
>however...ARE important.
>Would any of YOU want the
>details of your most private
>matters posted somewhere
>without your knowledge or
>permission? I know I
>If the Orphan Train truly is a
>part of Staten Island History,
>(and apparently it is) then it
>is only right and proper that
>the story be told...but that
>story does not need the very
>personal and ab~soul~utely
>identifying tid bits of
>information about people whom,
>to the best of my knowledge
>did not give their permission
>for such a revelation.
>I know. The information came
>from the web. Child
>pornography comes from the web
>....but does that make it
>There is nothing negative
>about being either an Orphan
>or an Adoptee, but it IS
>personal information and I
>firmly believe that any
>specifics in that domain are
>the property of the party(ies)
>they belong to.
>As I said, I've been out of
>the house in the last few days
>much more than I've been in,
>so I'm just about catching up
>with the new posts here but I
>can't deny that I WAS
>surprised to see that no one
>else posted a reaction to the
>publishing of someone else's
>personal information.
>Am I the only one who feels
>this way about it?

Sorry this so disturbed you. I understand your point about the posting of personal information. It was, however, posted on the web, as you pointed out (associating it with child pornography). I have been in touch with the writer, Connie Di Pasquale, and I can assure you her intentions were good. As a matter of fact, she may be dropping in here as she is anxious for news about Staten Island and her family's history. We won't know whether her grandmother and great-grandparents wanted that information posted. How could we? Only Connie and her family could tell, as far as her grandmother is concerned, anyway. People who post information on the web, however, must take responsibility for their actions, no? Part of that responsibility includes understanding that your information is liable to be cut and pasted and or printed out.

As for having details of personal information posted, and the people still being in our backyards, it would seem that the principals in this story are all deceased. It is their descendents who may still live with us, no? It seems that your quarrel with Gina posting it here and not in an e-mail is somewhat misdirected. It would seem that your discussion about the posting of personal information should be with the original source. Gina was, in good faith, I'm sure passing on information that she thought would be of interest to all of the members of the board. Would a deletion of the addresses have been acceptable? Pseudonyms? I don't know, but from what I gather, from the web, and from the original source, this was a story that at least one side of the family wanted to be told. It seems a loving tribute. Now if there is another side to the story that other descendents of these people wish to tell, they are free to. This web site might be a good forum for it, as we are free to post what we wish.
Take care,

Staten Island WebŪ Forums Index.