Staten Island Web logo

Hi Marguerite,

Yep. It so disturbed me. All inequities and injustices do.

Let me clarify that a bit to make sure you understand what I'm talking about here. It did not disturb "me" the person, it disturbed "me" the Philosopher. I will also tell you this, my reaction wasn't an isolated one either. There are others that feel the same way. I have heard from them. *S*

You said: "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)."

My point: EXACTLY!!!! I stated up front and quite clearly in my original post that I realized full and well that the post presented here was not an original piece of work but a copy & paste job. My mentioning it in conjunction with child pornography was to give testimony to the fact that just because something is "on the net", doesn't make it a legitimate presentation nor one of integrity. In other words, saying that something is "on the net" does not validate it's stance.

You said: "I have been in touch with the writer, Connie Di Pasquale, and I can assure you her intentions were good."

My Point: Marquerite....I believe you. In fact, I thought you would be! *S* I know how you work. I work the same way. I GO TO THE SOURCE! I also know that Ms DiPasquale's intentions were good. I could feel that from her article....without a doubt.

Believe it or not I was going to contact her myself and then something inside of me said: No! Marguerite just might do it. And you know what? That was the way it was meant to be. *S*

You said: "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."

My Point: Great! It would be WONDERFUL to meet her.

You said: "We won't know whether her grandmother and great-grandparents wanted that information posted. How could we? "

My Point: THANK YOU! That was precisely my other point. *S* I stated from the very beginning that it was quite clear that this piece was done by Ms DiPasquale with a whole lot of license, but that does NOT negate the othe fact I brought up for discussion, namely whether or not it was a RESPONSIBLE action.

I don't know how else to say it other than to SPECIFY again that all of this was taken personally when in all sincerity it was not meant that way.

Anyone perceiving "hurt" or any other emotion here has to own up to those feelings all on their own. I stated very clearly that this was about DISCLOSURE and RESPONSIBILITY. That's why it's UP FRONT as the topics TITLE!!!!

You said: "Only Connie and her family could tell, as far as her grandmother is concerned, anyway."

My Point: Yep! That's right. The issue at hand was (to some degree) a FAMILY one for Connie. That means that she was indirectly involved in the story. That's not to say that I either agree or disagree with her course of action, but when I read it, I did view it in THAT light.

You said: "People who post information on the web, however, must take responsibility for their actions, no? "

My Point: Absolutely. That has been my ENTIRE Point in this whole PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE!!!!

You said: "Part of that responsibility includes understanding that your information is liable to be cut and pasted and or printed out."

My Point: Uhhhh No! *S* Not by a long shot!!!! You WERE pretty close to the truth there though with your use of the word "liable". Marguerite, there are MANY "libelous" things happening on the internet DAILY. There are more than I have the time or energy to LIST. (Perhaps I'll do that in the list string one day! LOL)

I happen to be a Graphic Artist. I design web art for professional web sites. The art that I design is completely original and once finished becomes the PROPERTY of my client. Yes, it's on the web. Yes, anyone who wants to can view it. BUT....does that mean that anyone who wants to snatch it up can???? I'll tell you right now that the answer is NO NO NO! Just ask anyone who studys Copywrite Law! *S*

All of the Art Work on my personal Web Site is designed by me. I think there are 3 (may 4) small graphics which might not be, but I made SURE that when I got them they were FREE DOMAIN.

At the bottom of the first page of my web site (and I'm sure you'll see this on MANY web sites) I say the following: "ALL RIGHTS are retained By The Artist (Me *S*) ~*Donna Helgeson*~" (That is a direct quote BTW.) That NOTICE if you will includes both the graphics and text on my site as I am also a writer.

Copywrite infringement and Plagerism are real crimes....even on the internet....but I'm digressing a bit too much right now as none of this was really what I was talking about in my first post.

You said: "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?"

My Point: Yep. It would be their descendents....and second or third (or whatever) string friends, neighbors and aquaintances.

You said: "It seems that your quarrel with Gina posting it here and not in an e-mail is somewhat misdirected."

My Point: My post was not misdirected at all. As I stated above, you, like patos are assimilating this on a personal level. That is not and was not my stance. The point that I'm making is a PHILOSOPHICAL one.

I hope you can see now that this is (and never was) a "quarrel" and that this was NOT meant to be in an e-mail.

Gina didn't post the PRIVATE INFORMATION in an E-mail did she????? She posted it publically. She posted it here! Since this IS a "DISCUSSION" Board, that meant that I had a right to address her post publically. If she had wanted to discuss it with ME and ONLY ME...she would have sent it to just ME....but she didn't.

You said: "It would seem that your discussion about the posting of personal information should be with the original source."

My Point: Actually, Nope! *S* I'm still not sure how I feel about Ms DiPasquale's article. Well, maybe that's not entirely true. I think that perhaps if I were her, I would have told the story without all of that specific data. I don't think it added anything to the story what~so~ever and in fact, I think it detracted from it, but that's just my opinion. To each his own.

Some day Ms DiPasquale will have to answer to a higher source for her actions on this matter.... just as we all will inevitably have to answer for all of our actions. Whether or not she took the right step....remains to be seen. I will tell you this much, I do believe that she was pure of heart in her presentation.

I still don't think it was a necessary ingredient to the story, but I really do feel that her intentions were pure.

You said: "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."

My Point: Yes she was. If you will look back at the topic you will note that I never said otherwise. *S* I didn't say that her actions were mean spirited I never felt that way. I said they lacked RESPONSIBILITY. There is a big difference.

You said: "Would a deletion of the addresses have been acceptable? Pseudonyms?"

My Point: Of course not! Just as COPYING & PASTING that article here without giving due credit was IRRESPONSIBLE so would have editing something that wasn't hers.

You said: "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."

My point: I'm sorry to say that I didn't quite get that same warm and cozy feeling from it. I think the potential there for a story is INCREDIBLE and I do think that Ms DiPasquale was pure of heart, but I regret to admit that I was lost in a sea of unnecessary details. I kept getting bored and had to start reading it all over again.

And regarding your other point: Obviously, since the story WAS told, someone did want to tell it....but....

Did they have the right to tell it? Did they have the right to tell it THAT WAY???? I dunno! Again Marguerite....those are PHILOSOPHICAL questions. They're not PERSONAL ATTACKS.

You said: "Now if there is another side to the story that other descendents of these people wish to tell, they are free to."

My Point: I apologize if I appear "picky" as I'm truly not trying to be but your use of the word "another" just doesn't factor in here. I wasn't challenging the version of the story that was presented....and quite frankly, how could I? Ms DiPasquale herself admitted that all of the people in it are deceased!!!!!!!

AGAIN....that is a statement that brings this whole issue right down to a PERSONAL LEVEL. I don't know how else to say it. I thought I made it clear with the topic title. This is NOT a PERSONAL DISCUSSION....this is a PHILOSOPHICAL one!!!!

You said: "This web site might be a good forum for it, as we are free to post what we wish."

My Point: Ahhhh Not exactly!!!! That's another erroneous statement. *S* The "Freedom Of Speech" (which is granted by the First Amendment) is not an ABSOLUTE. That means that there are CONDITIONS in which it is LEGALLY stripped from Citizens.

I don't, but for the sake of argument, let's just say that I work at the local bank where you happen to cash your checks, make your desposits and withdrawls, and pay your morgage. Do you think that gives me the right to come in here and, if I so desire, post your PERSONAL information????? You wouldn't be able to challenge me on veracity would you???? I'd be telling the TRUTH....

...but do I have a RIGHT to tell that TRUTH???? Is that TRUTH mine to tell???

I happen to know for a fact that it is not my information to tell and that I do not have a right to tell it!!! That is not only ~Spiritual~ Law...but it's protected by Legislation as well.

I hope this clears things up.

You Take Care too!


Staten Island WebŪ Forums Index.