Sharing secrets...or are they secrets?

This was recently posted elsewhere and I received permission to post it here:

"108MacumbeiraToday, 3:03am Top
I keep my Amazon account, my Librarything and Google well separated.
So I am Paul on Amazon and Mac on Librarything

today I get a feedback request from Amazon :

( Mentioning Mann's Faustus ) : "So, Macumbeira, how did this item meet your expectations?"

WTF indeed.!

Whoever still believes that Libarythhing is not submitting our reading preferences ( and other info ) to Amazon is a dork.

We feared the dystopian worlds of Huxley and Orwell...well we are already there.

AND I HATE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Is this acceptable? Have I not read the fine print?

I will also add that I have read complaints of others who have had their LT accounts tampered with, and I personally am aware of one instance in which Tim Spalding asked a member of a group I was in to find TOS violations I may have been guilty of there. To his credit, that poster told Spalding to 'do your own dirty work'. (I believe that is an accurate quote; certainly it is essentially correct.)

Open question: am I naive to expect better, or...different?

I keep my Amazon account, my Librarything and Google well separated.

You may want to be diligent, then, when you add a book to your catalog, that you do not use Amazon as a source for the information. The book you mention, Mann's Faustus, was imported into your library from Amazon and uses Amazon's cover image.

I wouldn't share the details of the contents of my sock drawer with this organisation, let alone pay to do so.

LOL, Yeah, keeping things separate by using Amazon as a source for the massive bulk of the catalog.

With Amazon owning 40% of LT, whoever thought it was separate?

>2 southernbooklady: I believe the point made by the poster was that Amazon received information from LT.

>5 jbbarret: I didn't know that. I don't know if the poster did or does. I certainly think that there is a vast difference between the two in regard to the way we engage them. Amazon delivers to our homes. A great many people on LT do not want to be known personally.

Also >5 jbbarret:: does that 40 % include your socks if you get your socks from Amazon?

So I just catalogued a book I got from Amazon. Hit search, got the amazon list copy. I bought it from Amazon, why do they need any information through LT? That seems what Mac is concerned with.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibraryThing

LibraryThing is majority owned by founder Tim Spalding. Online bookseller AbeBooks (now owned by Amazon) bought a 40% share in LibraryThing in May 2006 for an undisclosed sum.

There is a difference in how we engage them. But don't lose sight of the fact that LT is a commercial organisation running a chat room, and inviting people to pay to provide their personal information.

Discussed on this very web site over and over:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibraryThing#Ownership_and_membership

Robert

I'm not really bothered about who knows about my socks. Size 8 - 11.

Who owns what we write, here? Suppose we come up with a formula for world peace or something. Do we get the Nobel, or Jeff Bezos?

You own everything you post here that you created.

I'm left-handed and enjoy baked goods.

I'm on my phone and can't write at length, but briefly:

* I own a majority. Abebooks (now owned by Amazon) and Bowker have minority stakes. Abe has less than 40 now, but I'm not at liberty to discuss the percent.
* You can believe it or not, but I will never sell to Amazon. If I die, my wife won't either--she's on old indie bookseller. Besides being independent we are profitable.
* Amazon does not get any data from LibraryThing. Period. No company in the world gets user catalog data; Something else is going on with the OP. I won't speculate what.

Regarding cataloging, LibraryThing uses Amazon data, but our requests to Amazon do not include any user information--they are anonymous requests from our server--and indeed they do not know which of the 20-odd records you click on or if you click on it, or whether it was a user or just LT precaching the data.

I love the fact that the Wiki article on LT says to

SEE ALSO: Weak ontology

Given the explicit assurances of 14, Ockham's Razor would tell us that is more likely that Macumbeira has, in fact, at some point provided that moniker (perhaps through an email address?) to Amazon, but that he/she simply does not realize it.

Some follow-ups, now that I'm in front of a real computer.

What We Do With Data

1. LibraryThing does not sell or give user catalogs or profile data to anyone.
2. We do give and sell aggregate, anonymized user data, such as how many copies of Huckleberry Finn people have, what tags have been applied to it (but not by whom), what books people have who have it (but not who the users are), etc.
3. We do not give or sell user data, such as emails, except as expressly consented to (e.g. for the Early Reviewers program, where the publishers need to know where to send the books).
4. We do give and sell reviews, together with the user name--indeed we always require that the reviews INCLUDE the user name. Members can control whether their reviews are available externally—either not at all, to libraries only, or to commercial customers too.

Where it Goes

The vast majority of our data sales are part of our "LibraryThing for Libraries" product, which adds features like tagging and reviews to traditional library catalogs (see http://www.librarything.com/forlibraries). We also sell data—again, only aggregate and anonymous data, except for reviews—to other companies, including Random House and Bookish.

Abebooks has a limited license to display some data—a license granted before they were acquired by Amazon—but the license prohibits any use outside of Abebooks whatsoever. Amazon has no rights to get and does not get any LibraryThing data.

By the way, if you think about it, I think you would realize that LibraryThing is not sending Amazon member catalogs to Amazon so that they can pass them onto authors to write creepy "did this item meet your expectations" notes. That's just odd.

Ownership

We do not own your data. The TOS explicitly disclaims any ownership of your copyright. But it does assert a standard non-exclusive license to use your data—or anyway, the data that is not personally-identifiable and only including reviews if you want. See the TOS at http://www.librarything.com/privacy

I will also add that I have read complaints of others who have had their LT accounts tampered with

Please provide proof—or at least some evidence. I have contacted the individual you mentioned in the OP, and asked for more information. I'm still unclear about just what they think happened, where it happened, who did it to them, etc.

and I personally am aware of one instance in which Tim Spalding asked a member of a group I was in to find TOS violations I may have been guilty of there. To his credit, that poster told Spalding to 'do your own dirty work'. (I believe that is an accurate quote; certainly it is essentially correct.)

Members sometimes ask me to suspend or throw out other members because of violations of the TOS. I tell them that I do not go looking for violations of the Terms, and that the TOS is not a matter of members anyway, but violations. If a member thinks he sees violations, he should report them, with specifics like message numbers.

The quote you are alluding to was made publicly, but was eventually archived from my profile. It was "do your own police work." Well, that's the point—I don't do police work. I respond to specific complaints.

This approach was explained to you once before. Please reread my words to you at http://www.librarything.com/topic/152949 .

I appreciate all the information, all the responses. I hope Mac does, too, but I expect not all his concerns are addressed clearly. Maybe they are. Maybe Amazon got his LT name and used it based on a review? (Though in that case they merely would have had to wait for the review to know what he thinks--oh, those precipitous general mailings!)

The only thing I find still unclear is this: If you, Tim Spalding, can write "I tell them that I do not go looking for violations of the Terms, and that the TOS is not a matter of members anyway, but violations. If a member thinks he sees violations, he should report them, with specifics like message numbers.", how can you also admit to soliciting information from someone who tells you to do you own police work? That was not someone who had any problem with me, not someone who ever flagged me.

The idea here is that Tim is not siccing an attack dog, but rather saying that he will respond to any specific TOS violations that are brought to his attention.

The idea here is that he expended energy searching for violations--he asked a co-member of a group to provide him with my TOS violations (incidentally, he had plenty without my posts in that group). The second idea here is he denies that he does that. You provide the third idea.

>18 RickHarsch:

Amazon got their name because they set up the account with an Amazon "pen name." It's as simple as that. Amazon uses both names, in different contexts—real name most of the time, but pen name in things like wish lists and reviews, and (I gather now) in requests to review something.

The remaining possibility is that LibraryThing told Amazon that someone had bought a book and then CHANGED the person's public pen name to match their LibraryThing user name. I trust others find that as unlikely as I do.

The only thing sinister in this that I see is the near ubiquitous sharing of personal info whether legal, up front, or whatever (think Glengarry, Glen Ross).

That is, with the personal exception of the evasion of what is so clear in the second half of my post, #18. I don't take it so deeply, but I shan't forget it--it makes me laugh usually but not always.

The idea here is that he expended energy searching for violations--he asked a co-member of a group to provide him with my TOS violations (incidentally, he had plenty without my posts in that group). The second idea here is he denies that he does that. You provide the third idea.

I frankly don't think you come into it directly at all. The public comment was in response to a thread, my explanation there and the inevitable exchange of angry private messages that so and so should be sanctioned, etc. You can see the context here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/152686#4049160 .

Publicly and privately, a number of members were warned for comments on that thread. You may or may not consider yourself to have been warned--I was careful not to name names, as that tends to inflame things--but you were certainly not the focus. A plain reading of the thing would indicate the focus was on two other members. Both publicly there and privately I repeated what you will see above: If you think another member violated the TOS, tell staff (with specifics); if you don't do so, we will probably not see it.

If you saw the profile comment and thought it was about you, I'm believe you were quite mistaken.

That is, with the personal exception of the evasion of what is so clear in the second half of my post, #18. I don't take it so deeply, but I shan't forget it--it makes me laugh usually but not always.

I'm sorry, what evasion?

The only thing sinister in this that I see is the near ubiquitous sharing of personal info whether legal, up front, or whatever (think Glengarry, Glen Ross).

Our privacy policy guarantees that we do not do what you fear. If you disbelieve us, you should provide some evidence of this claim, or sue us under the explicit guarantees provided in the Terms of Service.

"The only thing sinister in this that I see is the near ubiquitous sharing of personal info whether legal, up front, or whatever (think Glengarry, Glen Ross).

Our privacy policy guarantees that we do not do what you fear. If you disbelieve us, you should provide some evidence of this claim, or sue us under the explicit guarantees provided in the Terms of Service."

My point was perhaps not clear: I find the general topic here distasteful, the sales methods and so on. I have no real concern with LT's behavior other than when a friend has a concern and doesn't mind me posting his post. If he's satisfied, so am I. Personally, I am like Mr. Barrett, who has feet about my size.

That said, I will indeed look into the one personal matter left unresolved which you have perhaps linked to above.

I see nothing in 23 that bears on what I know. (Or, to be all too fair, THINK I know.) You, TS, asked someone involved in Le Salon, to name it, to dig through and find violations I may have made there. A person involved has confirmed this directly to me, and I can't see why he would not tell the truth.

So, then, this is what you evaded: "Tim Spalding, can write "I tell them that I do not go looking for violations of the Terms, and that the TOS is not a matter of members anyway, but violations. If a member thinks he sees violations, he should report them, with specifics like message numbers.", how can you also admit to soliciting information from someone who tells you to do you own police work? That was not someone who had any problem with me, not someone who ever flagged me."

That said, I am still here and, like I said, all this information sharing was distasteful long ago, legal or not. I have no real will to delve into the issue further and am not concerned with my own privacy.

>25 RickHarsch:

I'd be interested in seeing that message.

It is, I suppose, possible I misunderstood which member they were complaining about, and said something like "If you think RickHarsch violated the terms, give me specific message numbers, not general attacks." That is how it works, as I've repeated a number of times. A lot of attacks on members were thrown about here, and, as often happens, that spurs members to demand other members to be suspended. I see a bunch of too and fro around that, divided into a number of "teams." But having reviewed the sanction messages and the messages I sent back and forth after, I can't see what you're talking about. I don't see you mentioned in any of them. But perhaps I'm missing some part of the conversations, or it took place somewhere I'm not searching—Twitter, for example, or email that avoided using the user names.

(You deleted the message.) I've said enough and having brought to your attention that I am aware of it, am satisfied.

The part I hate is Obama watching me through my television set.

Comcast. Communism. They both start with "Com".

Coincidence?

Amazon really does seem to be that good...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/18/amazon-anticipates-order...

"You deleted the message."

Convenient reply. People who think they are being sold out here can always leave. If they really believe that.

#28: The part I hate is Obama watching me through my television set.

Yeah, the president should have to watch the same reality TV we watch. Or alternately, we should get to watch the reality TV channels he watched. If JGL53's living room is captivating that Obama tunes in every chance he gets, we should all get to tune in.

30 Thanks for the cheap shot. Especially cheap in that your further 'advice' suggests you haven't read the thread or have misunderstood my views. If you don't like me, choose better moments to attack.

Oh, and yes, it is demonstrable that he deleted the message, and he may say the same: #17 'The quote you are alluding to was made publicly, but was eventually archived from my profile.' That may or may not be the message in question.

Um, archived != deleted. Nor is archiving old things some sort of underhanded practice. Very few people here leave all their comments sitting on their profile indefinitely.

So then what is archived is available to all as was the original? Certainly it was deleted from my view.

And by the way, why so much pedantry in defense of an ugly instance of behavior? Why not more of an attempt to determine if the behavior occurred and if it does so more often? (I have no idea. I resented what occurred regarding me, funny as I thought it was, funny as it turned out--the investigator being spurned.) Why not, PM, look at the context and recognize the cheap shot by Arctic Stranger?

Am I wrong to view this as a convention of brown-nosers who can no longer think straight when their chief is being questioned?

19, 30, 33, as well as especially 23, are each uncharacteristically weakly thought out posts in service of the chief--23 having the virtue of being written by the chief himself and therefore understandable.

Both Wiedenmeyer and Polymathic Monkey are generally good commenters, and Arctic is not generally petty. What's going on?

Confirmation bias?

I think LT sets the gold standard in terms of accountability for its users. The staff is visible and active on the site. They respond directly to questions, issues, and complaints both privately and publicly. The policies are transparent, strictly adhered to , and when problems occur -- I'm thinking of the case where an online bookstore accidentally posted LT reviews without crediting them, and a few reviews they should not have had access to -- the staff was on it immediately and had things resolved within a matter of days. At the same time they are in the process of continual updates to features, continual monitoring of reported bugs, and every new change is thrown out to the LT community to hash out and vet.

And it still remains the best option for cataloging on the Internet.

There really isn't any other site I've found like it for richness of community, of data, and most importantly responsiveness of the developers. Tim and I often disagree on these forums about many things, but his vision for the goals and direction of LT is something I completely support. He's done a good thing here.

So there are two complaints;
1. LT is selling members' info to amazon as demonstrated by amazon addressing a user by a name he only uses on LT.

2. Mr Spalding has asked an unnamed member to dig up dirt on another member (Mr Harsch).

The first was clearly denied by Mr Spaulding, who stated that LT has not and will not do so.

The second was explained as someone (presumably the same unnamed user) complaining about TOS violations in a specific thread which did not involve Mr Harsch. Mr Spaulding explained that TOS violations will not be investigated by LT staff unless someone complains, so if someone came to him with a complaint, he would ask for specific examples from the complainer. He does not see LT's job as one where threads are searched for potential TOS violations.

Mr Harsch, which of these issues are you still concerned about? Are you contending that LT is being less than honest in regards to either our personal information or how they handle TOS violations? I'm having trouble following your concerns and how the skepticism of other members matters. We all use and enjoy LT and presumably trust it to some extent. I don't think it's unreasonable for unclear accusations to be regarded with less than open credulity.

Dear RG, first thanks for a thoughtful approach.

Some confusion may have arisen from my lack of real interest in the basic privacy issue (I mean as it applies here--I don't want to obfuscate by explaining my overall view of it, which begins with something like the commodification of life...), combined with my specific disgust with what Spalding did, which was ask someone I have no problem with and who has none with me to 'dig up dirt'. But that has been explained.
My current 'issue' is that I wish others besides yourself would respond with open intellect, read with open minds, think the words through.

thanks and take care

>38 RickHarsch:: "My current 'issue' is that I wish others besides yourself would respond with open intellect, read with open minds, think the words through."

I find it difficult to take these words at face value, since the only evidence you have that others aren't "responding with open intellect, reading with open minds, thinking the words through" is that they disagree with your interpretation of a string of events that remains murky at best.

It is a tenuous tolerance that only accepts the "open mind" when it agrees with you.

Nathaniel, your post reflects a diminished capacity for independent thought. Read, if you are up to it:

'"You deleted the message."

Convenient reply. People who think they are being sold out here can always leave. If they really believe that.'

Think about it. Did the poster disagree with me? Yes. Did the poster think about the issue? No. Whether or not the message was deleted would not change the fact of the behavior it indicated, would it? (And: the message was 'archived' and no longer available to me. And: it may not even have been the message in question. And: the behavior I have accused Spalding of engaging in has never been explicitly denied.)

You might also, Nathaniel, while considering that your posts mark you as a Christian and one lacking flexibility of thought thus perpetuating a long-standing bias against Christian thought, read the exchange between myself and a thoughtful poster, RG, who gives no indication that she agrees with me.

RH is right that, as an archived message, it was effectively deleted—for him anyway.

So I un-archived all archived messages, excluding private ones. (It also doesn't show comments from removed members, or which were deleted, not archived.) There were 1,877 public ones, and 3,521 private ones--the private ones will only show if you were the sender of the message, or if you're me. Having another 5,398 messages on my profile is annoying for me, and even the extra 1,877 others get is almost 1MB of data, most of it account questions. So I'll leave it up for a day or two and then archive everything, as is my periodic habit. As it's stands it's a fun walk down memory lane, as the comments extend back to 2005.

>40 RickHarsch:: "Nathaniel, your post reflects a diminished capacity for independent thought."

Now I'm confused, as my post merely pointed out the fact that entire sequence of events to which you are objecting, while perhaps clear to you, remains inexorably beyond clarity for most of us, as we don't have access to the entire record of comments that flew back and forth. All we have to go on are some scattered references and two particular interpretations of those--yours, and Tim's. We don't have an independent or verifiable record against which to judge those interpretations.

You seem convinced that, based on the incomplete data available, we should all accept your interpretation. When we point out the flaws in your argument (specifically, the fact that we don't have enough facts to determine which of you is right), we are accused of "a diminished capacity for independent thought."

My capacity for independent thought leads me to realize the following:

1. There was an incident in which you were accused of violating the TOS.
2. Comments flew back and forth both on threads (which are still accessible to all) and on profile pages (which may not be accessible to all, as some may have been "private" and others may have been archived) disputing and/or investigating those accusations.
3. The details of whatever actions were taken by the parties involved are not readily reconstructable by parties not invovled, because not all of the data is accessible. Therefore, we must rely on the reports of each party involved to determine what happened.
4. Those reports differ, specifically between you and Tim. Therefore, without other evidence, we are forced to judge which of your two reports we find the more trustworthy.
5. Some may find you more trustworthy; some may find Tim more trustworthy.
6. You accuse those who find Tim's account more trustworthy of a lack of independent and open thinking. Yet those who find your account more trustworthy are not accused of the same lack of open thinking.
7. I can only conclude that your definition of "open thinking" relies more on whether someone agrees with you than on whether their thinking really is "open".

Tim, please believe me that my personal problem with you is no longer a concern, so please don't inconvenience yourself at all on my account. (Certainly we both will take away from our encounters our own thoughts and feelings, but they are not at issue here and are changeable). If I continue to argue it is because I am disappointed with the posts that inevitably keep popping up. When they seem to require that I refer to the 'event' I do so, but at this point I would rather clean the slate between you and I. In fact, RidgewayGirl is a fair and thoughtful poster so I think her #36 is a good assessment of what is really important right now.

As a personal opinion, rather than an administrative one (note the lack of L), I'd rather wish that members seeking to defend me not fight others. While I found the attacks irritating and conspiratorial, I did what I could do to rebut them, and, well, I also hold the underlying fear--that the online world is often built on violations of privacy and data integrity.

I wish more people feared that like I do. But it can go farther than it needs to go. I've certainly overreached there before. I think most of what I've said against Amazon—and I've said a lot!—is entirely correct, but I once speculated in a very nasty way about their motives and got a rather wounded reply from one of the top people there with whom I have a personal relationship. I cannot, of course, be sure, but I really think I was in the wrong there.

Lastly, from my perspective, LibraryThing's strength and weakness is that it's run by humans. I'm more proud of this than not. We've done some things for members that few online companies would, and I don't regret any administrative choices I've made. But I'm not proud of every exchange I've had on the site. And the "humanity" of the thing can prove vertiginous to members accustomed to a sharp line between personal and official--a line I blur and will continue to blur by interacting as a member. While I won't speculate about this situation or any of the members involved, I don't think it's a coincidence that LibraryThing's harshest critics have been partisans (of both left and right) with whom I've tangled in the politics groups. If I'm going to participate as a human, I own that human blowback.

Oh, Nathaniel, how I fear for anyone who would accept you as a spokesman.

Your list:

1 is beside the point, as on the thread in question I was clearly violating TOS and don't recall arguing that point--in fact, at that time Spalding called me a repeat violator and when I asked him to display proof of that he actually did, and thoroughly, from forgotten exchanges on P/C. I don't recall any of them being miscast.
2 comments flew back and forth? if so, I had no interest in that fact. The only comment I had an interest in I came upon by accident much later.
3-5 Tim Spalding did not deny my essential claim.
6-7 Your ego (as evidenced in posts, of course) interferes with your ability to think fairly and clearly. But, then, you are not a Buddhist, a Hindu, or Taoist.

>44 timspalding: LibraryThing's strength and weakness is that it's run by humans.

Amen.

"You deleted the message."

Convenient reply. People who think they are being sold out here can always leave. If they really believe that.'

Think about it. Did the poster disagree with me? Yes. Did the poster think about the issue? No.

Did the post agree with you? No. The message was archived, not deleted. As previously pointed, a common practice for many people. (Not me, though.)

Did the poster think about the issue? Here is what the poster thought. It was explained that LT does not sell its information. It was also explained that the comment about asking a person to dig up dirt was in reference to a poster who asked that you be investigated. The response was, "I am not going on a witch hunt, but if you provide me with evidence, I will deal with it."

You seem to not agree with either of these responses. Do you think Tim is lying? Because that is the accusation you are making.

For, I hope, the last time, Spalding asked someone I had no problem with to dig up dirt (the phrase we seem to be going with) and that person told Spalding he would not do his police/dirty work for him. I don't think anyone asked Spalding to 'investigate' me. It began with him objecting to a thread that itself violated the TOS, and so:

Spalding wrote this in #17 'This approach was explained to you once before. Please reread my words to you at http://www.librarything.com/topic/152949 .'

That was him and me going back and forth as I thought he was being rude and heavy-handed and he thought I was a serial violator. He may indeed have been rude and heavy-handed, but he did provide proof that I was a frequent violator, and very quickly the matter was settled. Later I came across a note from someone with no quarrel with me telling Spalding to do his own police/dirty work.

I don't actually need to revisit anything in order to understand the TOS, nor have I indicated that I don't get it. I objected to Spalding's attempt to find something on me, or however one wishes to put it.

So, you thinking poster, your three-line paragraph has no bearing on this at all, which is why I consider what you tossed out a cheap shot. (This is from Spalding, post 41: 'RH is right that, as an archived message, it was effectively deleted—for him anyway.', and though it falls short of proving much by itself it at least exposes your cheap shot.

48> But Tim already explained that that is not what happened. So we are left with either you are lying, someone that "you had no problem with" lying, or Tim lying. Given everyone's track records here, I am going to bet that Tim is not doing the lying.

ETA: There's another option, that this is a misunderstanding, that Tim suggested above in 26, but you don't seem to want to accept that answer.

ETA2: I can't help but wonder if this isn't another of your attempts to liven things up.

#17 again: Spalding writes: 'The quote you are alluding to was made publicly, but was eventually archived from my profile. It was "do your own police work."' The quote was TO Spalding, who had asked that person about my possible violations on Le Salon, which was not at issue at the time that exchange took place. So you are write that Spalding is not doing the lying, but obviously neither am I. #26 does not posit a scenario in which the person who wrote that would have been the least involved. #26 posits a scenario in which someone asks Spalding to check out my posts. As I have said before and as Spalding has posted, the one big spat was started by a TOS violating thread that I posted. There was never any need to look into my posts on Le Salon.

By the way, you are of course calling me a liar. Rather than flag you, which accomplishes nothing, I prefer to call you out: provide an example.

49> By the way, you are of course calling me a liar.

No, I left open the possibility that there's a misunderstanding. On the other hand, aren't you calling Tim a liar?

50> Right. Someone wrote to Tim saying that someone was violating the TOS, Tim wrote back telling him to provide specifics, and the OP responded with "do your own police work".

Your making it sound like Tim asked someone out of the blue to dig up dirt on you which isn't what happened, at least not according to Tim.

merciful

#53 share the sentiments, but Wilson is too off base. The OP as you put it did not write to Spalding until Spalding wrote to him asking about my behavior in Le Salon. That has been made abundantly clear.

#49 'Given everyone's track records here, I am going to bet that Tim is not doing the lying.' Which means that I am. Again, I ask you to provide proof of my track record as a liar.

I feel compelled to add that I don't recall ever coming across such gross mis-readings and willful attacks in which the attackers have absolutely no personal part in the debate.

Just two things, Mr Harsch. You are mistaken in assuming that questioning the integrity of LT is something that the rest of us have no personal interest in. We are all deeply involved in this site. If it were credibly proven that LT was selling our personal information or that its leader was conducting witch hunts, that would affect how each of us view the site or even whether or not we participate. So the level of proof needed is high.

So far, there has been a lack of solid information, mostly to do with your anonymous informant. We have no idea of their relationship with you, LT or Mr Spalding. The action they are alleging seems unlikely -- that an admin would contact them out of the blue and ask them to comb through old threads looking for bad behavior. It doesn't fit with what is known about Mr Spalding. He isn't an idiot, at least as demonstrated by how he runs this site and how he expresses himself on LT. Political disagreements aside - this is an allegation on how he chooses to run his business (and is not demonstrated in his other dealings with members, where he has shown himself to be occasionally a wee bit cranky, but also always willing to openly engage on site issues). On a common sense level, wouldn't he go and read the Salon threads himself or ask someone who works for him to do so, rather than ask a random member who has had no dealings with him and who has never complained about TOS violations from you?

This is not to doubt your own experience, but to wonder why the anonymous member told you what they did. Are they making it up? Are they looking to enjoy a fight from the sidelines? I'm dubious that someone would make allegations such as these but be unwilling to speak up except privately to you should have their allegations taken as a matter of fact. I appreciate that they would like to remain private because speaking out publicly is daunting, but without being able to know the entire story, or even getting a clearer view of what was actually written, I don't think there's any traction here. Clearly, you trust this person and so, for you, there are ramifications and actions to be taken.

But you're asking everyone to take the alleged word of someone we don't know, that there are serious problems with LT, the kinds of issues that would make me have to rethink my involvement here, which is something that requires a really high level of proof. Personally, my entire library has been cataloged here, with careful adjustments to tags, editions and covers. I have personal notes attached to many books. The record of more than five years of my reading is here, with all of my reviews. I've made friends on LT, and I would be loathe to give that all up without being utterly convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that these things being alleged are true and not just a combination of badly worded messages of disagreement, poor communication and some error on the part of someone somewhere (regarding the leak to amazon).

It's like you've just told me my best friend is really a white supremacist who likes to impale babies on spikes in her spare time. It may be true, but I'd require some convincing.

I found the message--entirely by accident, asked the person who wrote it, and he confirmed what I suspected. That's all. And as you can see above, I have no interest in making more of it with Spalding. I am, however, sickened by the half-assed readings of my posts.

You keep saying that you want to stop, but then you insult the people on this thread. If more than a half dozen people on this thread are unable to understand what you wrote then perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem is with the writer, not the readers.

well, you fail to address any issues I bring up, so perhaps you, and perhaps the rest, are in varying degrees, in their posts only of course, ass kissers. You in your posts particularly. You've been shown that you are wrong repeatedly but haven't the honor to admit it, nor the honor to find my reputed lies. why, overwhelmed by your numbers, oh democratic hounds, should I desist?

OK, I'm done. Sorry Tim.

You lack grace, sir--in your posts, of course.

I have no real will to delve into the issue further
I've said enough

Promises, promises.

Oh, you again. What a classy dame.

(For the record, that misbegotten, classless post quoted part of my post #25--'That said, I am still here and, like I said, all this information sharing was distasteful long ago, legal or not. I have no real will to delve into the issue further and am not concerned with my own privacy.'--which has nothing to do what I have been going back and forth with people about. That had to do with the issues brought up by the OP, which are not a specific concern of mine at this point. I guess this cheap sniping the post, the post--I assume that the actual human behind the post is as worthy of MLK of a google doodle is an exception to the rule, RG?)

You lack grace, sir--in your posts, of course.

This, too, is a violation of the TOS. The proper construction would be "Your posts lack grace."

Mr. Wiedeinmeyer, your pettiness evidenced in your post, too, lacks grace--but excels in pettiness.

What motivates you?

Again, a wonderful violation of the TOS.

And I'm not petty. I'm a grand asshole.

What is your particular problem?

As for the grand asshole, I agree, and it has been as much a disappointment as can be in such a venue.

Can we please avoid violating the TOS?

Notice he said please, too...

Mr. Forum Administrator - We Must Not Allow a TOS GAP!