Forum Names

[CliveV]

Daventura - would you please control your simplistic desire to turn everything into somekind of conflict that you can sit back and enjoy the fire works. It make you a kind of "peeping tom" in my book.

Deborah has asked sensible questions in a polite manner. I have tried to answer them poltely despite the fact that she seems to be having difficulty understanding what I have said.

As for some saying what I have said being not very British - this in some ways is quite correct as every thing I have said so far is pertinent to the law of England and Wales. It is slightly different in Scotland.

 

[Daventura]

Can you have a peeping Tom in a public forum?

 

[Daventura]

Me thinks Deborah is not the only one who is having trouble in understanding what you say.

 

[CliveV]

Spot on Mathew - and thank you

Deboroh - I am now not sure that you are who you say you are. Anybody with a real knowledge of the law would not say what you have just said to Mathew ( it is incorrect on two counts) and also you seem to delight in suggesting wrongdoing in others then appologising quickly thereafter.

Again may I suggest that you take a little time to fully research what you say before "putting pen to paper" so to speak.

And please do not be offended by my (abrupt) use of English. In the commercial world the niceties that exist in normal communication are often sacrificed for speed, accuaracy and clarity.

 

[CliveV]

Based on what has gone before - that is really not a surprize to me.

 

[Daventura]

How do you mean Clive?

 

[CliveV]

I had hoped you had enough synapses to fire to work it out yourself.

 

[Daventura]

No, enlighten me.

 

[CliveV]

No I do not think so - Your childish games have become rather tedious. Find someone else more of your own age to play with

 

[hank_5075878]

Clive, Hiya Buddy! This is Hank, are you from the good old US of A just like me? The reason I ask is that many words you spell are the American spelling and I am eager to make some new American friends.

Have a nice day!

 

[Lutz]

Eh? American spelling? Couldn't find any evidence of that anywhere. The occasional misspelling yes, but where was there any Americanism?

Strikes me this thread is diverging ever further from the subject of caravanning.

 

[Deborah_5075490]

Sorry I missed a point or to be more accurate - you have Deborah.

I am not sure now many ways I can say this before it sinks in?

I did not require personal data - just the address.

Clive, I think you may have missed the point. From what I have been told by a network manager it is only possible to find the address from the recipients computer, in this case it is the server/s at pc magazine. I have previously stated this and yet you avoid answering my question. There is, I am told only two ways of finding the information, one is legal using the courts and one is not legal.

You have said that you knew the work address of someone.

How did you come by that information? Please clarify.

 

[CliveV]

Agreed Lutz - this latest silliness was a subtle as an air-raid.

I appreciate your comments a great deal.

My thanks

 

[Caroline3]

Right line drawn!!!! don't reply to this and Clive just go away and annoy someone else. It is a pity the moderator hasn't deleted this whole thread but we are all sick and tired of it coming to the top every time. So please do not reply to this so it will fall to the bottom as the moderator wanted us all to in the begining- police it ourselves!

Congratulation Clive I believe you had the last word which I suspect is all you wanted!

 

[Matthew_5040954]

Deborah

First I would like an apology for being accused of been a hacker, which I am not and secondly, the freedom of information act has nothing to do with accessing personal data but is as I said previously to do with giving people rights to access information. Just because I used the word information doesn't mean I was saying personal information, if as you claim this was part of you role you would know this.

 

[Deborah_5075490]

Matthew, If you would care to read the comment I posted earlier in the day in reply to your posting, I think you will find an apology and explaination of the freedom of information act.

My apologies to other forum users for not posting this in comments as no one seems to read the replies in comments.

 

[Deborah_5075490]

Caroline I sympathise with your last posting, but there is a serious issue at stake here and that is why i am being so persistent with my questions.

The issue is about a persons privacy and this includes all of us on this forum. Would you want Clive or anyone else for that matter, being able to find out who you are and where you live and who knows what else? That is invasion of privacy and can only be done in two ways and only one of which is legal and involves a court and legal proceedings.

I hope this helps and in no way do I want to annoy you. if my persistence has annoyed you please accept my apologies, but if only Clive would give me a straight forward answer instead of quoting legal cases, this would be cleared up in a trice.

 

[Deborah_5075490]

Clive I think you may have missed my reply in the comments today, so I am posting it here so that it is more easily seen. if you had read it and chose not to reply, my apologies, it is a free country after all!

Clive, I think you may have missed the point. From what I have been told by a network manager it is only possible to find the address from the recipients computer, in this case it is the server/s at pc magazine. I have previously stated this and yet you avoid answering my question. There is, I am told only two ways of finding the information, one is legal using the courts and one is not legal.

You have said that you knew the work address of someone.

How did you come by that information? Please clarify.

 

[CliveV]

Deborah - I think by now you really must realise that Mathew and I have answered your question. And incidently I do not know Mathew or have any connection with him whatsoever other than his input on this Forum.

The problem is you are getting confused between the release of personal data and the identification of the sender.

The two are very different. Until you understand this basic fact you will sadly remain confused. I am sorry to be so blunt but "there is none so blind as those who will not see"

(I put the latter bit in as I know how much Big Boy appreciates such quotes)

 

[BigRoy]

Deborah - I think by now you really must realise that Mathew and I have answered your question. And incidently I do not know Mathew or have any connection with him whatsoever other than his input on this Forum.

The problem is you are getting confused between the release of personal data and the identification of the sender.

The two are very different. Until you understand this basic fact you will sadly remain confused. I am sorry to be so blunt but "there is none so blind as those who will not see"

(I put the latter bit in as I know how much Big Boy appreciates such quotes)

Thank you very much for my daily dose of culture, godlike almost godlike. I'm making a note of all your quotations in case I ever need to address the nation, however the original question remains un-answered, have you ever thought about becoming a politician?

 

[Deborah_5075490]

Clive I do not mind your bluntness at all, but I do mind you complete avoidance of my question.

You have stated that you know the work address of an individual.

I have stated that it is not possible to find this out from your personal computer only from the recipients computer this being the pc server/s.

I have asked you if you have a court order to do this, you have stated that you have not.

I have asked and am asking you again to clarify how you have found out the persons work address without resorting to illegal means of hacking.

A quote for you in response to yours "The pain of dispute exceeds, by much, its utility. All disputation makes the mind deaf, and when people are deaf I am dumb."

 

[CliveV]

Deborah - I really do not what else to say.

I have answerred your question - you just do not seem to understand or believe the answer. I cannot go any further because the identified "end point" quite reasonably requested the non-disclosure agreement which as they are equally an innocent party in all this we had no hesitation in signing.

Once and for ALL! We did not break any laws whatsoever to achieve what we did.

I think now you just have to accept that. Your continuing to "fish" for the answer that you want rather than the correct one given here (and by Mathew I might add) does you no credit.

As I have said before - please consult an expert in this field if you want more answers.

 

[Deborah_5075490]

Deboroh - I am now not sure that you are who you say you are. Anybody with a real knowledge of the law would not say what you have just said to Mathew ( it is incorrect on two counts) and also you seem to delight in suggesting wrongdoing in others then appologising quickly thereafter.

Again may I suggest that you take a little time to fully research what you say before "putting pen to paper" so to speak.

And please do not be offended by my (abrupt) use of English. In the commercial world the niceties that exist in normal communication are often sacrificed for speed, accuaracy and clarity.

Clive sorry i missed this reply.

Firstly I would be greatful if you would spell my name correctly or are you inferring some sort of insult as you do with Big Roy (boy)?

Regarding your comment I only made one point to matthew and not two as you have stated, and that point is quite correct I can assure you.

 

[CliveV]

Deborah - I think by now you really must realise that Mathew and I have answered your question. And incidently I do not know Mathew or have any connection with him whatsoever other than his input on this Forum.

The problem is you are getting confused between the release of personal data and the identification of the sender.

The two are very different. Until you understand this basic fact you will sadly remain confused. I am sorry to be so blunt but "there is none so blind as those who will not see"

(I put the latter bit in as I know how much Big Boy appreciates such quotes)

Hi Big Roy - appologies if I seem a little cranky but some of the obtuse postings on this Forum just beg for sharp responce.

I mean no disrespect when "talking" on this Forum but I am aware that the brevity and succinctness of my responces can upset some and yes - maybe I should wait a bit longer sometimes before winging off a retort.

The only thing I can say in my defence is that if you saw the workload and what we do in this office and the pace at which it is done then maybe it would be understandable.

Suggesting I may like to be a politician REALLY HURTS!!!!

So clearly I have upset you - sincere apologies if I have. I meant nothing against you personaly at all.

But for you to think that - a politician??? Ugh!

 

[CliveV]

Clive sorry i missed this reply.

Firstly I would be greatful if you would spell my name correctly or are you inferring some sort of insult as you do with Big Roy (boy)?

Regarding your comment I only made one point to matthew and not two as you have stated, and that point is quite correct I can assure you.

Dear Debby

This is rich comming from someone who is chucking accusations about willy-nilly!

If you knew what I was talking about - you would understand the ref. to two "counts".

You may have made a single point - but it is wrong on two counts.

Hope this is the end to it now Please!