G. Morgan wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>
>> Defining what constitutes "real-lifing" is where the problem
>> arises--I am in complete disagreement with most of the denizens of
>> auk (many of whom are currently on sabbatical until the litigation
>> ends) about what constitutes real-lifing, but I will say this: What
>> BD does definitely fits my definition.
>
> For my benefit, would you summarize the AUK'ers opinion?

Short version is that there are folks in these parts who do not practice
what they preach (i.e., lip service paid to what you wrote below, but
not carried out in practice--it's only "real-lifing" if it's done to one
of the "in" group). They, of course, would disagree with this
assessment.

> My theory is, if I posted it... it's fair game and can be used in a
> flame-war. Now, if it extends to actual harassment (like interfering
> with someone's work, or a fake LEO tip) that's definitely off-limits.

Agreed.

> In instances where we (tinw) gave/received trust (email, FB, Twitter)
> is also privileged and out-of-bounds.

Agreed, although I have a very funny story about this.

> Public databases are a tough one. It's not hard to lookup 'D' and 3
> clicks later post a street-view. I can see why that would piss him
> off, certainly; but are all these public databases blameless? My
> information is all over, I can't hide if I wanted too. But so is all
> of our info! In fact, if you don't have an online presence it's seen
> as 'odd' by potential employers now. (got that from a Monster.com
> article)

The answer is simple enough: avoid the ultimate in ad hom--address the
post, not the poster.

You can find out anything about anyone by using a public database, but
personal information does not belong here, particularly in the context
of a flame war.