kwackers wrote:bovlomov wrote:Well, you began by suggesting that my friend could have changed his privacy settings, even though I'd clearly said that he didn't have a Facebook account.
So if he doesn't have a FB account then I don't see the problem.
That much is clear. I outlined exactly the problem.
Sure someone can write "Joe Bloggs in The Swann" but if they don't want to be seen to be there then why would they be with someone who could take a picture? Why would they be in a public place? Even without FB people still talk to each other.
You just seem so intent on proving what you believe you'll invent any scenario you can think to prove it.
The scenario happened. I didn't invent it. I can't help it if you fail to understand why a global database of people's movements could present any kind of unfortunate outcomes - or if you can't see the difference between people talking to each other and people posting on Facebook.
You answer my points with irrelevant points and then when I query what you've printed you shout "straw man".
It's a bit like my pointing out that folk should cycle carefully and that leaving earlier rather than cycling carelessly would be a good thing - rather than accept that point you launch into a nonsensical argument about how they might have sleep issues and can't get up earlier!
Again, would you be so kind as to direct me to my post on this matter? You have repeated this, so I suppose it must have upset you greatly. You really need to find the quote, so that I can see where I've gone wrong, if indeed I have.
EDIT: I've searched for the offending post, but cannot find it. Perhaps I haven't been using the right search terms. Or perhaps it wasn't my post at all. The mystery deepens.EDIT: There was a heated discussion on the subject recently, but I wasn't part of it. That's probably why I had no memory of making those nonsensical arguments. Glad to have cleared myself!In any case, it is nothing to do with the subject in hand.
kwackers wrote:bovlomov wrote:I disputed that an outcome was "all good", as you had claimed, and you twisted that into a suggestion that I would have preferred that AC and FB weren't found out.
As above; my comment "all good" was entirely about the fact they had been found out and that things would change, but you couldn't simply accept that, nope, you had to claim that it wasn't "all good" and come up with another load of nonsense.
Well, no. I simply pointed out that damage wasn't undone by the culprits being found out. Again, that obviously upset you, for reasons I don't understand.
kwackers wrote:bovlomov wrote:You suggested I would be wrong if I believed something that I had never even hinted at, and then asked whether I was on this forum for a reason that you had imagined out of thin air.
Imagined? Why are you on the forum then if it's not because it's a bunch of like minded folk? For the arguments?
You asked whether I was here because it is an "echo-chamber" for my "cyclist-centric beliefs". Now you ask whether it is "for the arguments".
Neither (you present a rather polarised choice). I am here for discussion. I enjoy reading other people's opinions, and sometimes disagreeing with them. Usually it happens in a more civil atmosphere than this. Your comment, that I should 'get over it', seems to be motivated by a desire to stop such discussion. End of!
kwackers wrote:bovlomov wrote:A bunch of non sequiturs, insinuations, straw men and insults, in other words.
As opposed fairy tales.
Would you like me to post some links about the dangers of social media? For the record, you don't have to assume that I am advocating a complete ban, or that I think that social media is an inherently bad thing. I wouldn't want you to think that.