Privacy Laws

[matauri]

I have a potential client that wants a database covering employees who have taken their employers for a ride. In other words, fake compo claims, unfair dismissal claims, thefts, etc, etc. They want to be able to charge employers a fee to access this database, which they would be able to do before they employed anyone. The whole idea behind it is that employers will be able to do a reference check to see if an applicant has caused problems for employers before.

Aparently, because the names of these troublesome employees are usually listed in the newspapers when court cases are happening, that there isn't meant to be any laws being broken over any privacy issues.

I kind of liken it to lists that are available of child molesters living in certain localities. I remeber hearing for a time that they could have been causing privacy issues, but it seems that most still went ahead & did it with no recourse against them.

Anyone have any info, or know of where to look in regards to publishing things like this on the net (it would only be done with subscriptions...not open market). If its already in public print media (i.e. newspapers) does that make the information publicly available?

All thoughts appreciated :-)



Cindy

[rocky1]

Although yours is not a position to judge in this matter, but rather to simply build a website, and I'm not going to suggest what you should do one way or the other. What about those unfortunate few that have been victimized by their employer, and cast aside by the system?

[wenwilder]

They wouldn't be the first ones to attempt to put a list like that together. There are a lot of Anti-fraud associations and organizations.

I have to wonder what they would base their 'do not employ' decision on? One mistake, two mistakes? Dishonest claims or what they believe was a dishonest claim?

When you put people in control of judging other people someone is always wrong.

[matauri]

Better clarify this....

No, they wont be making any opinions on the site. How they want it is... when an employer subscriber enters a name of an intended applicant, that all courts cases, etc, and court decisions involving action against employers be listed next to their name. There would be no recommendation whether to hire them or not, it would be purely factual about actual cases & decisions. Not how many times they have been fired, etc.

So, it could work both ways. Employers could get listed as having lost cases, employees could use it as well for checking on potential employers.



Cindy

[minstrel]

This could well be a can of worms.

For one thing, depending on the laws of your country (and knowing little about those in Oz other than that they all end with, "okay that's done... beer?"), you may find a requirement for a clear disclosure and rectify process, i.e., to open up the database to anyone listed in it for corrections. Yes, you are basing the database on matters of public record but:

(1) credit information is at least semi-public too and it is notorious for errors - most jurisdictions specify mechanisms forcing disclosure of credit information and procedures for correcting that information
(2) when does the information expire? even those with a criminal record eventually get to apply for a pardon in most cases
(3) identification of sex offenders IS a violation of civil rights - it's just that most courts have decided that the civil rights of the offenders CAN be violated if there is an issue of public safety that takes precedence - I think it would be difficult to make that argument for the data you're talking about
(4) who guarantees that information provided to the database is current and accurate? what if an individual is convicted, entered into the database, and later found not guilty on appeal? what guarantee is there that the database will be updated to expunge the conviction, not simply to update it? what's to stop an angry employer from providing false or distorted data to the database?
(5) if the data is to be taken primarily or even partially from newspapers, heaven help us all! I have been involved in enough court cases to know that the resemblance between what is published in the press and what I observed is purely coincidental - that could open your clients up to some serious litigation unless they could prove they took steps to independently veirfy the data.

Be afraid... be very afraid...

...or take the money and run... especially if you can take the money under the name mikmik or carbonize or wen, or really almost anyone here except me.. :o)

[carju1]

Cindy,

As your just the builder here you can ignore the 'liberals issues' as the site owner will have to worry about them. You need to make a simple decision do I want to build this type of site and take the money or not. Assuming the answer is yes then you need to cover yourself by:

State in the contract that all data is the owners and not your responsibility.
Don't handle real data do all your testing with fake info and get the owner to input real data.
Make sure the contract states that all data confidentialliy and legal issues are the responisibility of the owner.
If you know a good data protection laywer spend a couple of hundred bucks and get them to check your OK.

Julian

[mikmik]

matauri, how do YOU feel about being a part of it? If I doubt the integrity or possibility of some wrongs occcuring, I can feel not very comfortable with myself. It depends a lot on your values and understanding of what is going on.

If you were going to get paid pretty good or great money to build a database that, say, geologists and surveyers etc contribute to for scientific, or pure knowledge gathering reasons, yet the findings could eventually help some mining companies thrash the enviornment and extinct a small population of 'gerbils', the last of their kind, well/ How would you sleep? Big money vs couple dozen critters of not much importance?
Maybe, I don't know, most people would have little personal consequence, and it is easy to justify if you concentrate on the money, but how really do you feel.
I'm not trying silliness, I have strong belief's about hurting anything, even for a greater good, but what's it worth to you.I have a hard time with these issues for wen, rocky and minstrels reasons.
How about whales and International security/terrorism re: navy sonar testing?
YOU DECIDE. If it's just a legal issue, then this is the right way to find out risk.

Where did I get this bloody conscience! Hope it doesn't cost me to much money!

[carju1]

Mik,

If it was animals then I'm guessing its a no brainer for Cindy and the site wouldn't be done. This however isn't animals its a database of people and companies who have cheated, lied and defrauded their employers/employees. In this case I would be concerned of the legal site of things not the moral side.

I'd feel happier as both an employer (I sometimes bring in 3rd parties for contract work) if I could check this and as an employee I'm happier to know that my employer has checked that my co-worker didn't get fired for stealling his co-workers purses in a previous job. Yes sometimes information is wrong on these type of databases but the majority of people included on this type of thing are there for a valid reason. DO you want to work with someone who was fired for trying to grope the mail boy in the store room!!!!!!

Julian

[mikmik]

carjul wrote:
If it was animals then I'm guessing its a no brainer for Cindy and the site wouldn't be done. This however isn't animals its a database of people and companies who have cheated, lied and defrauded their employers/employees. In this case I would be concerned of the legal site of things not the moral side.
That's my point , exactly, carjul.
The animal thing is a no brainer the other wayfor way for other people. I was trying to point out exactly that there is no right or wrong, fundamentally. If you value money, everything is a no brainer. What is Important, I was saying, is that she feels comfortable with her desicion, not wether it is 'right or wrong' in someone elses eyes.


As the others pointed out as well, there are two side to the story, maybe it isn't possible to not hurt someone who is innocent 'cause no matter what, someone will.
Is SHE comfortable with that, if that's how she see's it.
In my example, I might not get involved because no matter what, I would doubt if I was right. I don't want to condone something that is fundamentally flawed. But she has to be happy with her dicision, not 'justified'

Of course I would do it to, if only justice was served.

What about someone who stole only Once and got caught, maybe their wife was having an affair an it was a cry out, and they are the most trustworthy person around, but someone who is a 'pro' never got caught and the database 'provrs' he is the trustworthy one. What if someone has learned their lesson and paid their dues, do they keep paying because some fear-mongers decided to 'pretend they were doing something useful' to ease their voters?
That's what the justice system in a democracy is for, they decide what is just due. Havew you never done something that others might consider dispicable. Or are you perfect in everyones eyes. Who is to be the final judge. I don't want to be killed or have my life screwed up due to some 'Board of neo-conservatives (hey, you said liberal)

You also said
DO you want to work with someone who was fired for trying to grope the mail boy in the store room!!!!!!
My point exactly!!! you are already justifying the fear of theft by using a sexual predator as an example? I dont see the relationship. And I wouldn't cbe bothered a bit, because If he tried anything, I would stop it and deal with it then. I'm 'secure', not afraid. Every where you look these days, people are peddling fear, and it bothers me. It is the oppocite of understanding, humanity, and rational thought.

[carju1]

I was trying to point out exactly that there is no right or wrong, fundamentally. If you value money, everything is a no brainer. What is Important, I was saying, is that she feels comfortable with her desicion, not wether it is 'right or wrong' in someone elses eyes.
I agree with you here there is no right or wrong, but I'm sure Cindy will be comfortable with her decision (She isn't exactly Ms shy'n'retiring :) Where do you draw the line though. I have spent the last years doing web stuff for Nissan. They are a good company, care for employees etc. BUT they build cars. Cars kill people, use resources to build and petrol to run, do I say no!. If you take it to the extreme then every web site is evil, you need a computer to build them and view them, computers consume resources to be built and electricity to run......



As the others pointed out as well, there are two side to the story, maybe it isn't possible to not hurt someone who is innocent 'cause no matter what, someone will.....What about someone who stole only Once and got caught, maybe their wife was having an affair an it was a cry out, and they are the most trustworthy person around, but someone who is a 'pro' never got caught and the database 'provrs' he is the trustworthy one. What if someone has learned their lesson and paid their dues, do they keep paying because some fear-mongers decided to 'pretend they were doing something useful' to ease their voters?
No system of this kind is perfect but I think its better to put up with a very small % of wronged innocents and stop the much much larger % of guilties who could go on to hurt the innocents you employ.


...Or are you perfect in everyones eyes. Who is to be the final judge. I don't want to be killed or have my life screwed up due to some 'Board of neo-conservatives (hey, you said liberal) Oh course I'm perfect :) LOL 95% of my attitudes fit into the liberals camp not the conservatives so no probs with that one.


...you are already justifying the fear of theft by using a sexual predator as an example? I dont see the relationship. And I wouldn't cbe bothered a bit, because If he tried anything, I would stop it and deal with it then. I'm 'secure', not afraid. Every where you look these days, people are peddling fear, and it bothers me. It is the oppocite of understanding, humanity, and rational thought.
Taking this thought outside of Cindys' problem. You and I are secure 'older' people who could deal with this if it arose. However the majority (or a least a significant minority) don't have the social skills or personality to deal with it and it is a problem in the work place. Yes people are peddling fear but why? 2 main reasons. Firstly with global media we are exposed to more information; 50 years ago unless it 'happened' in your town and was covered by the local paper you didn't know about it; now we know everything that happens all over the world so even if it's not happening more we hear about it more = more fear. Secondly the world is a more dangerous place, more guns, more violence, more problems, all = more fear. I can try to understand the motives behind a mass murderer but I don't want to I want them locked away from me and mine. I can try and offer humanity to the mass murderer but what humanity can I offer to his victims. What more rational thought process can I get than a)this person kills people, b)that is not the normal or acceptable behaviour in the society I inhabit, c) remove them from my society.

Julian - A liberal at heart but I'd rather save a whale than a mass murderer

[matauri]

OK...full scale ethical discussion goin on here. Time to reign it in :-)

1. The db is NOT for reporting on someones whole life. Criminal records wont be included unless related to employment. The sole purpose of the site is for employers to know who are compo cheats, have a sueable history with employers, etc. Also, for employees to see which employers have been taken to court & for what. How the user wants to deal with the information is up to them. Information will be supplied viz court records & their archives.

2.
I'm sure Cindy will be comfortable with her decision (She isn't exactly Ms shy'n'retiring :)

Actually....IRL I am :-) But, if something too unethical, I wouldn't partake in it. We can call all kinds of things in life unethical. Julian with the cars is a prime example. Would I do a Mistubishi site? Yes. Even though I have protested against them in regards to the destruction of rainforests & have been involved in a class action suit against them. My fight is against their practices, not the cars they sell, because they sell quite good cars.

3. You can have a certain amount of morals in business, but you can't go over board. Or you would be condemming all kinds of clients. While it would be utopia to be able to pick clients that suit your convictions, in reality we really dont have that luxury. We bite our tongues & do the job. I hate how alcholism causes domestic violence, but I owned & served the alcohol in the pub.

4. As a business owner I HAVE been sued in the past for unfair dismissal. The whole town & staff wanted my bar manager gone because he was rude to staff. In Oz it is virtually impossible to impossible to sack someone, unless you spend many hours & much money paying for the employees screw ups, & their counselling. I ended up having to pay my old employee $6000 for being a jerk & losing me money. So do I see an ethical problem with this kind of site. No. I wish I could have used one to find out this guy had done it to other employers b4.

5. I am more interested in the legal complexities of publishing this kind of info on net, so I can advise the client b4 I go ahead with it.


But thank you guys for worrying about my conscience & ethics...very cute ! :-)



Cindy

[wenwilder]

You two are making mountains out of mole hills here. Not to be mean.

Cindy has been asked to create a database - an inanimate object full of theoretically correct information - Not all information is 'correct' because it is one sided.

Yes, Cindy is going to have to be comfortable with her decision. She has to make the choice. I've never seen Cindy as a 'victim', she's to outspoken, out going, and intelligent for that delusion.

Nissan building cars? People make a CHOICE to purchase a car, no one forces them too. Natural resources are used everyday for "the betterment of mankind" or to make our lives easier.

The database Cindy has been asked to create will make employers lives easier - knowing who has wronged other companies and why is something employers may want to know - personally I wouldn't care. Have they commited murder? Sexual Assualt? Those are things I would care about. And yes, it is a judgement call that could still place a 'label' on someone justifiably innocent. How many people are going to believe innocence when they see a 'label' first?

Right or wrong doesn't matter here, human nature becomes the question. Labels are always seen before the people are, but who has a right to provide that label?

Sorry about referring to you in the third person Cindy....I'm putting a way my soapbox now. :)

[matauri]

I've never seen Cindy as a 'victim', she's to outspoken, out going, and intelligent for that delusion.

LOL..I got you guys fooled hey!! :-)



Sorry about referring to you in the third person Cindy....

Thats OK Wen...I was beginning to think I wasnt here anyway. ooo....come to think of it, I'm not ;-)



Cindy

[cyanide]

You two are making mountains out of mole hills here. Not to be mean.
hmm, have to disagree there.

No certainly, we're not talking about hard-core law-breakers, however this database/site could still turn into a problematic situation.

There was a court-case I read about recently. A young lady filed a law-suit alleging her employer, a wealthy CEO of one of the largest companies here of sexual harrassment. I think it ended settling out of court for six-figures.

But, what happens here? Does the girl's name get thrown into the database? Settling out of court could almost be considered an admission of guilt, but still put misery into the life of this person.

Another incident incolved an employee after leaving his job, (reason unknown) but after a couple months had difficulty obtaining another job. He started to suspect that his former employer was giving a bad reference. He employed a friend to call for a reference, posing as a prospective new employer and during the call recorded this former-employer essentially slandering this guy. With this ammo in hand, he filed a law-suit, essentially contending the employer was preventing him from earning a living.
He won !

So now where are we?
I know that if someone called me and said my name was in this database, methinks, the first call I'm going to make is to my lawyer. Have this person grab a few more names and I'm on my way to a class-action slander suit.

Ofcourse, trying to look at this objectionally, because really, I would love to have such a great screening tool.

As mentioned above, Matauri, if you do go ahead, keeping your distance would be wise.
Could turn into a legal nightmare.
All it takes is 1 person to be peeved

[matauri]

You bring up some good points there Cyanide. I might just raise those with the client.

I am wondering if there was just the persons name & say incidences, but not specifics listed.
Joe Bloggs : 2 compo claims, 2 lawsuits.
That leaves the onus on the employee applicant to explain them. And ditto for businesses.
Would that be a softer approach?


Cindy

[minstrel]

This however isn't animals its a database of people and companies who have cheated, lied and defrauded their employers/employees. In this case I would be concerned of the legal site of things not the moral side.
Except... that should read "its a database of people and companies who have allegedly cheated, lied and defrauded their employers/employees".

Which is the problem - there are appeals and wrongful convictions and wrongful lawsuits...

[minstrel]

You two are making mountains out of mole hills here. Not to be mean. Cindy has been asked to create a database - an inanimate object full of theoretically correct information - Not all information is 'correct' because it is one sided.


The database Cindy has been asked to create will make employers lives easier - knowing who has wronged other companies and why is something employers may want to know - personally I wouldn't care. Have they commited murder? Sexual Assualt? Those are things I would care about. And yes, it is a judgement call that could still place a 'label' on someone justifiably innocent. How many people are going to believe innocence when they see a 'label' first?

Right or wrong doesn't matter here, human nature becomes the question. Labels are always seen before the people are, but who has a right to provide that label?
Aren't you contradicting yourself here, wen? You're right - how many people will see someone as innocent after the label has been applied? THAT is the problem - you have a legal (not to mention moral) obligation to ensure that the data is acurate and proveable before you publicly proclaim it - if not, even leaving aside the moral and ethical questions, you are legally vulnerable (as in slander and libel litigation).

[minstrel]

I am wondering if there was just the persons name & say incidences, but not specifics listed.
Joe Bloggs : 2 compo claims, 2 lawsuits.
That leaves the onus on the employee applicant to explain them. And ditto for businesses.
Would that be a softer approach?
Softer perhaps... but not better - worse in fact.

Instead of seeing "Joe is a bad employee because he made personal long-distance calls and charged then to the company and he stole office supplies", the new solution would just say, "Joe's a bad employee". Its very vagueness is unfair to the accused - if I say, "you're a thief because on July 12 you stole my wallet and my watch", you have an opportunity to defend yourself. If I say "you're a thief, never mind why I think that", you've got less to bite into.

And as for, "That leaves the onus on the employee applicant to explain them", that's one of the parts I have a problem with. The label or slur is already there and now the employee has to defend himelf/herself against something that may have little basis in fact.

[matauri]

But in effect is it very different from online credit rating services? The very same of all of the above can be included among those too.

But I think the point that is missing here is.... this is all already as public record. You guys must have 'freedom of information' acts over there? I can go to the Library in the city & look up information on nearly anyone. I know I do it a lot with my genealogical research. (tho I know canada has a 50yr law or something). You can do court record searches, credit searches, and newspaper archives (all court appearances have to be advertized in newspaper).

Isnt all this is doing is giving a potential employer/employee an easy avenue in which to do it in?



Cindy

[rocky1]

I certainly didn't mean to get this thread headed off in the wrong direction with the initial reply, however the discussion going on is clearly beneficial in one respect. Given the positions and opinions expressed herein by our select group, who as a rule get along and play well with one another, it is clearly evident that one of litigous inclination, with the assistance of a well versed attorney, might likely find grounds to instigate litigation on the basis of slander against any and all parties involved in such a matter, whether it be public record or not, to let the courts decide where blame and liability lies. Wherein, whether you win or lose, costs are incurred in the defense of your position, irregardless of guilt, and the decision of a jury is at best unpredictable. As has been pointed out elsewhere, awards are given every day for such ludicrous claims; you are liable for having sold a cup of HOT coffee, and allowed the claimant to burn themself with it, because the claimant was clumsy, or because you built a gun that was stolen, sold on the black market, and then unlawfully used to harm or kill someone.

At this point my concern would be, as Cindy just tried to point out above, not whether it is morally or ethically correct to build the site, but whether my ass could be construed in any shape, form, or fashion as; liable for having built the site.

And, that having been established, I again point to the cases of our happy hamburger chain, and the assorted gun manufacturers. In my eyes they are in no way even remotely liable, however an attorney somehow convinced a jury that they were. Wherein, the question afforded us all in this controversial matter is, would we assume the risks inherit to development of this site? And, are you willing to assume that risk, Cindy?

[matauri]

oh dear...I have a feeling that this has turned into whether I should or shouldnt build it :-)

Sorry guys...that isnt where I was heading. I actually have the clients best interest in question also. They rang me this morning explaining what they want to do. Being in unknown waters I advised them I was going to put my feelers out to see any ramifications. They are involved with security themselves, but inexperienced in legalities of the internet. So I am going to go back to them with everything discussed here.

I know my @ss is covered legally, I was more concerned about them.

Ethically speaking, I have always been upfront with employers about any stuff ups in my past. It has never stopped me getting a job, I think in most cases they appreciate my honesty. If a person is up front when applying for a job, the employer prob wouldnt have reason to use it anyway. And I do think in our suable society that there are some good employers getting a raw deal these days. I know of someone who has an employee that has just put in their 3rd compo claim in 4 weeks. They would love to know if this person has a history of this.

In regards to comebacks against client..... if the sources were referenced, what are they guilty of?

Thanks to everyone for your valuable input :-)


Given the positions and opinions expressed herein by our select group, who as a rule get along and play well with one another, it is clearly evident that one of litigous inclination, with the assistance of a well versed attorney, might likely find grounds to instigate litigation on the basis of slander against any and all parties involved in such a matter, whether it be public record or not, to let the courts decide where blame and liability lies.

That was such a looooong sentence Rocky :-)



Cindy

[minstrel]

In regards to comebacks against client..... if the sources were referenced, what are they guilty of?
That depends very much on the reference/source - see my comments above about newspapers. If you are actively disseminating information that is false, not realizing it is false may not be a defence against legal and financial responsibility, unless it is clearly stated that you don't know it to be true.

Example: Rocky tells me, "Cindy is really Canadian and just pretending to be Australian." If I then post on the web that "Cindy is really Canadian" and Cindy takes offense, I may be liable for damages. If I say, "Rocky told me that Cindy is Canadian", I am probably just as liable because at that point I am just spreading unsupported or unverified allegations. I might mitigate that by instead posting "I have heard that Cindy is really Canadian but I have not verified that", but I wouldn't want to rely on that to save my financial bacon.

[matauri]

OK...can the newpapers. What about court records, etc?

<< gives Minstrel evil eye for even using example of her being a Canadian >>> ;-)


Cindy

[minstrel]

OK...can the newpapers. What about court records, etc?

<< gives Minstrel evil eye for even using example of her being a Canadian >>> ;-)


Cindy
Even there, I'd be worried, but if the clients insist on doing this, I would advise them:

1. use information ONLY from public court documents and clearly state this as your policy
2. specify clearly, everywhere possible on the page, in blinking garish text, that the source for the information is court document such-and-such, so anyone else can go and verify the info if they question it
3. specify clearly, everywhere possible on the page, in blinking garish text, how anyone who believes the information is erroneous or even partially incorrect can correct the information and then MAKE SURE the correction is posted - even if you're not sure about the correction, post (for example) "Court record #12345-OZ indicates that Cindy is really Canadian. However, please note that Cindy (aka that car-chasing dill) disputes the accuracy of this information." (Okay, don't actually call them a "car-chasing dill" or you'll be sued for a different reason - probably by the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Dills".)

[carju1]

Cindy is the DB just for use in Australia, by Austrailians, containing Australian court records? 'Cos if it is the rest of us non-Aus Dils (From cartoon strip char Dilburt?) can whitter all day but we know nothing about Aussie libel laws <Insert Aussie joke of choice here>.

Pesonally I would think that a DB of public records would be OK. But that is from a European perspective and I would bet that a European court would not allow someone to sue if the records were accurate transcripts of court records. If I was building this for a US customer then - heaven knows as Rocky says it was HOT coffee. But Aussies laws? I have no idea and you are the only Aus on here.

My advice; get your client to check with a lawyer,
and make sure the contract distances you from content. You however will have to make sure you comply with data protection laws when setting up the security on the DB.


oh dear...I have a feeling that this has turned into whether I should or shouldnt build it :-)
Of course it has, this is us ;) We always look at the whole picture including extrateresial life hacking your data, para-normal activity by alleged employer defrauders, which beer your client drinks and wether or not a years supply of Jello is adequet renumeration for a DB.

Julian

[rocky1]

I didn't mean to infer that it be a "should or shouldn't you build it" situation, either. I meant only, that I would seriously question the potential liabilities, and ramifications of such, incurred in building a site of this nature.

In that you repeatedly reference individuals that have filed questionable "compo" claims, you must realize, that you are dealing with indivduals of litiguous nature to begin with, whereby the risks of being sued for your involvment are far greater. If they are listed for filing those claims by the employer, and the claims were awarded by compo although questionable, there already lies some credibility in their claim in the eyes of the court. And, in your having ethically reproduced an employer's report in this site, although it be a matter of public record, you support a certain degree of slander against the employee, as such! Wherein, the example Minstrel offers above holds very true.

This goes back to earlier suggestions that you might want to create the site using strictly sample information, turn it over to the owner, and walk away from it, to protect yourself, if you fully intend to develop it.


That was such a looooong sentence Rocky :-)

I know!... I learned that trait in dealing with attorneys for the last 5 years. You might want to think things through real well! }:^B

[matauri]

Of course it has, this is us ;) We always look at the whole picture including extrateresial life hacking your data, para-normal activity by alleged employer defrauders, which beer your client drinks and wether or not a years supply of Jello is adequet renumeration for a DB.


(for example) "Court record #12345-OZ indicates that Cindy is really Canadian. However, please note that Cindy (aka that car-chasing dill) disputes the accuracy of this information." (Okay, don't actually call them a "car-chasing dill" or you'll be sued for a different reason - probably by the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Dills".)

I knew it wouldnt take long for the insanity to creep in ;-)



In that you repeatedly reference individuals that have filed questionable "compo" claims, you must realize, that you are dealing with indivduals of litiguous nature to begin with, whereby the risks of being sued for your involvment are far greater.

Good point !!!!

And I do appreciate you all watching my rear end...so to speak ;-)



Cindy

[carju1]

I knew it wouldnt take long for the insanity to creep in ;-)

Its the insanity that keeps us sane, but theres always a gold nugget somewhere in amongst our insanity ;)

Julian

[minstrel]

And I do appreciate you all watching my rear end...
uh-oh... I think she's onto you, Rocky...

[rocky1]

Not me!

[mikmik]

Julian - A liberal at heart but I'd rather save a whale than a mass murderer

I hear you, carjul! I went back and re-read what Cindy had posted after my 'lecture' and you were quite right, old chap!(As one to another LOL)

minstrel wrote
car-chasing dill wrote so then I start furiously scanning for the new member... One does seem to lose one's 'edge' if they are away to long (o:

I am starting a data base for listing 'incorrigibles' so that newbies can easily locate all the 'good stuff'. Please sign up at the front desk. Everyone in this thread is automatically included already.If you have a problem, talk to my lawyer (right rock1?)

cyanide wrote
the
So you been hangin' with vfaulkner, eh? Be Careful!