Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Outing Bloggers, Part II

I discussed last night the disgusting practice many have of trying to "out" bloggers. At the same time, someone who is anonymous e-mailed me. Unfortunately for them, their email has their full name on it. Fortunately for them, I will not be "outing" them.

As a warning to all those who may not have realized this: Your e-mail name will show up when you e-mail others! Change the name that shows up if you wish to remain anonymous.

Meanwhile, the Godol Hador has written another post on the threats he has received, and had this to say:
UPDATE: While I might consider closing this blog down if it is the right thing to do, I certainly will not give in to threats. If anyone thinks they can threaten me to get me to close down, I GUARANTEE that I will DAVKAH double or TRIPLE my output L'HACHIS (but don't tell that to the Rebbetzin).
Good. He also points to the discussion going on at Gil's blog, Hirhurim, which I pointed to yesterday. It's quite interesting, all the bickering notwithstanding.

I am also hoping Gil will write another post discussing the halachic (Jewish law) guidelines for stopping an "outer". [And I understand he is not a posek.]

Others on this subject: Krum points out some of the ramifications that have been caused by outing people.

UPDATE: Canonist weighs in as well, giving situations where perhaps someone should be outed. I disagreed, partially, in a comment. Importantly, he notes a proper way of doing so, which I would agree with. As another note: Perhaps one should ask an outsider's opinion (not one whom one is sure will agree) as well.

Technorati tags: , .


  1. So, does someone who threatens to out your blog count as a rodeif? ;-)

    :-O (don't answer that) :-P

  2. Steg - haha. I guess, in a blogger sense, that is the question!

  3. Very inciteful WSJ op-ed on the president.

    My thoughts...
    The people of the world are not getting an honest representation of what is going on, but the media or those who oppose the "war".

    First, it is not a war in Iraq, and even the president is at fault for allowing this to be considered factual. It is a war on terrorism, and the objective of removing Saddam Hussein was a prt, which was SUCCESSFUL (despite the media assessment Iraq is a 'mess).

    Secondly, the instability of Iraq became a magnet for terrorists, believing this was a way to get the US to depart. They were wrong,
    not with Bush at the helm.

    The fight against terrorism will continue, longer than it would if other nations had joined from the beginning, rather than stand on the sidelines.

    About the people of the world. They will remain ignorant as long as the media and political partisans undermine the real intent of continuing the fight,
    by not supporting the noble effort to bring stability to a region of the world where fear has ruled.

    The world is a powder keg, as recently displayed in France, which has allowed internal
    anarchy to dictate.
    President Bush stands alone, taking each and every arrow aimed at him by the media, political partisans, and those world leaders who do nothing in the cause of world stability.

    History will view this as a watershe moment, which redefines the Middle East. The insanity of the radical Muslim underclass must be destroyed in order for ALL people of this region to live free,
    in peace, and to prosper.

  4. Wow - interesting comment - I wish you'd have put this on the post above... perhaps I'll copy it there.