In a message dated 6/10/2008 1:46:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dgoodmanny@gmail.com writes:

This is a person who wants, needs, and deserves privacy--all three to a degree rarely seen in these discussions. I am no supporter of the Wikipedia interpretation of DO NO HARM as a general rule, but it does apply in exceptional cases.>>

--------------------------------------------------- "Wants". No she doesn't want privacy. No one to my knowledge has ever asked her. "Needs". Well no, she doesn't need it either. There is simply no public way to find her knowing her name. She has no phone number, no listed address, no entry in any public database. Never paid taxes, never bought land, never married, never had children. No way to find her using public databases.

"Deserves". Odd point. If the mayor of San Francisco divorces his wife and is written up in the Chronicle doing so, does he "deserve" privacy ? If in that article it mentions that his mother's name is Gladys, does Gladys "des erve" privacy? We are not the reports of first venue, that's been done. We are repeating what's already been given out, not creating it. If Gladys is quoted saying "My son is the most amazing man in the Universe" and that's repeated in 37 newspapers across the country, can we not quote it even though Gladys herself might be a "private person" ?

That's the real point. Twisting rules to address specific cases, without actually changing policy to so address them. Interesting that certain people in that other thread advocating this, are then complaining about this as well. If policy is not to be the ultimate decider, and we are going to read-between-the-lines in every special case, why have any policy that says anything whatsoever.

**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)