In Reply to: sorry posted by Porceleindoll on April 22, 2005 at 02:52:35:
Either I didn't make myself clear or perhaps you only saw the edited version and not the original version during the first few hours before it was changed again.
Since I posted the message above, it has been edited by "rixil" on 2005-04-22 12:27 AM
The original version had the name redacted and then in parenthesis near "his personal blog" the URL or hostname of said blog. It so happens that the domain name in question is also the person's last name. Anyone going to that site would have seen the mission statement on the front page clearly stating "[domain name redacted] is the personal web site of [name redacted]. At the moment, it is primarily a news and content aggregator covering topics of interest to [name redacted]."
This is comparable redacting the name of the victim
It doesn't really matter in this specific case because the person whose name was redacted quite likely doesn't care one way or the other about his name being mentioned or not. My point was that this type of carelessness does not inspire much confidence in Jim's ability to respect the privacy of victims of child abuse who don't want their abusers to know they are participating in an investigation or for their identities to become public knowledge.