Slashdot Mirror

I know about Jennifer Usher from the various transgender oriented USENET newsgroups and am not a fan at all.

Then I would suggest you should check what's been going on in the newsgroup that Usher pulls the most crap in - a.s.srs.

You might also want to check Jennifer Usher: Part 1 - Attacking transsexuals and transgenders, Gov't worker: I can out people on my own time, Ushers threats to sue me (which started half a decade ago when I proved Usher was a liar), Usher's crapfest in my journal, trying to trivialize rape, trying to justify not calling it rape to another slashdotter, and lots more. (Note: slashdot fails to show all the posts because of a "too-deeply-nested" bug - go to a.s.srs for direct links.

Transphobia. Using a picture of a transperson in a derogatory way, is not cool, even if it's Jennifer Usher.

Usher has been pushing a transphobic hate agenda on the Internet for almost a decade. Hence the label "transquisling". Usher spent years attacking other people in news groups strictly based on their appearance, all the while claiming that "unlike them", that Usher "passed as a woman at work." When I got fed up with Usher attacking several others back in the middle of the last decade, I exposed Usher's claims about passing at work as a lie. Usher is only getting what Usher has been dishing out for a decade. Karma is a bitch.

People should not be judged on their appearance - I've said that many times. However, if someone is going to attack someone for years else based on their appearance (as Usher did to Willow and others), they'd better not be living in a glass house.

I know about Jennifer Usher from the various transgender oriented USENET newsgroups and am not a fan at all.

Then I would suggest you should check what's been going on in the newsgroup that Usher pulls the most crap in - a.s.srs.

You might also want to check Jennifer Usher: Part 1 - Attacking transsexuals and transgenders, Gov't worker: I can out people on my own time, Ushers threats to sue me (which started half a decade ago when I proved Usher was a liar), Usher's crapfest in my journal, trying to trivialize rape, trying to justify not calling it rape to another slashdotter, and lots more. (Note: slashdot fails to show all the posts because of a "too-deeply-nested" bug - go to a.s.srs for direct links.

Transphobia. Using a picture of a transperson in a derogatory way, is not cool, even if it's Jennifer Usher.

Usher has been pushing a transphobic hate agenda on the Internet for almost a decade. Hence the label "transquisling". Usher spent years attacking other people in news groups strictly based on their appearance, all the while claiming that "unlike them", that Usher "passed as a woman at work." When I got fed up with Usher attacking several others back in the middle of the last decade, I exposed Usher's claims about passing at work as a lie. Usher is only getting what Usher has been dishing out for a decade. Karma is a bitch.

People should not be judged on their appearance - I've said that many times. However, if someone is going to attack someone for years else based on their appearance (as Usher did to Willow and others), they'd better not be living in a glass house.

And here's the transcript of a letter from a priest who cooperated with the Vatican for picking # 1.

Now the funny thing is that it's MANDATORY to report suspected cases of child abuse, and yet the priests who covered it up have never been charged. Covering it up after the fact also makes them accessories after the fact.

Maybe it's time to do like some people in Great Britain are thinking of doing, and have the Pope arrested if he comes visiting.

Any bets that he cancels the September visit?

Really. The gist of Catholic Church is that you "access" God through them. You know, the Priesthood.

In Catholic Church, pedophile Priest accesses YOU!

In Catholic Church, pedo priests ask what they can do to baby Jesus!

In Catholic Church, Ratzinger is all Rat and no zing!

The letter makes it clear that the local priests would shut their mouths if the pedo was "given another chance" in Rome because that got him out of the local community:

When Fr. Prince was first proposed for his present position
in Rome (on the recommendation of the now Archbishop F. Franck), I
explained to the then Archbishop Jose Sanchez (now Cardinal Sanchez),
in his capacity as Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangeliza-
tion of Peoples, that, while the charge against Fr. Prince was very
serious, I would not object to him being given another chance since
it would remove him from the Canadian scene. (Archbishop Ambrozic
had already informed me that Fr. Prince was no longer welcome in the
Archdiocese of Toronto unless he underwent psychiatric treatment at
the Clarke Institute.)

... and the problems when it leaks out ...

However, the knowledge and extend of Fr. Prince's previous
activity is now much more widespread among both the laity and the
clergy than previously existed. Hence, were he to be honoured in
any way it could easily trigger a reaction among the victim(s), or
others who are aware of his previous conduct, and this would prove
extremely embarrassing both to the Holy See and to the Diocese of
Pembroke, not to mention the possibility of criminal charges being
laid and a civil lawsuit ensuing.

... and check this out ...

One redeeming factor is that it would appear that the victims
involved are of Polish descent and their respect for the priesthood
and the Church has made them refrain from making these allegations
public or laying a criminal charge against a priest. Had this happened
elsewhere there would be every danger that charges would have been
laid long ago with all the resultant scandal. Unfortunately one
priest, who was talking with one of the victims who partially revealed
Fr. Prince's activity while living with him in Ottawa, has been some-
what indiscreet in his comments about Fr. Prince, and has had to be
cautioned by the Vicar General in this respect. The priest in question
is also a good friend of the mother of one of the victims so he has
been able to glean additional information to confirm his suspicions
about Fr. Prince's activity and openly confronted the Vicar General
about his suspicions and knowledge.

Translation: "good thing they're just dumb pollacks, right? And we had to threaten another priest to keep his dumb mouth shut or else ..."

But they still wanted to give the guy ANOTHER promotion ...

However, as previously mentioned, a promotion of any kind
would indicate to the victim that he is being further victimized
and hence we could anticipate that a charge would be laid and a
public trial would follow. This has been the pattern which has
been followed in recent events of a similar nature and it is a
situation which we wish to avoid at all costs.

All in writing, all documented, so it's not "petty gossip" and the Nazi Pope can go sod off!

*poke* ohai! =)

If you take "male" and "female" to be descriptions of gender identity whereas "male-bodied" and "female-bodied" to be descriptions of physical sex, I'm a male-bodied female. There are at least a few of us (transwomen) here on slashdot (e.g., the-online-me hudson runs a php-slashcode-style site called transboutique), and a handful of others in the spectrum outside of the nominal cis-gendered folk.
If you're curious, there's plenty of reading (broken link atm, try wayback) material out there.
-- email: rot13<<<"revakfdhvqypnbjmlwun"|sed 'y/achjlowyz/mgoc@ai.l/'

News flash - most pastors haven't read the whole bible either. It's not a requirement for graduating from seminaries - not even fundie ones like Dallas theological.

As for "making trouble", religion's been doing that for a LONG time - like this letter that shows it's not just petty gossip.

One of the lousy things about being a privacy advocate is that you can't afford to have any secrets yourself - people will assume you're advocating privacy because you have something to hide, not because you believe in it as a right.

Now, while I do advocate being "out" because it is empowering, I also understand that it's not a binary thing - many of us have secrets we would only share with certain people, or being "outed" at an inopportune time can cause problems, or just a "it's my right to keep some things private so back off."

It's like when the police say "if you have nothing to hide ..." My response is "I simply have nothing to hide that's any of your business."

Privacy is going to just get worse ... and also why I did this - so that people can do searches without google or yahoo or microsoft tying it to an on-line profile. Eventually there will be tens of thousands of related external pages in the index. I'd like to see other sites do the same, and then link their searches, so that we have a distributed search engine instead of relying on centralized "gate-keepers".

One of the lousy things about being a privacy advocate is that you can't afford to have any secrets yourself - people will assume you're advocating privacy because you have something to hide, not because you believe in it as a right.

Now, while I do advocate being "out" because it is empowering, I also understand that it's not a binary thing - many of us have secrets we would only share with certain people, or being "outed" at an inopportune time can cause problems, or just a "it's my right to keep some things private so back off."

It's like when the police say "if you have nothing to hide ..." My response is "I simply have nothing to hide that's any of your business."

Privacy is going to just get worse ... and also why I did this - so that people can do searches without google or yahoo or microsoft tying it to an on-line profile. Eventually there will be tens of thousands of related external pages in the index. I'd like to see other sites do the same, and then link their searches, so that we have a distributed search engine instead of relying on centralized "gate-keepers".

How will you know if you like gay anal sex with a donkey until you try it?

Some things, you just know ...

says the transsexual with http://transboutique.com/ as his/her/it homepage.

Of course, they do that because people can look at the cache instead of going to the original source, so Google manages to extract more ad revenue, to the detriment of the original copyright holder and any licensee. This also ignores the whole problem of perpetuating invalid information when a source has made an update that isn't reflected in the cached copy.

The proper (and the only LEGAL way) to do it is to only show enough of the result so that the person can decide to follow the link or not, as explained here.

Google's behavior is unprofessional and every search result that offers to show the cache breeches copyright law; showing the cached copy is a further breech.

The reason I brought in the OT is back up my point that homosexuality is always wrong in the whole Bible.

Extraordinary trans-friendly church practices what they preach

At the Village Church, we believe that whether you are trans or bi, straight, lesbian or gay, you can follow Jesus. Here's what matters. Do you love God, and love your neighbor, as you love yourself? That's what is important. Love. But there are a whole lotta people in the world, good Christian people who disagree with us. I've been at this more than 20 years. I can stand firm in my truth. But some of you, have never met a preacher before who said it's ok to be gay and Christian. And so together, we're going to learn how to have the conversation with other folks. --- snip ---

Do you know what Jesus said about homosexuality? Who can tell me? Do you know? NOTHING. He said plenty about money and greed. Said plenty about how we should forgive one another. He did not spend one minute talking about homosexuality.

He spent plenty of time talking about love and about relationships. He said love one another. Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. This is my greatest commandment: that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12)

Yeah, Jesus said plenty about love. Not one word about homosexuality.

When I see two people who love God, and who love one another, and who want to be in a committed relationship with each other, for life, and when those two people want to follow Jesus together, and ask God to bless their home and their life together - I gotta think that brings God joy - regardless of whether it's two men, a man and a woman, or a man who has transitioned to become woman who is then in relationship with a man, or a woman. Two people - who love each other and love God - I think that's really all God cares about.

--- snip ---

So, the other day, a friend here at The Village asked me how I become such a fierce advocate for LGBT persons? I said it was really quite simple. I went from college in Abilene TX in 1985, where I really didn't consciously know any gay or lesbian folks; and I moved to the big city of Atlanta, where there were gay students at my seminary. They were wonderful folks who loved God and who were clearly called to be in ministry. Now I had grown up in a liberal family that taught me the value of working against racism. I was a feminist when I was in the 3rd grade. It was a no-brainer for me to join the cause of standing with my gay and lesbian classmates who were being denied ordination. They were gifted people, who loved God and wanted to serve God in the church just like me. I knew what it was like to be told I should not be a pastor because I was a woman - back home in West Texas. So I was sympathetic to my gay friends. My REASON and my EXPERIENCE told me these friends had just as much right to be pastors as I did, and that who they loved and who they chose to be in life-long partnerships with had nothing to do with whether or not they could be good pastors. And so I became a straight ally. An advocate. A fighter for justice.

So, here we are today. I promised we would look at those six scriptures that people use to say you can't be gay and Christian, so let's take a look, briefly, at them.

There's more.

It's not a question of being offended (though thanks for the consideration) ,,, but you still haven't answered the question of who a post-op transsexual can marry, in YOU opinion. You danced around it. My point is that it highlights a serious problem - that the world is a lot more complex than it was before, and that the bible doesn't necessarily have the answers, despite peoples claims.

So, who can a male-to-female transsexual marry without sinning?

[_] They can only marry a man, because they are now legally a woman;
[_] They can only marry a w

The whole DMCA thing really needs to be revisited. The penalties for false declarations aren't cutting it. It's pretty bad when someone can cause you grief by filing a false DMCA notice on material they don't even own the copyright to to try to stifle discussion! It's the new version of a SLAPP suit - far cheaper, since it only takes an email, and lots of people cave in immediately because it's not worth the hassle, or because they don't want their hosting provider to decide that their business just isn't worth it, even though they've done nothing wrong.

Though the term "Homosexual" appears in the New International Edition I am pretty sure it's actually a scientific term.

The term "homosexual" is definitely NOT a scientific term. It is currently being replaced with the terms "Gynephilia" and "Androphylia", which make no assumptions about the gender or sex of the person.

Even the shrinks now admit that their choice of terms over the last 50 years has been too heavily influenced by cultural assumptions - more specifically, a judaeo-christian bias.

Hope this helps clarify things a bit.

Study showed that 24% of all accounting graduates could not even READ a 2-page memo. So what happens when you get one who can't read AND can't count to 10?

Trust me on this one, there are some things that take more than a page to properly explain.

NOONE can take that risk.

I've taken it in the past, and will continue to do so, when I am in the right.

The last time I decided to use a lawyer "for the convenience", I ended up having to fire him, then I drafted my own motions, served them on the government and the other parties involved, argued them, won, the government lawyers realized that the government had acted illegally and backed out, filed more motions against the other parties that were left, argued THEM, opposed all their motions and claims, and again won. The amount at stake wasn't trivial - it would have been in the 6 figures. They not only lost, but it turns out that, once the judge did the accounting, it was as I had claimed, and to add insult to injury they had to pay me for the government's errors, without recourse against the government. Plus they were stuck with a 5-figure lawyers bill.

I actually turned a small profit after all my costs. They, on the other hand, left the courtroom swearing so loud ... if the judge hadn't already left, they would have been called to the bench for another good spanking.

Most people can argue their own cases, provided they learn the basics. How to object to evidence (lack of foundation, here-say, irrelevance - learn those and you've got most of it covered). How to lay a foundation for any evidence you want to introduce. How to question your witnesses. How to force witnesses for the other side to start screaming at the judge (done that one a few times - always devastating to the other sides' case). How to sneak here-say in through the back door when nobody's looking (been there, done that, just have to beat up on the other side for a few hours non-stop and they won't object to anything for fear of yet another smack-down from someone they thought would be an "amateur" :-).

You have the Internet. Use it. There are plenty of motions out there that you can copy, modify to your own needs, and then serve on the other side (and if the other side is represented by a lawyer, you can serve it on them by fax - just keep the fax transmittal record as proof of service when you file the motion with the court).

Just yesterday I transcribed the ACLU motion against the Newark police department. It's a model in terms of how you have to lay out the alleged facts, then the alleged violations (and to remember to include all the alleged facts by reference in each violation), and then the relief sought. You can probably find similar stuff all over the Internet, whether it's for filing a demand to intervene as a 3rd party in a court case (done that, judge agreed, got to cross-examine all parties), a divorce or separation, or modification of a support order, or an injunction enjoining someone to do (or stop doing) something, or anything else you can imagine.

Whatever your beef, you can find the materials on the net to turn it into nice tasty bar-b-que. Problem is, most people are too timid. "Oh, I need a lawyer to handle that." Most of the time, no you don't. So stop whining - you have the tools to literally take the law into your own hands and argue it in court.

The best part? Because you are the one arguing your side, you get to personally confront your opponents - and you know better than anyone else what gets their goats, and when they'll try to embellish the facts to the point where they make a provable lie; they, on the other hand, can't attack you directly - all communications have to be through their lawyer.

Look, give it a try. It's much more fun in person than it sounds.

Please DO check out the fossil record. 100 million years is a long time, once life reaches a certain stage, to spread and diversify. Just look at the changes in the human genome in the last million. Or in domestic dogs in the last 10,000.

And while you're at it, show ONE piece of scientific evidence that the world was designed.

Religion has been the number 1 drawback of humans. Superstitious beliefs that have pandered to the basest instincts of the ignorant, giving people a license to hate.

And the worst offenders by far in the last 1,000 years have been the Christians. Justifying everything from owning slaves to hating gays, lesbians and transsexuals "because Gawd sez so." Sorry, but "because Gawd sez so" isn't acceptable any more.

So there are differences in the Genome. What has really changed since then?

As well, I agree that historical Christianity has been a blight. Then again, historical Christianity didn't follow the Bible. They bent it the same as Hitler bent science to promote the so-called superiority of the "aryan race".

But I notice how eager you are to attack my beliefs without stating your own. You've attempted to dodge the question twice now. Maybe you don't really know what you believe. Maybe you just know you hate those who believe in God. Or maybe you simply hate God. Not my problem. But it becomes everyone's problem when one group tries to replace one widely accepted (and currently unprovable) theory, with another (constantly adjusted and currently unprovable) theory.

Please DO check out the fossil record. 100 million years is a long time, once life reaches a certain stage, to spread and diversify. Just look at the changes in the human genome in the last million. Or in domestic dogs in the last 10,000.

And while you're at it, show ONE piece of scientific evidence that the world was designed.

Religion has been the number 1 drawback of humans. Superstitious beliefs that have pandered to the basest instincts of the ignorant, giving people a license to hate.

And the worst offenders by far in the last 1,000 years have been the Christians. Justifying everything from owning slaves to hating gays, lesbians and transsexuals "because Gawd sez so." Sorry, but "because Gawd sez so" isn't acceptable any more.

People don't care about privacy until they need it - then they care a LOT about it. I'm sure you have at least one piece of personal info you don't want posted all over the Internet. People want to be able to control their personal information that's why it's called "personal information" - it belongs to the person, not to google or whoever else is holding it "in trust", or more often, in violation of trust when there's a buck to be made.

Facebook USED to claim people don't want privacy. They found otherwise the hard way, when Canada told them to fix their site or else. Sanctions include fines paid to the victims on a per-offense basis, so it could have been VERY expensive for Facebook to ignore it. BTW, violation of the protection of the whistle-blowers section is a criminal offense. We take privacy seriously, and we recognize that whistle-blowers play an important part in keeping companies honest.

Privacy allows us to ask questions we wouldn't necessarily want to ask to the whole world. When people write to me privately about their transgender issues, do you think they want me posting it all over the net? Seriously ... when a slashdotter or anyone else writes me that they're either [married | have kids | in a fundie church | work with rednecks | are republican] or any combination of those factors, and they have gender identity issues, they certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information.

It's one reason I don't regret that I dropped my US-based host - Canada == much better privacy legislation. It's also why the privacy policy doesn't mince words - I don't say "we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request" - which is google's way of saying "If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you." - it says "get a warrant"

Sharing of private data

3 words - "get a warrant.". Clear. Plain. Simple. Easy to understand. No weasel-words. Unequivocal.

Private data will not be shared with others, including government agencies and/or law enforcement, without a validly-issued warrant signed by a judge from a Canadian court.

"Requests" from outside Canada lack jurisdiction, even under "long-arm" statutes of countries like the United States, because transboutique.com is not a commercial site, so it fails to meet the "do significant business" requirement of the long-arm statute.

This is the only way to conform to Canadian privacy laws. A "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get a warrant is not enough.

Commercial sites could do the same - invoking the long-arm statute by a foreign commercial entity STILL requires a valid warrant.

People don't care about privacy until they need it - then they care a LOT about it. I'm sure you have at least one piece of personal info you don't want posted all over the Internet. People want to be able to control their personal information that's why it's called "personal information" - it belongs to the person, not to google or whoever else is holding it "in trust", or more often, in violation of trust when there's a buck to be made.

Facebook USED to claim people don't want privacy. They found otherwise the hard way, when Canada told them to fix their site or else. Sanctions include fines paid to the victims on a per-offense basis, so it could have been VERY expensive for Facebook to ignore it. BTW, violation of the protection of the whistle-blowers section is a criminal offense. We take privacy seriously, and we recognize that whistle-blowers play an important part in keeping companies honest.

Privacy allows us to ask questions we wouldn't necessarily want to ask to the whole world. When people write to me privately about their transgender issues, do you think they want me posting it all over the net? Seriously ... when a slashdotter or anyone else writes me that they're either [married | have kids | in a fundie church | work with rednecks | are republican] or any combination of those factors, and they have gender identity issues, they certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information.

It's one reason I don't regret that I dropped my US-based host - Canada == much better privacy legislation. It's also why the privacy policy doesn't mince words - I don't say "we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request" - which is google's way of saying "If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you." - it says "get a warrant"

Sharing of private data

3 words - "get a warrant.". Clear. Plain. Simple. Easy to understand. No weasel-words. Unequivocal.

Private data will not be shared with others, including government agencies and/or law enforcement, without a validly-issued warrant signed by a judge from a Canadian court.

"Requests" from outside Canada lack jurisdiction, even under "long-arm" statutes of countries like the United States, because transboutique.com is not a commercial site, so it fails to meet the "do significant business" requirement of the long-arm statute.

This is the only way to conform to Canadian privacy laws. A "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get a warrant is not enough.

Commercial sites could do the same - invoking the long-arm statute by a foreign commercial entity STILL requires a valid warrant.

... but that's what a strict reading (and what a lawyer would say) says - that if it's possible for the request to be enforced (such as by the cops saying "we can get a warrant if we have to"), that's all that's needed.

That sounds more like your own interpretation of a strict reading than what a lawyer would say. Let me know if you're a lawyer. Or can reference one that has given Google's privacy policy that sort of reading. To me, the language sounds very much like legal terms. And while legal language is often based in it's native language (English in this case), it often uses terms that have very distinct meanings that aren't always apparent to the layman. I'm not a lawyer, of course, but to me it sounds like an "enforceable government request" is something along the lines of a warrant or court order. After all, how do you know a request is enforceable until you have the documentation? By your logic, an order for a half-caff latte by a Fed agent is enforceable government request.

Remember, this was written by Google's lawyers to protect Google from YOU; it will always be interpreted in Google's favour, not yours.

Here's a better privacy policy with respect to sharing data. It's simple and straightforward, and says quite clearly - how hard is it for Google to say "get a search warrant"? Google stopped the "don't be evil" mantra long ago.

Google's privacy policy certainly looks like it's been drafted by a lawyer or two. Yours looks like it's been drafted by an activist. That's not to say yours isn't effective or suitable. But I'm not entirely sure if it's better.

An interesting note is that I Googled around looking for references to the term "enforceable government request." I found a couple pieces talking about Google and privacy. And I found page upon page of privacy policies that use either exactly the same language or slight variations of it. Of the variations, some note a warrant as an example of an enforceable government request.

I agree that this puts a lot of faith in the officers of Google to require proof of an enforceable request. Like you noted, "good faith" has a lot of wiggle room. I'd be much happier if "subpoena" and "court order" was listed specifically in the policy. However, it also strikes me as being a very liberal interpretation to claim that Google feels that the mere possibility of a subpoena is justification.

... but that's what a strict reading (and what a lawyer would say) says - that if it's possible for the request to be enforced (such as by the cops saying "we can get a warrant if we have to"), that's all that's needed.

Remember, this was written by Google's lawyers to protect Google from YOU; it will always be interpreted in Google's favour, not yours.

Here's a better privacy policy with respect to sharing data. It's simple and straightforward, and says quite clearly - how hard is it for Google to say "get a search warrant"? Google stopped the "don't be evil" mantra long ago.