why is everyone a barracks lawyer these days..
i do not want the location matter to become more than it needs to be..
each member can choose an anonymous member name and when that member enters san francisco as a location how is that compromising privacy..?
last i heard the population os SF was about 750,000..
in the case under discussion by basketb
a certain member used bay area when he signed up initially..
i called him on it and he finally gave in and stated his location was some town in the north, east bay..
later, he changed it back to bay area..
again, i find that to be sneaky..
and i still choose not to make an issue of it just now..
but if this thing keeps popping up and slapping me i will
make an issue of it..
SO, the member in question's location has not been capriciously revealed or mis-handled..
he SHOULD re-edit it to show a city or town like most everyone else does..
and FYI requiring a location city and state or country helps me when activating new members and sorting the spambots from the real people..
i don't understand this insane paranoia about revealing a tiny bit of information on the forum..
the identity thieves will pick the low hanging fruit before they start gathering details like a city and state from this forum..
the telephone book has richer pickings than this place..
my phone numbers have been on the internet for about 10 years and no calls with heavy breathing have been received.. yet..
which is a pity as that would sure give me something more to talk about that politics and religion and the energy crisis..
so relax and stop telling ME i am divulging some members hidden location..
you attack with insufficient evidence..
only your assumption based on, well, nothing really..
its late now and i'm bushed..