Contacts with the British gov't? I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. :x

Yay bad V-Day poetry! Am advertising for Erick as well. :) *snicker* Shall have to check out this show. Thanks for the link!

LJ filters -- I'd guess probably not. Your entries cover a wide range of topics, so I assume that what you say, you say to everyone. Particularly since I seldom see that ickle lock icon in your posts. Then again, maybe I just don't get to see those posts very often... *eyes you suspiciously* (just kidding) Final answer? No. Does the question influence my answer? Nah. I think you're trying to trick your faithful readers into revealing how they do friends-protected posts. Very clever, Mishter Bond. :p

(Reply) (Thread)

Be swift - the current 99p Challenge will expire on Tuesday, only to be replaced by a new one. To be fair, the new one will almost certainly be very funny in its own way, just that way will probably have less to do with LOTR. (But a half-minute Potter pastiche before last week's opening credits and a LOTR-themed round this week - a rich vein of good comic material for the future, I hope.)

Actually, that's a lie. Neither episode has been all that funny, really, but they've just had their moments.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

As the queen of filters, I guess my answer to this is also, "Does it matter?"
Your journal, your friends, and it's you who chooses what your comfortable sharing with which people. If you have filters, or set them up in the future, it's the business of the people you choose to allow access to them, and nobody else.
I also think that, at least speaking on my own behalf, additional filters tend to be what allows an LJ user to post *additional* stuff... not to make more private things that once were shared with everyone. So I imagine that probably a decent section of folks I know on LJ use filters of some kind at least now and then, and unless I'm on one, or I'm being badmouthed in one :D, I could really care less. :D

(Reply) (Thread)

I was vaguely aware of the fact that people may feel excluded by my use of filters, but it is my opinion that if people have a problem with it, they need to grow up. Not that I don't care what they think; I just mean that need to adjust their thinking on that matter -- they really shouldn't be offended if they are.

As for your use of filters, the thought never crossed my mind. Whenever I see someone post something protected, it seems clear to me from the content that there is *something* there that they don't want *everyone* to read. As far as who is being included or excluded, I figure that's the poster's business.

Like dancingrain says, without that feature, a lot of posts would simply be private or not posted at all -- and that's no good for anyone.

(Reply) (Thread)

I don't use them myself but think I ought to set them up, but I haven't got round to it yet. There seem to be various similarities in our approaches to life, so my guess would be that you are the same.
I've been meaning to set them up, because I know that my vicar, my father-in-law, my cheief bridesmaid and lots of others read the stuff in my journal and some things that might amuse you wouldn't amuse them.
But I haven't got round to it. My guess is you are in the same boat.

(Reply) (Thread)

If there's something I want to say that isn't suitable for universal consumption then I. Don't. Put. It. On. The. World. Wide. Web.

As leiabelle observes, it's the very miscellany of your interests that makes your posts distinctive. Focus is a good thing, but this is the Chris M. Dickson journal, not the "sport+transport+games+geekery+sex+fretting" journal. And that's why we read you.

(Reply) (Thread)

Filters: honestly, it had never occurred to me that you used filters. And given that I see very few friends-only posts from you, and given that your posts cover such a range of topics, I'd say not.

(Reply) (Thread)

Do you think that I am using any LiveJournal filters to write things for subsections of my Friends list in which you (you personally) have not been included? Does the fact that I am even asking this question affect your opinion on this matter?

Honestly, with exception to an irrational paranoia I have that you created a list of people on your friends list with the sole exception of me just so you can say "That krazy Dan is a moronic [...] better off dead", I really couldn't care if there's stuff I don't know you type. Really, I'm better off not knowing what you don't want me to know, and since I won't know what you don't want me to know, it's really nothing to discuss.

(Reply) (Thread)

Finally, a paranoia question; the answers aren't particularly interesting, it's the line of thinking that applies generally. Do you think that I am using any LiveJournal filters to write things for subsections of my Friends list in which you (you personally) have not been included?

Hadn't occurred to me. I don't think I have an answer to this, it's just not something that bothers me. I might even go so far as to say that it's not something that interests me. I'm interested to read what I see of what you post, but I can't be doing with worrying about all the things you might be posting as well.

To be honest I'm more or less with addedentry on this one -- if there's something I don't want somebody to know, I just won't say it AT ALL. The idea of putting something on the web and letting some of my "bestest top sekrit friends" read it and expecting that none of it will leak to their bestest friends, and so on, just strikes me as absurd.

But then I don't believe in secrets anyway; and I have never made (and do not intend to make) any restricted posts to livejournal.

Does the fact that I am even asking this question affect your opinion on this matter?

Not really. If I tried to think about why you were asking the question, and whether that meant you thought x, or whether that meant you wanted us to think that you thought x, or whatever, I'd get into so many layers of potential double-double-bluff that I'd just go round in circles for ever.

Basically, in the nicest possible way, I don't care if you're using filters to block some posts from me. It's your business what you choose to say to whom, and how much you choose to trust the "privacy" of restricted posts.

(Reply) (Thread)

Interesting perspective, but there are certainly things that I perceive that some of my friends would be far more comfortable discussing and hearing than other of my friends. Can't see much past at least telling the friendly side of my friends first.

Certainly I have had course to think about gossip over the last couple of days, trying to recall my attitude to gossip, what my attitude to gossip should be, what sundry Friends' attitudes to gossip are and so forth. Not naming names (I can't remember you being either particularly conductive or particularly, er, insulative on the gossip radar, for instance) but it is a bit of a tricky situation.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I have to agree with missingdonut and also leiabelle. The way I see it, in RL you don't necessarily talk to everybody about everything. Why should your LJ be any different. Filter away, good man. Filter away.

(Reply) (Thread)

1) Thanks for the plug. :-)

2) I basically doubt whether you use subset filtering. As LJ is very good at hiding the fact that secret messages even exist (if, indeed, they do), it's not really of concern anyway - if you think that there's something that a subset of your Friends either shouldn't know or wouldn't want to, I'm quite happy to go along with your judgement.

For what it's worth, I occasionally make a message visible to only one person if LJ seems a better medium than e-mail for it. But that's all. And it's rare.

(Reply) (Thread)

I've thought you filter some entries for a while, but it doesn't bother me... after all, you have an awful lot of interests, and I don't share all of them. Btw, did you know that Knightmare is being replayed three episodes per day at weekends on Challenge TV? That you might filter entries occurred to me because you commented in one entry on a previous and recent LJ entry which I couldn't find by reading back fifteen to twenty entries. However, that's not what you're interested in, or so you claim!

Do you use filters? The fact you're asking the question suggests to me that someone else has raised the issue with you, rather than that you necessarily do or don't filter entries. Otherwise, I would assume that it wouldn't be mentioned either way.

Actually, if this is a "hurt feelings" type of question and leaving aside my previous suppositions, I suppose that asking the question makes me more likely to think that you don't filter stuff than that you do.

(Reply) (Thread)

Was thinking about you earlier - hadn't heard from you for a while, was wondering if you were well. Good to hear from you again. There are a couple of people whose statuses I'm starting to wonder about and would love to get a "nothing much happening, but still alive!" from.

Had heard about the Knightmare repeats. Unfortunately we have OnDigital Freeview here which doesn't get Challenge ? and there's no real prospect of a change, so I'll live without. (*) Evidently I don't feel that strongly about them otherwise I would do something about it!

(*) I actually have a suspicion that NTL's Internet-over-cable operation would be both cheaper and faster in practice than my current ISP + SurfTime arrangement and would probably lead to people getting some of the other cable channels at some point. However, inertia reigns here.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If you'd like to see the repeats, I TiVo them and could easily dump three hours at a time onto a videotape and post to you.

Interested?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)