Quote:

---

( His history unfortunately, or unfortunately , depending on how you look at it, gives him away.

---

If that ain't a freudian slip, I've never seen one!

Quote:

---

I mean, really, his favorite insult is girly-man!

---

Quote:

---

Said confidently by someone not even willing to take the heat for anything they write. I give little or no consideration for someone accusing me of attacking anyone, when they do not have the courage to take responsibility for ANYTHING they write.

---

Quote:

---

((That Paragon contributes anonymously is speculation.))

Actually it's not speculation. He used to do it from the same ISP. His history unfortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, gives him away.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

((That Paragon contributes anonymously is speculation.))

Actually it's not speculation. He used to do it from the same ISP. His history unfortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, gives him away.

---

I was not going to comment on this thread, but it's more than passingly strange that someone in BOL management, at the moderator level, is able to disseminate purported information relating to a registered poster that is only available to BOL management. Only someone within BOL management has access to poster IP addresses and it's my belief that the only way to secure those addresses for public dissemination would be through legal action. Disseminating information relating to IP addresses, their use, etc. is just as bad - I think it's criminal.

This is one more case of Dawnie stepping over the line with no action by BOL Senior Management. In this case, it’s like taking something out of an employees personnel file and showing it to other employees. BOL is basically a compliance site for bankers? What a joke! For someone within BOL to check insider records and confirm or deny anything about a poster on a thread is over the top.

Once again, shameful behavior by a BOL moderator – no action by BOL Senior Management to protect the privacy of posters. I'm not asking that this thread or Dawnie's post be eliminate, as the post is so revealing of the personality of the poster - it's classic non-compliance. As to the thread, who cares - but I would skip the first two options as the third option is closest to the truth. I'm not saying true, just more true.

Who among us can support what Dawnie has done?

---

Quote:

---

Disseminating information relating to IP addresses, their use, etc. is just as bad - I think it's criminal.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

((That Paragon contributes anonymously is speculation.))

Actually it's not speculation. He used to do it from the same ISP. His history unfortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, gives him away.

---

I was not going to comment on this thread, but it's more than passingly strange that someone in BOL management, at the moderator level, is able to disseminate purported information relating to a registered poster that is only available to BOL management. Only someone within BOL management has access to poster IP addresses and it's my belief that the only way to secure those addresses for public dissemination would be through legal action. Disseminating information relating to IP addresses, their use, etc. is just as bad - I think it's criminal.

This is one more case of Dawnie stepping over the line with no action by BOL Senior Management. In this case, it’s like taking something out of an employees personnel file and showing it to other employees. BOL is basically a compliance site for bankers? What a joke! For someone within BOL to check insider records and confirm or deny anything about a poster on a thread is over the top.

Once again, shameful behavior by a BOL moderator – no action by BOL Senior Management to protect the privacy of posters. I'm not asking that this thread or Dawnie's post be eliminate, as the post is so revealing of the personality of the poster - it's classic non-compliance. As to the thread, who cares - but I would skip the first two options as the third option is closest to the truth. I'm not saying true, just more true.

Who among us can support what Dawnie has done?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

- I think it's criminal.

---

Isn't it funny, your all for Bush's Patriot Act until someone uses its power aginst you, you're upset..

---

Hmmmmm, would that be a good example of "IRONY?"

Quote:

---

It is hoped that if audit trails and user logging are periodically or systematically monitored by BOL, that these processes are being carried out at the same level of operating professionalism as expected by bankers, and as outlined in the BOL best practices developed by Michael Guard. As bankers, we must promote and enforce 12 CFR 216, Regulation P, Privacy of Consumer Financial Information and provide assurances that regulated banks are adhering to strict standards governing the use of "consumer", "customer", and "customer nonpublic" information. I have to believe that the public-forum reference by Dawnie to a specific user's usage patterns was just anecdotal boasting or a tongue-in-cheek generalization made as an "out-of-school" comment or joke.

The BOL Privacy Policy clearly states that there is an expectation of reasonable user privacy. The Policy states that while users should use caution when including identifying information on BOL, these same users may "feel free to post under a pseudonym" to the BOL's web-based bulletin board. The word "pseudonym" is the operative word indicating that an expectation of privacy safeguards and industry-standard security methods are employed.

I have to believe that Dawnie's comment was just hyperbole. Any public forum discussion of any user's use patterns, log-on routines, or transactions would appear to contravene with the BankersOnline Privacy Policy. and would be actionable. I have no doubt that Dawnie will clarify that she mispoke.

---

Quote:

---

It is hoped that if audit trails and user logging are periodically or systematically monitored by BOL, that these processes are being carried out at the same level of operating professionalism as expected by bankers, and as outlined in the BOL best practices developed by Michael Guard. As bankers, we must promote and enforce 12 CFR 216, Regulation P, Privacy of Consumer Financial Information and provide assurances that regulated banks are adhering to strict standards governing the use of "consumer", "customer", and "customer nonpublic" information. I have to believe that the public-forum reference by Dawnie to a specific user's usage patterns was just anecdotal boasting or a tongue-in-cheek generalization made as an "out-of-school" comment or joke.

The BOL Privacy Policy clearly states that there is an expectation of reasonable user privacy. The Policy states that while users should use caution when including identifying information on BOL, these same users may "feel free to post under a pseudonym" to the BOL's web-based bulletin board. The word "pseudonym" is the operative word indicating that an expectation of privacy safeguards and industry-standard security methods are employed.

I have to believe that Dawnie's comment was just hyperbole. Any public forum discussion of any user's use patterns, log-on routines, or transactions would appear to contravene with the BankersOnline Privacy Policy. and would be actionable. I have no doubt that Dawnie will clarify that she mispoke.

---