Thanks; I  did not know about this; you are very polite. From that
description, I'd call it' Profiling,' still short of a de facto "bad" word,
but it sets a bright flag. Sticks *Labels and collocations of labels* right
to the breastplate with a silvered dart. Maybe too many years with
Relational Database Linking.

Wonder about Privacy Policy and Practice, and, frontally, *legality* of
maintenance and even fuzzy contemplations of transfer of any data base
containing distinctive feature markers.  Hope that Lust stays in its own
Heart; toggling Metaphors, one can build any data-base at home, but one
which fosters stereotypes better stick to its own bed.

Also want to sneak in a short compliment for Hal Weiner's coup of a little
article, preceding.

If not ok to forward (w/copyright) please let us know.

 :) ldmf. World War II genesis, a bit sticky wicket on morality/legality of
profiling mechanisms. Especially automated. Open Discussion Please Inquire

-----Original Message-----
From: Maureen E. Garde <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 8:16 AM

>Since you are dumping on's lawyers (and
>good for you), I thought I would take the opportunity to
>dump on the company. I no longer buy anything from
> since I learned that they keep the information
>on the books you purchase and refuse to remove it from
>their system even upon request. Their justification is
>"service," so that they can generate those "suggestions"
>about books you may be interested in when you log on
>to their site. I call this advertising, myself. I learned of this
>when I logged on to check a pending order on a book, and
>it displayed every book I had ever ordered from them.
>Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea that somebody
>has a list of the books I buy? So I asked customer service
>to delete the prior orders. They said they can't, the only
>way I could get them out of their online system was to cancel
>my account, which I did. They said there was no way to delete
>the information from their permanent files.
>I now buy from the local bookstore, whether it is Border, Barnes
>and Noble, or the little local shop. And I pay cash.
>At 06:06 AM 10/21/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>>At 10:03 AM 10/21/1999 +0200, Didi M. Melchior wrote:
>> >A new story about this is available from the NY times (free
>> >registration with them is required)  about's lawyers asking
>> >about the Amazon bookstore's owners' sexual preferences.
>> >
>>Ya know, as a lawyer I constantly hear ( and sometimes
>>use ) the old saw that in a deposition where you are
>>"discovering" the other party's position ( like you
>>did not know it before from the complaint or answer
>>or affirmative defense, duh! ) you can ask anything
>>that is totally irrelevant on the theory that it MIGHT
>>lead to something RELEVANT or actually, inshallah,
>>ADMISSIBLE at a trial.
>>But this ploy on the part of lawyers
>>on the spurious ground that they want to "show that
>>the market is a narrow one and that they, the big
>>guy, are a " general interest " online bookstore,
>>while these women are catering to a "narrow audience "
>>is even more insulting than asking their sexual
>>Do the attorneys for think that lesbians
>>read different books than straight women? Where are
>>their demographics?
>>Do the attorneys for think that lesbians
>>can't cater to the general readership of the human
>>gene pool out there?
>>To paraphrase Shakespeare, " does not a lesbian bleed "?
>>What if they were asexual? Does that mean they only
>>sell books that contain no sexual reference or
>>connotation? In that case they pose no threat to
>> because their customer base only comes
>>out once a year on Haloween.
>>I am so tired of this sort of drivel after thirty
>>years at the Bar ( and still without a decent glass
>>of shiraz.) If the judge on the case has any balls
>>at all she is sure to put a stop to discovery abuse
>>like this.
>>Although, maybe it is benign. Maybe the lawyers
>>are just trying to ascertain whether they should
>>send a male or female attorney to screw the little
>>bookstore with a spurious time consuming motion
>>for summary judgment.
>>Shame on them. This is why the public thinks
>>we are lower than a snake's belly.
>>Hal Weiner, COLES & WEINER, P.C
>>Members of the National Employment
>>Lawyers Association / New York Chapter
>>342 Madison Avenue  New York, NY 10173
>>(212)856-9530 vox   (212)682-3770 fax
>>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Maureen E. Garde ([log in to unmask])