Go back
@Suzianne

@Suzianne

General


Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You are wise to fear me sir. (Joke).

And I agree there was no 'real intent to harm' in Suzianne's PM. That still however doesn't make the threat palatable.
You don't seem to understand the pre-qualifier of this pernicious 'threat'. She said
'if you ever come near me'. That requires an action on FMFAILURE on his part. Like stay away from me, jack, that is the message.

1 edit


Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't seem to understand the pre-qualifier of this pernicious 'threat'. She said
'if you ever come near me'. That requires an action on FMFAILURE on his part. Like stay away from me, jack, that is the message.
Is there more than one version of the PM. (Sorry if I have missed it but haven't been following both threads).

I see no pre-qualifier in the PM I have seen. The threat there comes after, 'And if I am ever unfortunate enough to meet you face to face, I will hurt you.'


Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Is there more than one version of the PM. (Sorry if I have missed it but haven't been following both threads).

I see no pre-qualifier in the PM I have seen. The threat there comes after, 'And if I am ever unfortunate enough to meet you face to face, I will hurt you.'
I sent you and others the one I received from Suzianne. I don’t know if there is, but there may be a doctored version in circulation too.


Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
And I agree there was no 'real intent to harm' in Suzianne's PM. That still however doesn't make the threat palatable.
How silly Suzianne's message was is not the issue. The issue is whether there is an onus on the recipient of the message to keep her behaviour secret.

1 edit

Originally posted by FMF
I sent you and others the one I received from Suzianne. I don’t know if there is, but there may be a doctored version in circulation too.
Are you saying there are more threats after those words?


Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't seem to understand the pre-qualifier of this pernicious 'threat'. She said
'if you ever come near me'. That requires an action on FMFAILURE on his part. Like stay away from me, jack, that is the message.
You seem to be referring to a doctored version of the message. But whether someone has tried to change the wording after the event or not is hardly relevant to the issue of confidentiality.


Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you saying there are more threats after those words?
I am saying someone has apparently fed you a doctored version of the message. So you are being manipulated it would seem.


Originally posted by FMF
I am saying someone has apparently fed you a doctored version of the message. So you are being manipulated it would seem.
Why don't you PM me the version you have.

2 edits

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Is there more than one version of the PM. (Sorry if I have missed it but haven't been following both threads).

I see no pre-qualifier in the PM I have seen. The threat there comes after, 'And if I am ever unfortunate enough to meet you face to face, I will hurt you.'
This was the flimsy threat that compelled the leprous FMF to justify his betraying a confidence? My goodness what a pansy. I might send him an abusive PM myself promising to crush him like a grape if ever we meet. Wendy doesn't do him justice.

1 edit

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This was the flimsy threat that compelled the leprous FMF to justify his betraying a confidence? My goodness what a pansy. I might send him an abusive PM myself promising to crush him like a grape if ever we meet. Wendy doesn't do him justice.
It's really ridiculous these days, the advent of PC. There was a case of a child of 8 getting suspended for using his index finger shaped like a gun, going bang bang.
Seems a bit like that here.

MOMMY MOMMY, he pointed his finger at me AGAIN.

WHAT? OFF WITH HIS HEAD.


Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This was the flimsy threat that compelled the leprous FMF to justify his betraying a confidence? My goodness what a pansy. I might send him an abusive PM myself promising to crush him like a grape if ever we meet. Wendy doesn't do him justice.
FMF has admitted he did NOT feel threatened, and has now shifted to 'not liking her behavior'.

In his PM criteria, it is okay to divulge a PM, personal message, when he disagrees with behavior.

It is wrong, and a betrayal of trust. His RHP 'friends' should think twice about future PM's, because depending on FMF's mood, the message will be shared.

If Suzianne is pissed, she has every right to be. Her behavior in that message did not warrant what FMF did. Most posters on this thread agree.


-Removed-
Yes, FMF sharing a PM because he did not 'like' her behavior is wrong.

If he didn't 'like' her behavior, then here's what he could have done:

Hit the 'reply button'.....and tell HER.


Originally posted by sonhouse
Why don't you PM me the version you have.
It's already been posted on thus thread.


This issue is beginning to set a very ugly precedent.

Friends sending a PM to friends may not worry too much, but this 'precedent' is warning RHP members to NOT send a PM to another member who is not considered a 'friend', especially if you are debating them on subjects in the forums, because they may not 'like your behavior', and feel "justified" to share your message.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.