Originally posted by Very RustyI haven't got a guilty conscience, Rusty. And I have no idea why I waste time trying to reason with fools like you.
Andy,
I can't help if you have a guilty conscience, rather you like it or not. Nothing can change the FACT that the STRESS GB was on under could have been a major factor. You can be happy in knowing I believe he still thought well of you.
Have a Merry Christmas by the way,
All the best to you and your family,
Kind Regards,
-VR
Originally posted by josephwIt was Suzianne who wanted her ridiculous message published on this forum. I'd only shown it to a few friends. If there is an humiliation involved, as some of her supporters seem to think, then it has been cause by the words she wrote.
Is it your intention to crush Suzianne on a personal level, publicly?
Originally posted by FMFThe words she wrote were just fine, as the majority of posts on this thread proves.
It was Suzianne who wanted her ridiculous message published on this forum. I'd only shown it to a few friends. If there is an humiliation involved, as some of her supporters seem to think, then it has been cause by the words she wrote.
She was honest and sincere.
Originally posted by chaney3Whether she thought "the words she wrote were just fine" is irrelevant. The web site says: "Please refrain from sending any messages that may be considered abusive by the recipient." She wasn't the recipient; neither were you.
The words she wrote were just fine, as the majority of posts on this thread proves.
Originally posted by chaney3Well done.
The dilemma for FMF is her words were directed towards him, and he handled it quite poorly.
Suzianne has slapped my face silly a few times.....publicly, and I handled it okay.
Where may I ask did you go to for this affirmation that you "handled it ok" ?
Whose opinion is it?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAnd that's the crux of the matter isn't it? You "considered abusive by the recipient" as justification for sharing a PM with 20 or so others.
Whether she thought "the words she wrote were just fine" is irrelevant. The web site says: "Please refrain from sending any messages that may be considered abusive by the recipient." She wasn't the recipient; neither were you.
Where in the rule "Please refrain from sending any messages that may be considered abusive by the recipient" does it say you are then free to share it?
As I have already said, if a PM contained a viable threat of abuse, then sharing it would be justified, but why then are there virtually only two persons who see the PM as "threatening and abusive" and everyone else doesn't?
I'll tell you why. Because the PM just simply isn't threatening or abusive in any legitimate way. The consensus of the majority is that you abused the confidentiality and trust rule implied in the Private Message facility by sharing an otherwise innocuous PM with those you thought would be sympathetic to your reasons for sharing it.
It begs the question, did you have an ulterior motive?
Originally posted by HandyAndyActually its you that is way off base, infact you are wired to da moon. I was referring to his time on the forum boards, not to his illness. Please try to make room for other possibilities and you can avoid this type of tunnel vision.
If Bobby is ill or afflicted in any way, it isn't because of anything that occurred at RHP.
You're way off base, as usual. Stop using poor old Bobby as a weapon.
Originally posted by josephwWhether you consider the message to have been abusive or not is irrelevant. If you have any argument as to why a message like that would incur an obligation on the part of its recipient to keep it secret, that would be relevant.
And that's the crux of the matter isn't it? You "considered abusive by the recipient" as justification for sharing a PM with 20 or so others.
Where in the rule "Please refrain from sending any messages that may be considered abusive by the recipient" does it say you are then free to share it?
As I have already said, if a PM contained a viable threat of ...[text shortened]... thetic to your reasons for sharing it.
It begs the question, did you have an ulterior motive?
Originally posted by josephwShow me a "rule" that says I must keep what I consider to be an abusive message - or indeed any message - secret. I have only kept the 5,000 or so messages I have (probably) received confidential because I have chosen to. Same goes for everyone. If you have a "rule" that you'd care to cite, be my guest.
Where in the rule "Please refrain from sending any messages that may be considered abusive by the recipient" does it say you are then free to share it?
Originally posted by FMFMore illogical forked tongued double talk. The entire basis for you revealing the text was that it contained what you termed abusive material and now you are saying that its irrelevant simply because someone else has a different perspective. Oh dear.
Whether you consider the message to have been abusive or not is irrelevant. If you have any argument as to why a message like that would incur an obligation on the part of its recipient to keep it secret, that would be relevant.
If you have any argument as to why a message like that would incur an obligation on the part of its recipient to reveal its contents, that would be relevant.
So out with it! What reason had you for revealing its content if its irrelevant as you now claim.