RHP's Official Lost Subscription Counter™

-Removed-

because he told FMF as much

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually no, its none of my business. Chaney is correct, FMF betrayed a confidence, regardless of his motives, he betrayed a confidence placing him alongside other disreputables like, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold and Jack Short the betrayer of Scottish legend William Wallace.

You're still dodging the question that underpins this whole incident which this: do you think abusers have a right to keep their abusive behaviour "confidential" and that the people they abuse have some obligation to keep the abuse "confidential"? This is the key to what happened, and yet you have been sidestepping it for pages and pages..

Originally posted by FMF
You're still dodging the question that underpins this whole incident which this: do you think abusers have a right to keep their abusive behaviour "confidential" and that the people they abuse have some obligation to keep the abuse "confidential"? This is the key to what happened, and yet you have been sidestepping it for pages and pages..

That is not the issue here. I am more interested in ascertaining what right you think you have to betray a confidential text simply because you allege that it contains abusive material. This is the issue. The abuser infact appears to me to be you, you have abused a trust.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That is not the issue here. I am more interested in ascertaining what right you think you have to betray a confidential text simply because you allege that it contains abusive material. This is the issue. The abuser infact appears to me to be you, you have abused a trust.

But it is the issue. If the PM had not contained abuse and threats, I would not have dreamed of sharing it with my friends. I shared it with my friends because I do not believe people who are targets of abuse do not have any obligation to keep the abuser's behaviour secret. It most certainly is the key issue and the key question for you to answer, and yet you dodge it and are still dodging it.

-Removed-

yes and every other heinous grassbag

Originally posted by FMF
But it is the issue. If the PM had not contained abuse and threats, I would not have dreamed of sharing it with my friends. I shared it with my friends because I do not believe people who are targets of abuse do not have any obligation to keep the abuser's behaviour secret. It most certainly is the key issue and the key question for you to answer, and yet you dodge it and are still dodging it.

yes we understand this however you yourself may be guilty of abusing a trust.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am more interested in ascertaining what right you think you have to betray a confidential text simply because you allege that it contains abusive material. This is the issue.

But I have stated over and over again what right I think I have in the case of an abusive PM and yet you just keep ignoring it and refusing to address the question it raises. You don't appear to be "interested" in the issue at all.

-Removed-

Yes but why are you telling me this?

-Removed-

yes and so are hyperbole, sensationalistic journalism and outlandish claims.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes we understand this however you yourself may be guilty of abusing a trust.

So you believe that an abuser can use the concept of "trust" to create a veil of secrecy around their abusive behaviour and use it to try to guarantee the silence - and therefore the cooperation - of the person they are abusing? Is that your stance?