Originally posted by FMFI didn't ask if you had a free ticket. I asked why it isn't abusive. Was your good intention to save people? From what? Nobody has even read it and you expect them to believe on faith.
Because if he thinks I am being abusive, he needs to make the case. I have made my case as to why I believe there is no onus on me whatsoever to keep supposedly "secret" abuse secret. If he thinks people knowing what Suzianne's abusive behaviour was is, in and of itself, abusive in some way, he should make his case.
Originally posted by FMFit refutes Kewpies claim that a text must contain personal information, it contained none. You by contrast deliberately circulated a private text with the sole intent that its entire contents should be made available to your scoffing minions.
Did you post verbatim text from a RJHinds message on a public forum? Yes, you did. I would never have done such a thing, regardless of whether I am within my rights to do so.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf he thinks it is "abusive", he should just lay out his case. I have no obligation to keep someone's abusive behaviour secret and there is no reason for me not to tell people that I have been abused. I have therefore not reneged on any obligation or betrayed any trust. So where is the supposed "abuse" on my part? It is for him to make the case.
he asked you why what you did is not abusive. why are you unable or unwilling to answer it?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFHe is asking you whether you think your actions were abusive. He is not asking you about other peoples behaviour, he is asking you about your behaviour.
If he thinks it is "abusive", he should just lay out his case. I have no obligation to keep someone's abusive behaviour secret and there is no reason for me not to tell people that I have been abused. I have therefore not reneged on any obligation or betrayed any trust. So where is the supposed "abuse" on my part? It is for him to make the case.
Originally posted by FMFwhat reasons? that you claim the text was abusive? this has no relevance as to whether your actions were abusive. I say they were because clearly you had options before you but choose to deliberately reveal the text to others who were not its intended recipients.
Well I don't think they were abusive, for the reasons clearly stated. If he thinks they are, he should lay out an argument.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf R J Hinds' reason as to why he was not returning to the forum was not personal information, then you should point to where he announced it on the public forum. As things stand, we only get this personal information from a post by you where you quoted one of his messages. I would not have done what you did.
it refutes Kewpies claim that a text must contain personal information, it contained none.
Originally posted by FMFthe citation was given to refute kewpies claim which it does admirably.
If R J Hinds' reason as to why he was not returning to the forum was not personal information, then you should point to where he announced it on the public forum. As things stand, we only get this personal information from a post by you where you quoted one of his messages. I would not have done what you did.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe fact that the message was abusive and threatening, to my way of thinking, lifted any obligation to keep what Suzianne said confidential and therefore no trust was betrayed or abused.
that you claim the text was abusive? this has no relevance as to whether your actions were abusive.
Originally posted by FMFwhen you take an action you can't take ignorance to the cost of those action///////////s unless you are being delusional.
If he thinks it is "abusive", he should just lay out his case. I have no obligation to keep someone's abusive behaviour secret and there is no reason for me not to tell people that I have been abused. I have therefore not reneged on any obligation or betrayed any trust. So where is the supposed "abuse" on my part? It is for him to make the case.
Originally posted by FMFEven if we allow that the content was abusive it does not negate that your revealing of those contents is itself not an act of abuse. It is clear that by revealing the text to others who were not its intended recipients you have abused a trust for as has been pointed out, the sender sent the text with the understanding that it was confidential with you as the sole recipient. A trust which you ruthlessly abused..
The ones I gave in a previous post.