Originally posted by Executioner BrandI would say about twenty people have read it so I am not sure what you are on about. The fact that about twenty people have read it IS the issue being discussed here, so it's now not clear what issue you think you are discussing.
Nobody has even read it and you expect them to believe on faith.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think there is any onus on a target of abuse to keep an abuser's actions secret. So there is no "abuse" in letting others know about those actions.
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..
Originally posted by FMFof it's unclear to me cause I haven't read it like the other 2000 non believers.
I would say about twenty people have read it so I am not sure what you are on about. The fact that about twenty people have read it IS the issue being discussed here, so it's now not clear what issue you think you are discussing.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes but your text is not responding to the stance I am taking. It is simply bandying about the word "trust" in a way that has no relevance to the matter in hand, and you've been doping this over and over and over again, page after page after page. You should address what my stance is on abuse and confidentiality. Just repeating your "betrayal of trust" thing is getting you nowhere and adding nothing.
of trust, did you not read my text?
Originally posted by FMFyour self justification is weak, for as i have said, even if we allow that the text contained abuse it does not give you the right to share it with people who were not its intended recipient, does it.
I don't think there is any onus on a target of abuse to keep an abuser's actions secret. So there is no "abuse" in letting others know about those actions.
Originally posted by FMFit has every relevance because the text was sent with the understanding that private texts are intended solely for the recipient, a trust that you have abused.
Yes but your text is not responding to the stance I am taking. It is simply bandying about the word "trust" in a way that has no relevance to the matter in hand, and you've been doping this over and over and over again, page after page after page. You should address what my stance is on abuse and confidentiality. Just repeating your "betrayal of trust" thing is getting you nowhere and adding nothing.
Originally posted by Executioner BrandI am not in the slightest bit concerned about whether these 2,000 people have read the text or know exactly what Suzianne said, and if I wanted them to know, perhaps I'd have posted it on the public forum. I simply shared what had happened to me with a bunch of honest, respectable and fair minded people with whom I have good relations. I've said this before. You should read the thread.
of it's unclear to me cause I haven't read it like the other 2000 non believers.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy not address the stance I have taken over supposed "trust" and "confidentiality" in cases of abuse? Why keep repeating the same thing over and over again without tackling what I have said? Your repetition serves no purpose. You are avoiding the issue at hand here.
it has every relevance because the text was sent with the understanding that private texts are intended solely for the recipient, a trust that you have abused.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes it does. This is the heart of our disagreement. Why don't you now address it? Do you think the targets of abuse have an obligation to keep their abuser's behaviour secret?
if we allow that the text contained abuse it does not give you the right to share it with people who were not its intended recipient, does it.