Go back
RHP's Official Lost Subscription Counter™

RHP's Official Lost Subscription Counter™

General


Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[FMF] had options open to him. To simply block the sender, to appeal to the site administration...
If you get an abusive and threatening message you are within your rights to appeal to the Mods, get the sender banned, close the door to reconciliation, and get the whole thing hushed up if you want. But I think my principled appriach has reaped much better results.

1 edit

Originally posted by FMF
But I think my principled approach has reaped much better results.
Yes so do I for it has unequivocally demonstrated what a thoroughly untrustworthy cad you are.



FMF: But I think my principled approach has reaped much better results.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes so do I for it has unequivocally demonstrated what a thoroughly untrustworthy cad you are.
And of course, true to form, rather than address that list of results, you simply repeat one of your catchphrases.


-Removed-
I have already told you numerous times, its none of my business. Please don't ask me again.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
And of course, true to form, rather than address that list of results, you simply repeat one of your catchphrases.
Oh dear, proving that you are an untrustworthy cad is a greater result than I could possibly have hoped for and the beauty of it is, you did it all by yourself, thanks man!


I can't stand it any longer. I must weigh in. 😉

A PM containing "threatening and abusive" language is subject to exposure.

1. The PM in question was not exposed publicly.

2. The recipient of a "threatening and abusive" PM that chooses to share said PM "privately" with his or her confidantes cannot be legitimately called unethical.

3. Publicly shared PM's is a breach of trust unless the PM in question reaches the level of abuse and threat considered by a third party authority to be worthy of public exposure.

4. The above is my opinion only.



1 edit

-Removed-
Your master was given the opportunity to relate the nature of the text so that we could ascertain in what capacity it constitutes abuse, he choose not to do so. One does not need to know the content to understand that the simple betrayal of confidence is what is heinous despite what you have erroneously assumed, logic not being your forte.


Originally posted by chaney3
FMF owes Suzianne an apology. He shared her private, personal message with others. It was wrong, and all excuses FMF has used has only made him look weak and cowardly.
Cowardly? I don't see how. Whether you agree with them or not, sticking to my principles on this matter has rather predictably brought down upon me pages and pages of criticism and personal insults. Knowing full well this would be so, I stuck to my guns regardless. Not sure how the word "cowardly" fits. What's the opposite of "cowardly"? "Courageous" perhaps. Well, while I am not claiming to be "courageous" - not at all - indeed, all this repetitive artless nonsense from the likes of robbie is all water off a duck's back - I'd be interested to hear whether you think reporting Suzianne to the mods and trying to get her banned would have been the "courageous" option, as opposed to the "cowardly" one that I opted for.


Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your master was given the opportunity to relate the nature of the text so that we could ascertain in what capacity it constitutes abuse, he choose not to do so.
I told you why, robbie, you of all people here, had no chance of having it passed on to you by me. No chance whatsoever. You are not the kind of person I would have sent it to.


Originally posted by robbie carrobie
One does not need to know the content to understand that the simple betrayal of confidence is what is heinous....
And yet earlier on this thread you explicitly stated that you could not judge what had happened WITHOUT seeing the message, and that you DID need to know the content in order to understand the rights and wrongs of what happened. And yet now, here, when it suits you to say the exact opposite, you simply say the exact opposite.


Originally posted by FMF
I told you why, robbie, you of all people here, had no chance of having it passed on to you by me. No chance whatsoever. You are not the kind of person I would have sent it to.
excellent, I am so thankful not to be associated with such an untrustworthy cad for I realise that when someone sends me a PM, it remains confidential. If you sent me someone's PM I would block you if you were not blocked already, which of curse you are and have been for some time. Save other people PM's for your cronies, I want no part of it.


FMF: And of course, true to form, rather than address that list of results, you simply repeat one of your catchphrases.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh dear, proving that you are an untrustworthy cad is a greater result than I could possibly have hoped for and the beauty of it is, you did it all by yourself, thanks man!
And bingo. The same catchphrase. Again. For the umpteenth time. Why not address the list of positive results I offered. Why the repetition of catchphrases?

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