1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI asked what the nature of the text was was to determine whether it constituted abuse not to determine whether your act was a heinous betrayal.
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 robbie carrobieWell, the reason I didn't send it to you is because you are an unprincipled and mostly unpleasant clown and you have lied in the past about the content of messages in public.
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFnot so unprincipled to betray a trust. Ka-ching! wow being preached to from a cad on what is principled is like being a schooled by a psycho killer on the best cigars for after diner.
Well, the reason I didn't send it to you is because you are an unprincipled and mostly unpleasant clown and you have lied in the past about the content of messages in public.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLike I said, when it suits you to say something, you say it. When it suits you to say the exact opposite, you simply say the exact opposite. Even on the same topic. Concerning the same issue. On the same thread.
I asked what the nature of the text was was to determine whether it constituted abuse not to determine whether your act was a heinous betrayal.
Originally posted by FMFthe matter is crystal clear its not my fault that logic is not your forte.
Like I said, when it suits you to say something, you say it. When it suits you to say the exact opposite, you simply say the exact opposite. Even on the same topic. Concerning the same issue. On the same thread.
Originally posted by josephwI 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.
I think you are right about this. Thanks for speaking up.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWhen someone sends one a private correspondence one trusts that it remains private, you being an untrustworthy logically challenged dullard failed to keep that trust and instead passed it around among your cronies. The content of the text has no bearing on your heinous act of betrayal, its nothing more than a sham of self justification.
What "trust"? You have been dodging the issue of "trust" - when it comes to supposed "trust" being used as a device to keep an abuser's abuse secret - for 25+ pages.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh. This sounds like a familiar string of words you often end up hiding behind. What is "crystal clear" robbie is that you have said one thing at one point in the discussion and then later you have said the opposite. Where is your backbone? What 'principle' could possibly underpin your doublespeak?
the matter is crystal clear its not my fault that logic is not your forte.
Originally posted by FMFPublicly 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.
[b]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 sh ...[text shortened]... . The above is my opinion only.
I think you are right about this. Thanks for speaking up.[/b]
Please tell the forum why if you were concerned about the alledged abuse that you did not relate it to the site administration for them to deal with it and instead passed it around your cronies if you resonate with the above as you have now claimed.
Originally posted by FMFI have said nothing of the sort and my position is clear, you were asked about the content to determine whether it contained abuse, why that should be a source of confusion for you I have really no idea.
Oh. This sounds like a familiar string of words you often end up hiding behind. What is "crystal clear" robbie is that you have said one thing at one point in the discussion and then later you have said the opposite. Where is your backbone? What 'principle' could possibly underpin your doublespeak?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've said more or less this maybe 20-30 times. What you haven't addressed is the actual "trust" issue at stake: when it comes to the notion of "trust" being used as a device to keep an abuser's abuse secret, do you think that there is an obligation on the part of the abused party to cooperate in keeping the abuse secret?
When someone sends one a private correspondence one trusts that it remains private, you being an untrustworthy logically challenged dullard failed to keep that trust and instead passed it around among your cronies. The content of the text has no bearing on your heinous act of betrayal, its nothing more than a sham of self justification.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have answered this exact question repeatedly on this thread already and every time you have simply ignored it and instead offered your heinous act of betrayal heinous act of betrayal heinous act of betrayal heinous act of betrayal heinous act of betrayal sloganeering. Why ask me again, when this question, and the reasoning behind my stance, has already been given?
Please tell the forum why if you were concerned about the alledged abuse that you did not relate it to the site administration for them to deal with it and instead passed it around your cronies if you resonate with the above as you have now claimed.