1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI just explained it, you betrayed a private correspondence why that should be difficult to understand i cannot say. This is a separate issue to what the content of the text was.
You'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?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut it isn't a "separate issue", robbie. Don't be silly. It's only "separate" in your mind because you want to repeat your catchphrases and don't want to address the actual issue.
I just explained it, you betrayed a private correspondence why that should be difficult to understand i cannot say. This is a separate issue to what the content of the text was.
Originally posted by FMFHere is my text here,
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?
just how abusive was this text? did the sender call you names? did they threaten you with physical abuse? Just how likely was it that they could carry out their aims? In doing so we shall be more able to judge whether or not this alleged abuse really constituted abuse or whether it was simply bluster.
there is no double speak at all, oh dear, an untrustworthy cad and now caught attempting to fabricate values that have not been explicitly expressed, I would say that you are pretty much morally bankrupt.
Originally posted by FMFYes it is, the content of the text has no bearing on your act of betrayal. Why is this the case? because you had options open to you. You were not under duress to reveal the contents of the text were you? On no, you could easily have appealed to a third party if you were concerned about the content. couldn't you. The content did not compel you in anyway to make it public and its nonsense and a flimsy charade of self justification to argue that it did. Ouch!
But it isn't a "separate issue", robbie. Don't be silly. It's only "separate" in your mind because you want to repeat your catchphrases and don't want to address the actual issue.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd on page 26 you said: "One does not need to know the content to understand that the simple betrayal of confidence is what is heinous..."
Here is my text here,
just how abusive was this text? did the sender call you names? did they threaten you with physical abuse? Just how likely was it that they could carry out their aims? In doing so we shall be more able to judge whether or not this alleged abuse really constituted abuse or whether it was simply bluster.
Like I said, you are prepared to say just about anything. But when it suits you to say the exact opposite, you simply say the exact opposite.
Originally posted by FMFYou are asking us to accept that the content compelled you to act in the way that you did? When you had other options before you? I don't think anyone will buy into that.
I 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?
Originally posted by FMFnonsense the content did not compel you in anyway, you have admitted that you had options before you, indeed the mere fact that you chose to act in the way that you did refutes the idea that you were compelled. Ouch.
Of course it does. If the content had been different - if it had not been threats and abuse - I would not have shared it with anyone.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut I have told you exactly why I did what I did and you have ignored it.
...you had options open to you. You were not under duress to reveal the contents of the text were you? On no, you could easily have appealed to a third party if you were concerned about the content. couldn't you.
Why not respond to the outcomes that my approach has had:
No deceit. All out in the open. Nobody's shabby secrets being kept. No curtailment of free speech. Principled stand. Suzianne gets no ban. She's learnt a lesson. Other abusive posters like yourself are vowing not to send any abusive messages for fear of being exposed. No cover up. Channel of communication still open. Decent messaging still possible. A very satisfying set of outcomes.
Originally posted by FMFthis is a clear indication that the content and your act of betrayal are two separate issues, boohoo for you.
And on page 26 you said: "One does not need to know the content to understand that the simple betrayal of confidence is what is heinous..."
Like I said, you are prepared to say just about anything. But when it suits you to say the exact opposite, you simply say the exact opposite.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell no one is compelling you to post on this thread, so what? Just address the reasons I gave you for the course of action I took instead of trying to work up a new catchphrase with the word "compel" in it.
nonsense the content did not compel you in anyway....
Originally posted by FMFI don't think this bluster is going to save you, you were not compelled in the slightest to share the contents, it did not compel you to act, you had choices and made a choice refuting the idea that you were compelled to act in a particular way. You have also endorsed appealing to a third party and cannot tell us why you did not.
But I have told you exactly why I did what I did and you have ignored it.
Why not respond to the outcomes that my approach has had:
No deceit. All out in the open. Nobody's shabby secrets being kept. No curtailment of free speech. Principled stand. Suzianne gets no ban. She's learnt a lesson. Other abusive posters like yourself are vowing not to send any a ...[text shortened]... of communication still open. Decent messaging still possible. A very satisfying set of outcomes.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Compelled". You seem to be trying to forge a new catchphrase. I wasn't compelled to report Suzianne to the web site either, or to try to get her banned, so what? I wasn't compelled to choose the same option as you would have chosen, so what? Compel, compelled, compulsion, it's a red herring robbie.
You are asking us to accept that the content compelled you to act in the way that you did? When you had other options before you? I don't think anyone will buy into that.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Compelled". "Compel". "Compelled"
I don't think this bluster is going to save you, you were not compelled in the slightest to share the contents, it did not compel you to act, you had choices and made a choice refuting the idea that you were compelled to act in a particular way. You have also endorsed appealing to a third party and cannot tell us why you did not.