Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Daniel Peterson]

You avoided my question.

No I didn't.

I didn't ask about a "unified, agreed-upon, set of "netiquette" rules. I asked if you were aware of the general idea. It was my impression that this was fairly well known and understood at ZLMB (and on every other board I've participated on)

Your defense seems a bit like a technicality to me.

Well, if this is going to turn into yet another Beastie inquisition, I'll be as broad in my answer as I can be, instead of, as I was trying to be, precise.

I was not aware of anything prohibiting me from privately writing (or even orally commenting) to somebody off the board and saying "Hey, look at this. It seems to be Bob."

I was well aware of the general convention against identifying people participating on a board on the board or publicly, and I've always strictly obeyed it. I still do, as at least two people who are very active here (and who disagree strongly with me on virtually every issue) can testify.

Surely you realized that by sending his stepfather the link, you were "outing" him to his real life family.

I didn't think of it as "outing" him. His identity was obvious. I thought his stepfather would want to be informed. I didn't find it an easy or pleasant thing to do. But, despite the fact that essentially everybody here disagrees with me, I still think it was the right thing to do.

Others can and do disagree. And that's fine. But I simply can't sit back without comment while what I did is transmogrified into a deliberately cruel act of monstrous viciousness motivated by hatred for GoodK or disdain for ex-Mormons. That's simply not true, and I'm simply not a monster.

[_harmony]

There is nothing inherently wrong with or bad about being young and/or immature, Trevor. It is what it is.

And I am sure you would find it flattering to see yourself publicly characterized as such. After all, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It just is what it is. Uhuh.

I have been called old, stupid, dishonest, foolish, fat, so fat I had to grease the doorjam in order to go through it. I've been called so many things, I don't even remember them all. GoodK and Daniel both have called me those things. I didn't see you worrying overmuch about that, Trevor. Why the angst about my opinion that GoodK is young and immature?

I haven't played a bg part in either discussion. My participation here does not require that I participate in every discussion, even superficially.

Fascinating. Now I can see why you are participating in this discussion, because you aren't really contributing to it. No person is an island, excepting harmony.

I have no dog in this fight, Trevor. If my determined neutrality disturbs you, that's your problem, not mine.

My mistake. I thought you were directing your remarks to me.

Obviously, since you are an island, and none of this involves you, you are correct. It was my mistake to think you had any stake in this discussion, even superficially, and even though the issue of privacy has impacted you directly.

Where were you when my daughter was being stalked? Nowhere that I saw. Where were you when my privacy was invaded on a board I can't even post on, my personal information, closely guarded as it is, revealed? I don't recall seeing you defend me or castigating those who would do me harm.

I learned a hard lesson, Trevor: stay out of fights where I have no stake. I like this place and Shades has been good to me. I have friends here that I care a lot about. I consider myself a member of this community, but I can't force GoodK or Daniel to change the way they see us or me. I can't make them care about us. Neither considers me a friend and neither would be at all influenced by anything I could say. So, in that sense, I am an island, I guess. Maybe we all are. No matter how much we may want to be joined, maybe we all are islands. Maybe all that matters is how close our islands are to each other.

[_Trevor]

In a sense, that's true. I wasn't really concerned with GoodK's identity, as such. (And I didn't reveal it.) I was concerned that his stepfather be informed. And I may be misremembering on this, but it vaguely seems to me that his stepfather may already have known that GoodK was posting here. If that's true, of course, he might eventually have read GoodK's remark about him without any prompting from me. But, of course, I wouldn't have known that before I sent the link to the stepfather.

I hope that I would have refrained from sharing this information unless GoodK had publicly identified himself by his real name. I think I understand better why you did what you did, but my familiarity with the basic tenets of anonymity in other kinds of discussion groups has led me to different conclusions. The public availability of this board does change my perception of the expectation of privacy (speaking informally, and not legally), but not such that I would have done as you did in this particular instance.

[_ajax18]

This is a shame for all of us. I thought the purpose of this place was to be able to say what you want in the name of finding the truth, without having to worry about crap like this. Perhaps the free speech gained by internet anonymity was just an illusion. But I guess there will always be people trying to control other people. So much for free speech and philosophical inquiry. I guess that's not real life. Real life is war.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have been called old, stupid, dishonest, foolish, fat, so fat I had to grease the doorjam in order to go through it. I've been called so many things, I don't even remember them all. GoodK and Daniel both have called me those things.

I'm old, older than I ever dreamed I'd be, and it managed to sneak up on me without my noticing it. Moreover, if I can believe what's posted about me in various places, I'm so grotesquely fat that I affect regional weather patterns.

I don't believe that I've ever called you stupid, dishonest, or fat. Foolish? Maybe, but I don't think so. Old? That was a joke. You've called yourself old, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't do that sort of insult.

I hope that I would have refrained from sharing this information unless GoodK had publicly identified himself by his real name. I think I understand better why you did what you did, but my familiarity with the basic tenets of anonymity in other kinds of discussion groups has led me to different conclusions. The public availability of this board does change my perception of the expectation of privacy (speaking informally, and not legally), but not such that I would have done as you did in this particular instance.

People can disagree about this matter. But I insist that those on either side can still be decent people.

[_Ray A]

As I said above (and as I've said from the start), had I been in GoodK's stepdad's position, I would have appreciated knowing what my son had said about me. It would have grieved me, without question. But I would have wanted to know. And I might have resented somebody who had known but hadn't told me. What would I have done with the information? Very probably nothing.

I have some empathy with that view. I'd like to know what my sons were saying about me, and how I could rectify their grievance, if there was one. It would hurt me to know that their estimation of me was lower than I thought, and I'd do all I could to make amends, in short, repent of any behaviour which offended them. If I had sent an email which offended them, I'd like to know it offended them, so that in future I'd be more sensitive to their feelings.
>
>
>

[_Trevor]

I have been called old, stupid, dishonest, foolish, fat, so fat I had to grease the doorjam in order to go through it. I've been called so many things, I don't even remember them all. GoodK and Daniel both have called me those things. I didn't see you worrying overmuch about that, Trevor. Why the angst about my opinion that GoodK is young and immature?

I understand that you are missing the point. Fine.

I have no dog in this fight, Trevor. If my determined neutrality disturbs you, that's your problem, not mine.

If that is what you prefer to believe, I have no problem with it. We can discontinue this exchange.

Where were you when my daughter was being stalked? Nowhere that I saw. Where were you when my privacy was invaded on a board I can't even post on, my personal information, closely guarded as it is, revealed? I don't recall seeing you defend me or castigating those who would do me harm.

So the fact that I might have spoken in your favor if I had been around and had chosen to involve myself in the discussion is what? Something you would advise against?

I learned a hard lesson, Trevor: stay out of fights where I have no stake.

If you see the possibility that what is transpiring could irreparably harm the board, then it would seem you do have something at stake. Unless of course you don't care or vacate your stake in it.

Hey, let's not discuss this further. You claim you don't have a stake in this. That's fine with me. Take care.

[_beastie]

Well, if this is going to turn into yet another Beastie inquisition, I'll be as broad in my answer as I can be, instead of, as I was trying to be, precise.

I was not aware of anything prohibiting me from privately writing (or even orally commenting) to somebody off the board and saying "Hey, look at this. It seems to be Bob."

I was well aware of the general convention against identifying people participating on a board on the board or publicly, and I've always strictly obeyed it. I still do, as at least two people who are very active here (and who disagree strongly with me on virtually every issue) can testify.

There are two parts of this privacy equation. One part is, as you say, not revealing posters' identities on the particular internet board in question. You did not do that, hence, you keep insisting that you did not out Eric. (by the way, we all learned his real identity much later)

However, the other part of the privacy equation is not "outing" internet board participants to real life individuals. In other words, by sending Eric's father the link, you outed him as "goodk" on MD to his family. In my experience, neither is viewed as acceptable behavior.

You're not a monster. You are, however, a bright man who is well aware of the familial and social difficulties and strains that can be caused by one family member's loss of faith and/or criticism of the LDS faith. There is just no way you could not have recognized that revealing "goodk" to his family would cause distress. You argue that it was necessary distress, and that is where most of us beg to disagree.

I think this episode is an excellent demonstration of why many internet boards of significant size have this rule to begin with. I would guess revealing a poster's identity to the board, or telling real life family members that "so and so" posts as "such and such" on a board will always cause serious problems.

[_solomarineris]

Yes, my mention of a potential counter suit against GoodK is most definitely a threat and a promise. I'm serious about it, and he needs to understand that I am.

Whether such a counter suit is legally practical or not, I don't know. But, if GoodK's threat materializes, I'll definitely pursue it energetically with my counsel. And GoodK needs to be aware that I'm now well equipped with offers of professional legal help, which I will use to the fullest extent possible.

It ain't!
But it takes a smart brain to process it, and you, DCP are panicking.
Any action in this legal matter requires serious money. He's gotta be extremely stupid to sink any dime
in it.
You guys are both idiots, falling into the trap or your own creations.

[_Trevor]

People can disagree about this matter. But I insist that those on either side can still be decent people.

I agree. And to clarify, when I was speaking of zealots earlier, I was speaking of those who wanted to reveal harmony's identity, not you in the GoodK thing. I see things differently regarding what happened, but I did not intend to suggest that you were a zealot for what you did.