Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Trevor]

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.

That's the sticking point for me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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 asked whether I was aware of such a rule, and my answer is No.

And, candidly, I'm not sure that I know about it now, either. You assure me that there is such a rule, or such a consensus, and that may well be true. I'm not aware of it, though, beyond your telling me that it's so, and I'm not sure that I would agree with it, were it the case. Who establishes "netiquette"? What if I dissent?

I've never seen the slightest thing wrong with speculating, tentatively or with a high degree of certainty, in closed conversation, about the identity of a poster. In fact, I would imagine that many if not most people do it from time to time, and without the slightest twinge of guilt. And I don't see how doing so privately via e-mail is substantially different, ethically speaking.

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.

Trust me, beastie. The distress was already there, and had been for years. Don't forget that I've known this man for more than two decades. We're not close pals, but we've communicated by phone and by e-mail from time to time during those years, and had visited with one another in California and in Utah. He had already told me a great deal. I know this drives you nuts, but it's true: I don't know everything about this family situation, but I know more than I've ever let on (or would let on), and I've known it, in some cases, as it was happening.

Have I taken pleasure in this? Not by a long shot. Have I sometimes wished I could blurt? Yes. But I haven't.

[_harmony]

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 believe your latest volley was "appallingly ignorant" and "complacently judgmental". But that's a far cry from stupid, I suppose.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

I'm not panicking, but I take this seriously and I'm not pleased.

The Rev. Kurt Van Gorden kept a lawsuit going against me for two years that had not the slightest scintilla of merit to it. Did he have "serious money"? No. He had zealous Christian(c) attorneys acting pro bono. So far as I'm aware, it cost him nothing.

I regret that. And I vowed at the time that nobody would ever again be able to steal two years of my life via a lawsuit without it costing him something. I won't put up with this again.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I believe your latest volley was "appallingly ignorant" and "complacently judgmental". But that's a far cry from stupid, I suppose.

Very different things.

[_beastie]

You asked whether I was aware of such a rule, and my answer is No.

And, candidly, I'm not sure that I know about it now, either. You assure me that there is such a rule, or such a consensus, and that may well be true. I'm not aware of it, though, beyond your telling me that it's so, and I'm not sure that I would agree with it, were it the case. Who establishes "netiquette"? What if I dissent?

I've never seen the slightest thing wrong with speculating, tentatively or with a high degree of certainty, in closed conversation, about the identity of a poster. In fact, I would imagine that many if not most people do it from time to time, and without the slightest twinge of guilt. And I don't see how doing so privately via e-mail is substantially different, ethically speaking.

You really don't see the difference between speculating on someone's identity via email with another poster on the board, and contacting family members and telling them that one of their family members participates as "X" on a certain board? And you have never had the impression that doing so would be inappropriate???

Trust me, beastie. The distress was already there, and had been for years. Don't forget that I've known this man for more than two decades. We're not close pals, but we've communicated by phone and by e-mail from time to time during those years, and had visited with one another in California and in Utah. He had already told me a great deal. I know this drives you nuts, but it's true: I don't know everything about this family situation, but I know more than I've ever let on (or would let on), and I've known it, in some cases, as it was happening.

Have I taken pleasure in this? Not by a long shot. Have I sometimes wished I could blurt? Yes. But I haven't.

Yes, it does drive me crazy, and I have told you why many times. in my opinion, far worse damage can be done to someone's reputation by hinting that you know terrible things that, if you could only share them, would change everyone's mind about someone. I think it is very unethical behavior. I also think it demonstrates the same sort of personal boundary issues that could explain your inability to see a problem with alerting real life family members that "so and so" posts as "X" on a certain board.

[_Ray A]

Yes, it does drive me crazy, and I have told you why many times. in my opinion, far worse damage can be done to someone's reputation by hinting that you know terrible things that, if you could only share them, would change everyone's mind about someone. I think it is very unethical behavior.

I totally agree. And the question I have in mind is, what constitutes "unethical behaviour"? By Mormon standards it could be a young male smoking grass and drinking alcohol.

Having dealt with three teenaged boys, through thick and thin, I'd like to know just how different Eric was, as I've asked before.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You really don't see the difference between speculating on someone's identity via email with another poster on the board, and contacting family members and telling them that one of their family members participates as "X" on a certain board? And you have never had the impression that doing so would be inappropriate???

I don't see them as precisely analogous. But I also see a family as having more reason to want to know about a family member's comments on a message board than a bunch of idle strangers have to know the identity of a stranger.

I don't see the rule about protecting poster identities as an absolute one, or as a fundamental ethical value. There are other obligations or interests that Trump it, and my view was that, in this situation, the stepfather's interest in knowing what GoodK was saying about him weighed more heavily than GoodK's presumption of internet anonymity -- which, again, I respected scrupulously in every other regard.

Yes, it does drive me crazy, and I have told you why many times. in my opinion, far worse damage can be done to someone's reputation by hinting that you know terrible things that, if you could only share them, would change everyone's mind about someone. I think it is very unethical behavior. I also think it demonstrates the same sort of personal boundary issues that could explain your inability to see a problem with alerting real life family members that "so and so" posts as "X" on a certain board.

I admit that it's a very troublesome area, and that airy insinuations of wrongdoing on somebody's part can be both baseless and very harmful. But sometimes, when one really does know something and others, who don't know what they're talking about, are going on and on, it's very difficult to know exactly how to respond. One can't violate confidences, but other people might be drawing spectacularly wrong-headed conclusions.

While I don't do this lightly, and don't do it in even a small fraction of the cases where I could, I think it sometimes very important for people who are gabbing away about a situation to be reminded that they don't know all of the relevant context, and that there are things that, if they knew them, might alter their opinions or cause them to go silent.

In cases where people are gossiping ignorantly and too confidently, I don't believe it's a bad thing to imply that they should possibly withhold judgment because they don't know enough to have valid opinions.

On a completely different topic:

Incidentally, I have a hunch -- though, as yet, no real evidence to support it -- that GoodK's legal threat may be aided and abetted by a certain other person who regards me with obsessively malignant hatred and who has conducted a focused crusade of character assassination against me for the past three years.

I will make every effort that I can, if this goes to trial, to discover whether my hunch is correct and, if it is, to reveal that person's identity and involvement and to dissuade him very powerfully from further attempts to harm me.

[_Trevor]

Incidentally, I have a hunch -- though, as yet, no real evidence to support it -- that GoodK's legal threat may be aided and abetted by a certain other person who regards me with obsessively malignant hatred and who has conducted a focused crusade of character assassination against me for the past three years.

I will make every effort that I can, if this goes to trial, to discover whether my hunch is correct and, if it is, to reveal that person's identity and involvement and to dissuade him very powerfully from further attempts to harm me.

Yeah, that thought had crossed my mind too. The timing is suggestive.

[_Pokatator]

I've never seen the slightest thing wrong with speculating, tentatively or with a high degree of certainty, in closed conversation, about the identity of a poster. In fact, I would imagine that many if not most people do it from time to time, and without the slightest twinge of guilt. And I don't see how doing so privately via e-mail is substantially different, ethically speaking.

Of course you see absolutely nothing wrong with this practice. Isn't this the purpose of your l-skinny? You crave gossip from your anonymous list of secret informants.