Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

[_cinepro]

But I still don't believe that drawing someone's attention to a public internet posting violates any rule of either ethics or internet decorum.

I agree with 99% of that sentiment. The internet is a public place, and anything posted is fair-game to be read by anyone. If sending someone a link they might be interested in is bad form, then we're all guilty of indiscretion.

My only point of disagreement would be the 2 layers of anonymity that were circumvented. If the author of the email in GoodK's post were identified, or GoodK himself were easily identified, then the information would have been more "public". But one of the ways to keep things "private" even in "public" is through anonymity.

But using someone else's photo as an avatar is pretty tacky, aside from any concerns about protocol. Usually an avatar is supposed to represent you in some way, so I'm not sure what is being said by using a picture of someone with whom you are openly antagonistic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My only point of disagreement would be the 2 layers of anonymity that were circumvented. If the author of the email in GoodK's post were identified, or GoodK himself were easily identified, then the information would have been more "public". But one of the ways to keep things "private" even in "public" is through anonymity.

Just to be clear: I was easily able to identify GoodK and GoodK's stepfather because I had also received the note from GoodK's stepfather on which GoodK was commenting. But I didn't identify GoodK publicly. I simply called his stepfather's attention, via a private e-mail, to GoodK's post.



.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I didn't even know he had a sister until he offered his post about her. All I did was comment upon his post. I was trying to stick up for and defend the family. I didn't even know he had a sister (well, not exactly; I had received the very same email GoodK received and thus knew what was going on at that point). I have never revealed anything about his family -- ever. Maybe GoodK or somebody on this board can point to some place in cyberspace where I've done that.

I recall your admitting some time ago that when you were unsuccessful in contacting GoodK's father about this post, you asked DCP to do it, and he was successful.

[_GoodK]

Just to be clear: I was easily able to identify GoodK and GoodK's stepfather because I had also received the note from GoodK's stepfather on which GoodK was commenting. But I didn't identify GoodK publicly. I simply called his stepfather's attention, via a private e-mail, to GoodK's post.



.

Just to be clear: what you did was malicious and not an innocent act by any means.

Keep calling it what you want, but what you did was disgusting.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

For the record, I don't believe that drawing someone's attention to a public internet posting -- and, in this case, to an internet posting about that very person -- violates any rule of either ethics or internet decorum.

But only you and Crock (and you solely via Crock's bringing it to your attention) knew who "that very person" was. None of the rest of us did.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I recall your admitting some time ago that when you were unsuccessful in contacting GoodK's father about this post, you asked DCP to do it, and he was successful.

If Bob really "admitted" such a thing, I believe he's mistaken. Unless my memory is misleading me, I contacted GoodK's stepfather entirely on my own.

GoodK's stepfather and I communicate several times in any given year, sometimes more frequently than at other times, by telephone and by e-mail.

and you solely via Crock's bringing it to your attention

See above.

But only you and Crock . . . knew who "that very person" was. None of the rest of us did.

Quite true. And I didn't identify GoodK to you. I've never done so.

[_rcrocket]

I recall your admitting some time ago that when you were unsuccessful in contacting GoodK's father about this post, you asked DCP to do it, and he was successful.

Just as I couldn't get GoodK's father's attention by email, nor could I with Dr. Peterson. I think Dr. Peterson noted that somewhere on this board.

You might recall that I am not in the "in crowd" with LDS apologists having been, as Scratch once observed, been burned out of the canyon on an apologetics list having disagreed with Dr. Peterson -- or so Scratch claims. I have a lot of problems with the theories and tone of apologetic works in the world of Mormonism and have not been reticent about condemning them. You might further observe that I don't really post on MAD.

[_rcrocket]

For the record, I don't believe that drawing someone's attention to a public internet posting -- and, in this case, to an internet posting about that very person -- violates any rule of either ethics or internet decorum.

But only you and Crock (and you solely via Crock's bringing it to your attention) knew who "that very person" was. None of the rest of us did.

Many people who had received the father's post recognized it on this list. Gee -- I think it fair game to send a public link to another person on the internet, although I was never able to do it.

[_truth dancer]

Hmm...

First, I don't like the idea of someone using my photo as their avatar so golden rule and all would disallow me to do so.

OTOH, there are plenty of people right here on this board who use photos of someone other than themselves as their avatars.

I don't know the identity of many of the photos used as avatars, nor would I know the identity of GoodK's avatar if Bob had not told us. (It could have been anyone, so why did Bob call our attention to it)?

So, where does one draw the line?

Are movie stars or famous athletes fair game? Why? How about those who use a pic of Thomas Monson? Or GBH? How about someone you admire? Did everyone who uses a photo of someone other than themselves get the person's permission? How about pets and penguins? (just kidding)!

Again, I am uncomfortable with it all but am not so sure how it should play out.

~td~

[_why me]

Hmm...

First, I don't like the idea of someone using my photo as their avatar so golden rule and all would disallow me to do so.

The photo of Bob is very similiar to the one on his blog but without his wife.

In the beginning I thought that the photo was of Eric and someone who is helping him. I never thought that he would take such liberties with someone's photo.