SGW - Was it worth it?

[_truth dancer]

This whole mess was just crazy.

A guy has an "organization" supposedly promoting Book of Mormon research, asking for donations, and we find out that there is no organization and he writes erotica?

It is was pretty wild.

I think a more stable person would step back and look at what he had done; remove the website of the pretend organization, take the pictures off the Internet, remove his porn stuff, and ask Dr. Shades to remove whatever was offensive, and lie low for a while. It would have passed in a day, as it actually did until he created the drama based on some misrepresentations.

But, I do think we can all step back and remember we are all part of this human family, and it never hurts to err on the side of care and consideration.

~td~

[_RockSlider]

CaliforniaKid,
So, let me get this straight: you point out a possible fraudulent situation associated with one claiming apologetic ties (in a field close to your heart/career). It is soon thereafter discovered that the same individual is displaying blatantly hypocritical behaviors, easily discovered from the same sources. And then the inevitable happens; the calling of a duck a duck. After reading the thread in question, I think Mr. Mustache got off easy.
And now everyone here is feeling guilty about this? I say BS, screw Mr. Mustache, he deserved everything he got.

[_Kishkumen]

CaliforniaKid,
So, let me get this straight: you point out a possible fraudulent situation associated with one claiming apologetic ties (in a field close to your heart/career). It is soon thereafter discovered that the same individual is displaying blatantly hypocritical behaviors, easily discovered from the same sources. And then the inevitable happens; the calling of a duck a duck. After reading the thread in question, I think Mr. Mustache got off easy.
And now everyone here is feeling guilty about this? I say BS, screw Mr. Mustache, he deserved everything he got.

This might be the actual reason the guy freaked out.

[_Yoda]

I have, for a long time, been against posting in real life images of ANYONE on the board....mainly for the reasons that Kish listed earlier.

Is it really worth the consequences?

Also....I have a firm belief that those who post on online forums who choose to keep their Internet and in real life lives separate should be able to do that.

Ruining someone's career or marriage is just not cool.

I think that the img insert code on the board should remain turned off.

[Guest]

I have, for a long time, been against posting in real life images of ANYONE on the board....mainly for the reasons that Kish listed earlier.

Is it really worth the consequences?

Also....I have a firm belief that those who post on online forums who choose to keep their Internet and in real life lives separate should be able to do that.

Ruining someone's career or marriage is just not cool.

I think that the img insert code on the board should remain turned off.

in real life information consists both of images and verbiage. It is as easy for someone that is privy to another's in real life information to post verbiage that is in violation of MDB rules as it is an image.

The only difference is that an image might be protected as intellectual property rights. Composition of fresh verbiage that contains in real life facts about someone is not a breach of intellectual property rights. If someone has plaigarized some obscure, but copyrighted verbiage, put it into a post and posted it without attribution, then a violation has occurred even though it was not realized.

Similarly, an image may be posted even though it has been protected under a valid copyright, which the image as posted might not show the copyright.

If MDB had to assure that no copyrighted material appeared on its site, MDB like any other multi-user discussion board on the internet would have to be shut down by its host and owner as the only sure way to avoid liability.

Intellectual property law is not my forté, but I see many websites that host forums for multi-user postings. If I practiced in that area of the law, I would contact Mav and Dr Shades privately with some opinions and suggestions. But based on general legal notions it would seem that the owners or hosts can only be liable for how they act or do not act on what information they have and when about whether materials posted on their boards is intellectually protected. If a post is made of an image, or a verbal passage, and there is a visible intellectual property marking, then it ought to be reported to mods and taken down promptly. If either is otherwise known to contain copyrighted or trademarked materials, it ought to be taken down. It seems that the entire internet would come to a halt, with no websites to go to with posting privileges, if allowing materials not known by the hosts and owners to be legally protected could yet yield liability.

I would imagine that there are a plethora of articles about this topic available on the internet, using the right Google(tm) search. (Okay, just a bit of paranoia prompted my attributing the (tm) mark there.)

On another, but somewhat related topic, I hear that a California federal court last week entered an order against Facebook ordering it to disclose the contact and background information from its registration of a handful of anonymous posters there that might have libeled some members of a board in England. I realize that Dr Shades, one of my favorite libertarians, has vowed to resist any efforts about MDB registrants, but given the penchant of DCP, SGW, and other defenders of Mormonism to threaten or take legal action because they do not like what is being posted, I can only imagine it will be a matter of time before (if it hasn't happened already) the FAIR/NAMIRS "brain" trust considers some type of legal action so that they can perhaps get a judge to order the disclosure of the identities of various MDB registrants.

[_harmony]

And now everyone here is feeling guilty about this? I say BS, screw Mr. Mustache, he deserved everything he got.

I don't think guilty is the correct word. I didn't know Mr SGW prior to this, but what I know of him now has left a sour if brief impression. Definitely not someone I'd like to see every Sunday in church.

On another note: personally, I don't like 95% of the pictures posted here. I'd never post a picture of my family here, because this place is too open and I've been stalked in the past... no sense in poking a sleeping wolf with a pointed stick. And I'd definitely never post a picture of someone else just so I could set them up for ridicule. To me, that's just bad form.

Carry on.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think that the img insert code on the board should remain turned off.

You might as well close up shop at that point. Messageboards thrive off gifs/jpgs, and it still would not prohibit false DMCAs from being dropped.

There is no policy change this board could make that would prohibit another false DMCA claim, keeping the img code off will just make people leave here that much faster, and in the end, make guys like SWG and Juliann that much more satisfied.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Also wanted to add, any argument against img code is also valid against avatars, I could drop a false DMCA on liz right now for the Spring Awakening avatar and get a similiar result. What SGW was wrong, and we shouldn't have to change a thing.

[_harmony]

I think that the img insert code on the board should remain turned off.

You might as well close up shop at that point. Messageboards thrive off gifs/jpgs, and it still would not prohibit false DMCAs from being dropped.

Oh, that's just hyperbole, stak. Message boards don't thrive on pictures... they thrive on WORDS. I have more posts on this board than 90% of the board members, and I have never posted a picture... ever. And I've never had an avatar.

There is no policy change this board could make that would prohibit another false DMCA claim, keeping the img code off will just make people leave here that much faster, and in the end, make guys like SWG and Juliann that much more satisfied.

People? faster? Much? Good grief. We aren't bleeding posters, stak, at least no faster than we ever were. I don't need pictures to keep me here.

[_Kishkumen]

I hate to bring up the "r" word, but maybe we could use a rule against linking to pictures of people's families. I understand that this was not the problem, but I think that act, in particular, was highly provocative, pointless, and may have just put SeattleSmutWriter over the edge. Don't mess with the fam, man. You want to talk about bad form? That's the very definition of bad form right there. Leave family out of it.

Unconvinced?

Notice that Doctor Scratch, as a rule, leaves family out of his activities, and generally does not approve of others dragging family in. If the king of the parodists and critics of apologetics on this board has such a rule for himself, it is probably not such a bad idea for the rest of us.