Boring dead drama is boring and dead

[_MsJack]

And the answer is: C, None of the above. I'm going to leave it up to your conscience. Let us see how highly you value the "sanctity" of PM's. If my posting of one sentence from a PM you "trusted" me with was such a horrendous violation, I want to see how your principles stack up.

My principle is that it is acceptable to quote private correspondence (a) when one has permission from the other participant(s) in the correspondence, or (b) when someone is misrepresenting what transpired over the course of a correspondence, especially when the party being misrepresented has tried to resolve the matter through other channels. Otherwise the private correspondence should stay private. "But you were rude to me in our private correspondence!" does not an excuse to violate privacy make.

Exhibit A. (Scholar gave permission.) Exhibit B. (Christian Leader was hesitant about giving permission, and ultimately decided not to grant it.)

So if you will not grant your permission directly, I will not post it. It doesn't matter how rude you were to me today (and you were very rude); I will not post it. If you do not quote snippets from the correspondence and misrepresent them (as you did with our MDDB correspondence), I will not post it.

Any questions?

[_why me]

One thing I am learning from this board: don't rumble with msj. She will pin you to the wall. And, she takes copius notes.

Also, don't send any PMs nor reveal your identity on any Mormon discussion board. You are bound to suffer the consequences.

[_Chap]

Reading Pahoran is so reassuring.

Whenever I am troubled by the suspicion that religious belief might be the only way some people can retain essential qualities of humanity and decency, he brings me back to the liberating perception that the possession or non-possession of religious belief has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not someone is a decent person.

I do hope to see a lot more of him on this board.

[_Drifting]

I may be slow on the uptake here but, Msjack, why on earth are you continuing having private dialogue of any sort with a piker (he will understand this) like Pahoran?

Why not just stop all contact?

I may be wrong (and obviously placing myself in harms way here) but it seems like you are a bit obsessive about him.

[_Pahoran]

My principle is that it is acceptable to quote private correspondence (a) when one has permission from the other participant(s) in the correspondence, or (b) when someone is misrepresenting what transpired over the course of a correspondence, especially when the party being misrepresented has tried to resolve the matter through other channels. Otherwise the private correspondence should stay private. "But you were rude to me in our private correspondence!" does not an excuse to violate privacy make.

But "you quoted one sentence of mine!" does. Got it.

Since your "principle" is neatly and tidily folded to wrap around this situation as you choose to see (or describe) it, why not break down and admit that it's really the case that it is acceptable to quote private correspondence whenever it suits the expediency of Ms Jack?

This is how people operate when they are following a real principle: they stick to it even when they feel like they've been provoked. Principles, you see, are bigger than moments.

So if you will not grant your permission directly, I will not post it. It doesn't matter how rude you were to me today (and you were very rude);

Since you feel that you are not violating your "principle" by expressing that opinion, I'll tell you that I've reviewed our correspondence and find that I probably was almost as rude as you in about half as many PM's as you were extremely rude to me.

I will not post it. If you do not quote snippets from the correspondence and misrepresent them (as you did with our MDDB correspondence),

In your completely impartial opinion, of course.

I will not post it.

Any questions?

Only one: Is that the end of your current vendetta, then?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_why me]

Pahoran is my hero. His posts on the FAIR board were very influential for me. I loved the way he fought back against the critics and he made their dubious tactics very clear to me. You are doing a good job, Pahoran.

[_MsJack]

Drifting ~ This thread (and my PM to Pahoran) were both started months and months ago. Pahoran only responded to either yesterday. I've spent minimal time on either.

Pahoran ~ Do I have your permission to post our private correspondence from yesterday?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Still waiting for your answer. If you're so sure that your conduct with me was appropriate to the simple and polite request that I sent to you, then I don't see why you're punting the question.

[_Drifting]

Drifting ~ This thread (and my PM to Pahoran) were both started months and months ago. Pahoran only responded to either yesterday. I've spent minimal time on either.

Pahoran ~ Do I have your permission to post our private correspondence from yesterday?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Still waiting for your answer. If you're so sure that your conduct with me was appropriate to the simple and polite request that I sent to you, then I don't see why you're punting the question.

Thanks MSJ, I still don't think he's worth bothering with...

[_MsJack]

Thanks MSJ, I still don't think he's worth bothering with...

You're not wrong.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Thanks MSJ, I still don't think he's worth bothering with...

You're not wrong.

Hopefully, the lesson people will take from this is that it's not productive to interact with the bitter kiwi, especially not in private.