Boring dead drama is boring and dead

[_Fence Sitter]

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

It seems that private on the MDD board means between two parties and what ever the moderators feel like reading. Make you wonder how comfortable people should be using any sort of private information in any form over there. I wonder if they monitor the chat room discussions as well?

[_Bob Loblaw]

It seems that private on the MDD board means between two parties and what ever the moderators feel like reading. Make you wonder how comfortable people should be using any sort of private information in any form over there. I wonder if they monitor the chat room discussions as well?

My understanding is that the mods have a long history of making PMs public in an effort to embarrass or attack critical posters. Another reason I won't be joining that board anytime soon.

[_Bond James Bond]

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

It seems that private on the MDD board means between two parties and what ever the moderators feel like reading. Make you wonder how comfortable people should be using any sort of private information in any form over there. I wonder if they monitor the chat room discussions as well?

The chat room over there is always dead. It might qualify as a vacuum.

[_Pahoran]

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.

Really? Why are you "still waiting" for an answer you've already received?

I realise you think yourself entitled to dictate the terms, but I'm afraid I have news for you on that score.

My answer is still the same: [C] None of the above.

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.

I'm not "punting" anything.

The facts are these:

1) I removed the quote from my sig as soon as your objection was made known to me.
2) I removed the quotes from my posts as soon as I saw your PM here. Posts and sigs have always been understood by everyone of my acquaintance to be different things and subject to quite different rules.

You at one point claimed to have made a change to your blog "as a good-will gesture," or something. My good-will gesture is a reality; yours is only a memory.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_MsJack]

Pahoran ~ I can certainly understand your reluctance to have yesterday's private correspondence made known, given your embarrassing behavior therein, but having explained my principles to you, my question stands:

Do I have your permission to post our MDB private correspondence at MDB and my blog?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Still awaiting your response.

Private correspondence means private. You are without excuse for posting it repeatedly without my permission and misrepresenting what transpired between us. That snarling, victim-blaming tirade that you're calling a "good-will gesture" was too little, too late. Get over it.

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran ~ I can certainly understand your reluctance to have yesterday's private correspondence made known, given your embarrassing behavior therein, but having explained my principles to you, my question stands:

Do I have your permission to post our MDB private correspondence at MDB and my blog?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Still awaiting your response.

No you are not. You have received my response several times. Why do you suppose I'm going to change it if you just keep demanding?

However, if you'd like to make a substantive "good-will gesture," feel free to get back to me.

Private correspondence means private.

So why do you keep nagging me to give you permission to post it?

You are without excuse for posting it repeatedly without my permission and misrepresenting what transpired between us. That snarling, victim-blaming tirade that you're calling a "good-will gesture" was too little, too late. Get over it.

You were at no time and in no sense a "victim," and when it comes to "snarling tirades," you set the gold standard.

My good-will gesture was removing the quotes from my posts. If I was really petty and spiteful, I might go reinstating them on the grounds that my nose is out of joint; but I'm better than that.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_MsJack]

You were at no time and in no sense a "victim,"

I'm not? So it's okay to post private correspondence without the permission of the other participants in the correspondence? You had no objections to this?

and when it comes to "snarling tirades," you set the gold standard.

Grant your permission to post our correspondence from yesterday and let's see if the public agrees with you.

My good-will gesture was removing the quotes from my posts.

After (ab)using it to thrash me on a thread with hundreds of views where I was not permitted to respond. How magnanimous of you.

I wonder if Dan Peterson would feel grateful if Scratch went and removed his correspondence with Bradford from his posts just now . . .

[_Pahoran]

You were at no time and in no sense a "victim,"

I'm not? So it's okay to post private correspondence without the permission of the other participants in the correspondence? You had no objections to this?

Well, as the record shows, you certainly didn't.

But then it wasn't your ox being gored, was it?

and when it comes to "snarling tirades," you set the gold standard.

Grant your permission to post our correspondence from yesterday and let's see if the public agrees with you.

You keep nagging me about that. Let's just stipulate to the fact that your public will take your side, of course; they don't need to read anything to do that.

My good-will gesture was removing the quotes from my posts.

After (ab)using it to thrash me on a thread with hundreds of views where I was not permitted to respond. How magnanimous of you.

Why are you determined to relitigate every detail? If I remind you that you were a key figure in the Will Schryver poison pen campaign, will you then retort that he deserved it, and proceed to support it by producing some of his mined quotes? Just how far back is this supposed to go?

Once again: as soon as I saw your PM, I set about to do what any reasonable person would see was the right thing. I can't do anything about the time that has elapsed, but I am the one trying to bring this episode to an end; you are the one diligently trying to fan the flames. Peacemaking is generally thought, especially among Christians, to be a good thing. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_consiglieri]

If I was an obsessive, relentless hater who pursued personal vendettas to the last gasp, I probably would.

I think your train arrived at that particular station some time ago.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have to admit, Pahoran, that it sure is interesting to see you quivering like spineless jelly on this thread. How afraid you are! Why not just post the material? MsJack says that she has no objections, and you at one point seemed convinced that you'd be vindicated if the full details came to light. Now, however, you've resorted to a pair of really lame excuses: (1) that you choose option "C," because you refuse to let MsJack "control" the terms, or whatever (though this really amounts to choice "B," since it's obvious to everyone that you're crapping yourself in fear over the prospects of the PMs coming to light); and (2) saying that the PMs shouldn't be posted because MsJack's "crowd" will naturally side with her, regardless of the content.

I've already explained why (1) is incredibly lame and weak; (2) is similarly weenie-ish because MsJack's "crowd" consists of people like ttribe and Calmoriah (cf. the links in the OP). The real truth here, Pah, is that you probably know that your PMs will further destory your already problematic reputation among the more middle-of-the-road (read: non-zealots) TBMs--it's why you're adducing Schryver (of all people!) here.

Seriously, though: what have you got to lose? It seems to me that you look just as bad when you act like such a wimp on this thread. People like why me admire you because of your tough actin' in the face of adversity. If you keep allowing MsJack to make mincemeat out of you, then pretty soon the why mes of the world will lose respect for you too.