Boring dead drama is boring and dead

[_MsJack]

Certainly: there is no post from you on the thread to which you linked. Just as you drew conclusions from my not having protested Dan publishing something you sent him (I don't remember seeing it) I am entitled to draw the same conclusion about something you did know about.

I do not believe for a second that you did not see any of the MADB threads in 2010 or the post at my blog where I protested Dan's posting of my private correspondence. You were active on several of those threads. That said, the only thing I said was that I did not trust you with my private correspondence at the time because you had not spoken up on the matter, therefore I couldn't be certain of where your position fell. I didn't accuse you of condoning what Dan did because you did not speak up.

However, since you seem to feel that the original recipient of private correspondence has the right to post it with or without permission, it seems my fears were prescient.

I have no recollection of objecting to it. Naturally I did not approve; the worthless Scratch was posting correspondence that was not sent to him, and that therefore he had no rights to. It was purloined material.

No one knows Scratch's true identity. He may be Gerald Bradford or one of the 18 people Dan CC'ed the message to. So by that reasoning, you can't know that he had no right to post it.

Your mind-reading is defective. I am "dodging" nothing.

You most certainly are.

You are the person who made a great performance about the "sanctity" of PM's. When I hear the word "sanctity," I'm reminded of a Catholic priest, who regards the confessional as having real sanctity, such that he will not divulge a confession even if the confessor subsequently says something unkind or untrue about the event.

Yup. Comes from working in special collections for both BYU and TIU, where I was taught not to gab in public about the sensitive things I was learning about the lives of real people (some of them well-known figures in Mormonism). Unless other extenuating circumstances apply (illegal activity, etc.), what happens in privacy should stay in privacy until the permission of all parties is granted. "Sanctity" is absolutely the appropriate word for it.

I won't publish our private correspondence without your express permission (which I had immediately asked for as soon as you replied to me, you'll recall---so it's not like you didn't know I was interested before you replied to me 10 more times). Rest easy. I will stand by what I believe, and your abusive behavior will stay between the two of us.

As you know, I wasn't referring to my "nasty" PM's, nor to yours either. I was referring to the fact that I removed the source of what I thought your concern was as soon as it was brought to my attention that you objected.

My PMs to you were not nasty in the slightest, which is why I am the the only one between us who would not be ashamed of having them published. In any case, attempting to "peacemake" while berating the other party for making a small, polite request is not Christian behavior. I didn't require groveling or even an apology, either. Had your original message said something like this:

"Dear Ms. Jack,

I have removed your private correspondence from my posts at MDDB. I would appreciate it if you would remove mention of the matter from your blog

Regards,
Pahoran"

I would have done it in a heartbeat.

"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." <==== Christianity

[_Bob Loblaw]

"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." <==== Christianity

Stirring up anger is his intention, it seems. That's what people do when they know they are on the wrong side of truth.

[_consiglieri]

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

Examples, please?

Regards,
Pahoran

Your entire posting history, for one.

[_consiglieri]

You've got it exactly backwards, as only you can do. I'm the one who doesn't want the "control;" I don't want to be responsible for what can only be Ms Jack's decision.

Where's the chicken-crapping-itself icon when you need it?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Where's the chicken-crapping-itself icon when you need it?

Pahoran is a sad object lesson showing what happens when you abandon truth, kindness, and conscience to prop up what you know isn't true.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You've got it exactly backwards, as only you can do. I'm the one who doesn't want the "control;" I don't want to be responsible for what can only be Ms Jack's decision.

Where's the chicken-crapping-itself icon when you need it?

Indeed. Pahoran is toast. I cheerfully predict that he won't be returning to this thread. MsJack made utter mincemeat out of him, and his only remaining option it to beat a hasty retreat.

[_Droopy]

You were banned because (1) you called me a liar in a PM in clear violation of the rules[.]

Hold the phone. . . the MD&D moderators ban people for things they say in private messages??

I was banned just for showing up last time.

[_Droopy]

More excuses. What a shocker. And what's next, I wonder? More smoke? More attempts to wiggle out of this? Or are you going to post the material and show everyone how much of an "obsessive, relentless hater" MsJack actually is?

It's quite a pickle you're in here, isn't it? I mean, if you do anything other than post the correspondence, you're going to fulfill my predictions concerning your cowardice and guilt. And boy, that would just be the worst, wouldn't it?

Like I said, Scratch: coming from you, that's a ringing endorsement.

Have another look at your first post in this thread. You said you hoped poor put-upon Jack would be "able to get this worked out." I've removed the material that she ostensibly wanted me to remove. How much more "worked out" does she need it to be? Why are you so eager to see even more of her oh so "private" correspondence posted when she was so terribly terribly upset by the posting of a single sentence? Haven't you any sensitivity, man? Don't you know that she's obviously just putting a brave face upon a dreadful trauma? Do you really want her tender feelings to be harrowed up even more? For shame!

Regards,
Pahoran

I've come to believe, over time, that Scratch probably doesn't really even believe 80% of what he posts at all. Most of it is just fluff meant to provoke contention and fireworks (much like Graham).

Its really all more of a psychological catharsis for him than a serious engagement of ideas.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Its really all more of a psychological catharsis for him than a serious engagement of ideas.

You wouldn't know a serious engagement of ideas if it bit you on the ass.

[_RayAgostini]

"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." <==== Christianity

You've made a whole thread here, on a sentence directed at you in a sig.line on MDDB, which most would not even have taken notice of? You've also expended a lot of time in judging others on their message board posts, and seem to have no scruples whatsoever that this partial judgement taken out of context in regard to the person's whole character, does nothing but unjustifiably smear their reputation, while you completely ignore transgressions on your own "side". I suppose you'll need to be pointed to this with A-B-C learning steps, and a dismantling of the blinkers?

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matt.7)

But by all means continue your vendettas against any and every one you think does not "follow the teachings of Christ".