Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Jersey Girl]

How did DCP make GoodK's family aware of the post in question?

[_Trevor]

Tell that to the many many MANY LDS posters on MAD who would like to see me standing in front of a Court of Love.

It seems to me that if you don't like it, you might take a stand against such behavior consistently instead of telling GoodK to grow up.

There is no expectation of privacy on the internet. None. If GoodK thought he had an expectation of privacy, he was badly mistaken. Online etiquette is only as useful as those who explicitly agree to observe it. I've found several people who would disregard online etiquette in a flash if they could just figure out who I am.

One of the many reasons I do not consider myself LDS any longer. But, once again, because there are a few zealots who refuse to observe what I consider to be net ethics does not mean that I have to suffer them. Any talk of booting GoodK for threatening legal action should be balanced with talk of booting those who shared his anonymous venting with those who know him in real life. I don't recall that conversation.

[_karl61]

I cannot let him have my house and my life savings, Inconceivable. I have a wife and children.

But, if you're willing, I'm perfectly happy for him to take yours.

don't put your treasures where they can be stolen or ruined but build them up in another kingdom.

[_Ray A]

You are free to share your thoughts. However, if you expect people to refrain from using the thoughts you share in ways you think are unacceptable, then you are fooling yourself.

Not if false accusations are made, which constitute character defamation. You cannot twist information shared to defame someone's character and expect to get off scot-free.

[_dblagent007]

I think you may be right - the difference may be that Eric's was pretty obviously a parody. It reminds me of Falwell vs. Hustler magazine: that ended up being legally protected because no one could be expected to believe it was serious.

OTOH, DCP's post sounded quite realistic, particularly, as you say, due to the possible background knowledge of Eric and his family.

Of the two posts, I saw Eric's first. I had a hard time believing it because I knew of the history between GoodK and DCP, but I also couldn't believe that GoodK would simply post something that was completely false. Honestly, I didn't know what to make of it. I knew that GoodK was getting some connections through his Mormon Gulag stuff, so it certainly seem possible that someone would have slipped him this little tidbit about DCP.

It was only after I found out about DCP's post that I realized GoodK's post was in response.

[_asbestosman]

Any talk of booting GoodK for threatening legal action should be balanced with talk of booting those who shared his anonymous venting with those who know him in real life. I don't recall that conversation.

Good point. If legal action is a bannable offense, then in real life meddling should be a bannable offense. In fact that would cover litiguous meddling too.

I know I wanted this topic to die, but I thought that point is important in the name of fairness.

[_harmony]

That point of that post wasn't personal. The intention was to spark a Mormon discussion. He was talking about the idea that people believe there's actual power in the priesthood. Just because it was a letter from his family that sparked the idea of the thread didn't make it relevant.

If he didn't want his family exposed, then he shouldn't have used them in his jab at the church. There is NO expectation of privacy here, or anywhere on the net. (That is why some of guard our anonymity so closely.) To expect people to ignore something posted in public on the internet is simply beyond naïve into downright stupid. Anyone with any internet experience knows this! I post nothing on my Facebook that connects me to my job or any internet board I frequent, and I am very careful about who I invite into my personal space. GoodK invited everyone who opens this website into his personal space by using his family as the example in that thread.

So either DCP has atrocious reading skills or he was using the post as an opportunity to mess with GoodK personally.

Daniel's reading skills have long been questionable, especially if he's reading one of my posts. He sees what he wants to see, as does everyone here.

You expected me to take a swipe at GoodK a few posts ago. I wasn't, but that's what you thought you read.

If you want to talk about "what started this mess" it would have to be DCP taking a post, intentionally misreading it (or reading what he wanted to), and using it against GoodK because he could (remorselessly, I might add).

And yet GoodK did it to himself, by using his sister's personal tragedy as an example. Not good form.

Essentially what you're saying is that if anything you write in a post sparks a large controversy, you're responsible for that controversy, and you should have thought about all possible consequences of your words before you posted them, or you're immature, because you couldn't anticipate everyone's reaction.

Color me dubious of that opinion.

Always be dubious of my opinion. You'll be following in Daniel's footsteps.

If you cannot stand the damn heat, then stay out of the damn kitchen! This is a prime example of why it's important to think before hitting the Submit button, not crying when someone takes your information and uses it against you.

[_karl61]

I think you may be right - the difference may be that Eric's was pretty obviously a parody. It reminds me of Falwell vs. Hustler magazine: that ended up being legally protected because no one could be expected to believe it was serious.

OTOH, DCP's post sounded quite realistic, particularly, as you say, due to the possible background knowledge of Eric and his family.

Of the two posts, I saw Eric's first. I had a hard time believing it because I knew of the history between GoodK and DCP, but I also couldn't believe that GoodK would simply post something that was completely false. Honestly, I didn't know what to make of it. I knew that GoodK was getting some connections through his Mormon Gulag stuff, so it certainly seem possible that someone would have slipped him this little tidbit about DCP.

It was only after I found out about DCP's post that I realized GoodK's post was in response.

who posted first?

[_harmony]

Tell that to the many many MANY LDS posters on MAD who would like to see me standing in front of a Court of Love.

It seems to me that if you don't like it, you might take a stand against such behavior consistently instead of telling GoodK to grow up.

That would require that I take a side, which I refuse to do. I didn't tell him to grow up (you may have me confused with another poster). I simply commented on his level of maturity, based on my own observations.

There is no expectation of privacy on the internet. None. If GoodK thought he had an expectation of privacy, he was badly mistaken. Online etiquette is only as useful as those who explicitly agree to observe it. I've found several people who would disregard online etiquette in a flash if they could just figure out who I am.

One of the many reasons I do not consider myself LDS any longer. But, once again, because there are a few zealots who refuse to observe what I consider to be net ethics does not mean that I have to suffer them. Any talk of booting GoodK for threatening legal action should be balanced with talk of booting those who shared his anonymous venting with those who know him in real life. I don't recall that conversation.

I also did not call for either of the principals to be banned. You are again confusing me with another poster.

[_dblagent007]

You are free to share your thoughts. However, if you expect people to refrain from using the thoughts you share in ways you think are unacceptable, then you are fooling yourself.

Not if false accusations are made, which constitute character defamation. You cannot twist information shared to defame someone's character and expect to get off scot-free.

I am saying that if you post personal information you can't expect others to treat it how you assume they should treat it.

If someone makes false statements of fact about you, then that is a different story, but only in theory. The reality is that pursuing someone for Internet libel is rarely worth the effort, unless you suffered actual damages greater than the cost of the attorney fees that it would take to recover the damages.