Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Some Schmo]

For my part, if you can't take it, don't dish it. GoodK started this whole mess with his initial post about his sister. It's escalated from that.

How is the post about his sister an attack on DCP?

[_dblagent007]

GoodK, during the course of your discussions with your attorney, did you happen to let slip the little tidbit about your debilitating addiction post about DCP? If you haven't you probably should ASAP.

Back when you first posted your UBR stories, I believed them. I had no reason not to. I don't like Buttars much and I figured that the UBR, as you described it, was something he was capable of doing.

However, your actions of late have caused me to rethink all of that. You are essentially acting like an immature, wet-behind-the-ears, brat. You have blown this whole thing with DCP and Bob way out of any reasonable proportion. That leads me to believe that everything you ever said has been blown out of proportion, including your UBR tales.

When your father originally said in his email to DCP that he hoped you would grow up and mature someday, I thought that was just the rantings of an angry parent. I can see now that he was absolutely correct. You really do need to grow-up, mature, and realize that at your age cry-baby tantrums like this lawsuit threat won't get you anywhere.

[_Trevor]

How is the post about his sister an attack on DCP?

Yeah, you lost me there too. I was always struck by the fact that certain people felt they had to inform on GoodK discussing a personal matter anonymously on a message board. I don't know about you, but I had no idea who the people involved were, and I think it was fairly unlikely that GoodK's family would have discovered his comments without help.

[_harmony]

For my part, if you can't take it, don't dish it. GoodK started this whole mess with his initial post about his sister. It's escalated from that.

How is the post about his sister an attack on DCP?

I didn't say it was an attack on DCP. GoodK put his personal situation out for others to respond to, which is exactly what DCP did. I'm not saying DCP acted appropriately or not; I keep that opinion to myself. I'm saying GoodK is the one who put up the initial post. Without that post, there is no argument. No one can control how others respond to any given post. If you can't take the heat, don't put personal stuff out there.

I put personal stuff out there quite a bit, too. One day, it will probably turn around and bite me, maybe as much as GoodK's bit him. Actually, it already has. My daughter was stalked at college, I've had a cross burned into my lawn, and people threatening to call my bishop because of the things I've said here and elsewhere. Lots of supposedly good LDS people would dearly love to see me crushed beneath the heel of a Court of Love, many from MAD and FAIR.

When you go out onto the 'net, everything you say is fair game. If you don't want to get bit, don't expose yourself. GoodK exposed himself. Obviously no lessons were learned.



.

[_Ray A]

I'm not seeing a connection between UBR and this lawsuit.

If it encourages others here to try to get a fuller picture of Eric the man, then I don't care if there's "no connection".

You seem to be one making uninformed judgements about Eric, and not in the least trying to understand him. No surprise he doesn't like you.

[Guest]

But I am having a very difficult time understanding the fundamental difference between Eric's "addiction" post about DCP, and DCP's post about Eric. Can someone explain this to me?

Fundamentally, there is no difference between the two. The only difference I can think of is the likelihood of each party showing actual damages - a requirement to prove libel in most jurisdictions. I think DCP has a better case here because he posts under his real name so everyone that viewed GoodK's post knows that it applies to Daniel C. Peterson.

GoodK has a bit of problem because he doesn't post under his real name. Only those that know his real name and associate it with the online name "GoodK" will associate DCP's post with Eric Norwood. Thus, Eric Norwood only suffers actual damages to the extent that people who know his real persona stopped doing business with him or some such other thing because of DCP's post. Something that I think is highly doubtful.

[_harmony]

How is the post about his sister an attack on DCP?

Yeah, you lost me there too. I was always struck by the fact that certain people felt they had to inform on GoodK discussing a personal matter anonymously on a message board. I don't know about you, but I had no idea who the people involved were, and I think it was fairly unlikely that GoodK's family would have discovered his comments without help.

None of this has any bearing on the initial post. GoodK put it up, on the internet, on a public bulletin board, where he could not ever expect to control the responses. It's a risk we all take. That he didn't foresee the outcome, knowing that his step father and DCP were acquainted, is an example of his inability to foresee the results of his actions. a.k.a., immaturity.

You and Schmo just took a post of mine and incorrectly interpreted what I said. That is a prime example of the limitations of communication on the internet. I know what to expect from this kind of communication medium, and am willing to explain, repeatedly if I have to, what I meant. For GoodK to expect something different from his post about his sister than what he got speaks to a naïveté usually associated with the very young and with a lack of maturity. I see no improvement over the last year.

[_Trevor]

I didn't say it was an attack on DCP. GoodK put his personal situation out for others to respond to, which is exactly what DCP did. I'm not saying DCP acted appropriately or not; I keep that opinion to myself. I'm saying GoodK is the one who put up the initial post. Without that post, there is no argument. No one can control how others respond to any given post. If you can't take the heat, don't put personal stuff out there.

I think there is an unspoken understanding to online discussion boards that constitutes a trust between those who use them: information about personal experiences discussed in anonymity should not be carried to the outside world. It is like participating in group therapy or AA, and then going out of the meeting and blabbering to a guy's wife because he vented something about her in the confines of the group. Sure, it's not exactly the same, but I believe we have all more or less operated on that basis. When GoodK talked about his personal life anonymously on the board, he should have been able to expect that other participants on the board would not carry that information to others off board who know his identity. It seems like a pretty basic element of online etiquette.

[_Ray A]

None of this has any bearing on the initial post. GoodK put it up, on the internet, on a public bulletin board, where he could not ever expect to control the responses. It's a risk we all take. That he didn't foresee the outcome, knowing that his step father and DCP were acquainted, is an example of his inability to foresee the results of his actions. a.k.a., immaturity.

So you think it's okay for someone to "inform" on others? Whether it's you or Eric?

[_harmony]

I'm not seeing a connection between UBR and this lawsuit.

If it encourages others here to try to get a fuller picture of Eric the man, then I don't care if there's "no connection".

You seem to be one making uninformed judgements about Eric, and not in the least trying to understand him. No surprise he doesn't like you.

I'm judging no one, Ray. I have no dog in this fight. I've been hammered by Daniel and GoodK both. Daniel, at least, was civil in his hammering; GoodK was profane, rude, and crude. And try to understand that I don't care that neither of them likes me. I'll say my piece whether it makes me friends or not.