beastie wrote:I'll probably make myself even scarcer than I already am around here, cause it's just not worth it if posters are going to find that threatening a lawsuit is the way to gain the upper hand in a debate.
GoodK's behavior is analogous to the kid that gets picked on in school then lashes out against the other students in violent ways.
GoodK, grow up and get enough cojones to withstand the stuff that happens on Internet message boards. Good grief. You dish this crap by the spade (what was the topic of that Ethics dilemma thread?), but when you get a little thrown back your direction you go running in full tantrum mode to the law.
harmony wrote: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?
I didn't say whether it was okay or not. I said it happens. It's happened to many of us. Some of us, at least, are mature enough to see it for what it is. GoodK evidently still has issues with being able to do that.
If GoodK says nothing about his family or his sister, none of this happens. Once he puts it out there, on the 'net, it becomes public knowledge and he takes the accolades and the lumps, as both are dished up.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote: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.
Yes, and I can go to an AA meeting and then violate someone's confidences. No one will stop me from being an asshole. Not exactly the same, but personally I think the same basic principles of human decency apply. I rather think it is the person who goes around using his or her real name who ought to deal with bearing a greater risk.
harmony wrote:You and Schmo just took a post of mine and incorrectly interpreted what I said.
I intended my post to be a response to Schmo. I paid little attention to what you wrote. Sorry.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
dblagent007 wrote:GoodK's behavior is analogous to the kid that gets picked on in school then lashes out against the other students in violent ways.
GoodK, grow up and get enough cojones to withstand the stuff that happens on Internet message boards. Good grief. You dish this crap by the spade (what was the topic of that Ethics dilemma thread?), but when you get a little thrown back your direction you go running in full tantrum mode to the law.
I think the point is that someone else first took it upon himself to bring this into the in real life.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Trevor wrote: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.
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.
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.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote: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.
If I have learned one thing from participating in online discussion forums, it is that there is no such thing as online etiquette. There should be, but there isn't. It's like the wild, wild west. Don't expect anything. If you put the information out on the Internet, you should expect that it will be used in any way, shape, and form.
harmony wrote:If GoodK says nothing about his family or his sister, none of this happens. Once he puts it out there, on the 'net, it becomes public knowledge and he takes the accolades and the lumps, as both are dished up.
Yeah. Well, if someone walks in Central Park at 2 am and gets jumped, that is unwise, but I also don't think that makes it cool to mug people, nor do I think others should just get over it when they get mugged. Informing on anonymous posters for venting about personal struggles is not illegal, but it is a violation of the ethical basis of an online community. If you think threatening lawsuits squelches free speech, 'outing' people does as well. Maybe Daniel should have been banned. Oh, but he is Daniel and we need him here. I get it.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”