Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

[_Yoda]

Hi Liz,

One more little point, (not trying to derail the thread... smile), but would anyone (aside from those who personally know Bob), know the photo was of Bob if he had not announced it to the board? I had no idea who it was nor cared, actually.

I do NOT like the idea of posting photos of board members or their family and friends and am not trying to justify this in any way.

Having said this, one has to wonder why Bob clearly wanted the board to know the avatar was photo was of him and his wife. I find it odd that Bob would announce it as he did, if he was so concerned the photo was posted.

While Eric may have wanted to irritate Bob, certainly Bob was tattling to taunt Eric. If Bob cared at all that the photo was on the board he would not have announced it as he did.

NOT that it is appropriate to share photos or private information of board members and their families.

Just my two cents!

I agree. It would have been better if Bob had spoken with one of us privately about it. However, since he addressed it publicly, we had no choice but to handle it publicly.

[_rcrocket]

I'm not stating here that Bob was some kind of angel in this situation. I also recognize that Bob has made some very blatant mistakes in posting his full name here, and leaving an in real life trail with his blog, his resume, etc.

No mistakes here. I've been using my real name on the internet for a long, long time. I have been threatened and the subject of extortion threats before I got to this board. I know what I am doing.

As far as me not being "an angel," I am sure that a dispassionate person, looking at the post exchange between me and Mr. Norwood, will easily see that there was nothing unusual about it. I am routinely, on this board, vilified, called a liar and all sorts of vile names. You'll note I don't complain to the mods about it. So, the first time I put some pressure on a poster, challenging his statements, I'm vilified as a devil?

And, as far as making my request by PM instead of publicly, I just don't complain about people behind their backs. I figure that anything I say to a mod here, on such a board hostile to persons as myself, will someday come back to bite me in the ass. Liz herself has commented in the past publicly about my failure to respond to [behind-the-scenes commentary deleted], so I just have no interest in carrying on PMs with mods and keep it as limited as possible.

I have tried to [behind-the-scenes commentary deleted], so I turned off my PM account.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Liz---

I don't really think that GoodK did anything wrong. I wish you guys could have done something to crop out Crockett's wife, or something along those lines. I agree with Ray that Jersey Girl was out of line here.

So you would be OK with someone getting a hold of your wife's picture and posting it here without your consent, or your wife's consent? That's what we're talking about here, Scratch. It's a principle. If it's free reign for one to do it, then it's free reign for all.

Kind of beside the point, isn't it? You said, "Do posters feel that other posters should be allowed to post unauthorized pictures". Well, in what way was Crockett's picture "unauthorized"? I understand why you are trying to turn this back around on me (which is a form of ad hominem attack, by the way), but I have a hard time seeing how Crockett's pic was "unauthorized," or what that even means, per se.

[_rcrocket]

Kind of beside the point, isn't it? You said, "Do posters feel that other posters should be allowed to post unauthorized pictures". Well, in what way was Crockett's picture "unauthorized"? I understand why you are trying to turn this back around on me (which is a form of ad hominem attack, by the way), but I have a hard time seeing how Crockett's pic was "unauthorized," or what that even means, per se.

My wife did not authorize the use of her image by another person. This is a common right people have; a case in California made famous by Bette Midler.

That people do it all the time is no excuse.

As for my image, I think that exposing my name here and doing battle with an uneducated high school grad justifies some abuse.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Kind of beside the point, isn't it? You said, "Do posters feel that other posters should be allowed to post unauthorized pictures". Well, in what way was Crockett's picture "unauthorized"? I understand why you are trying to turn this back around on me (which is a form of ad hominem attack, by the way), but I have a hard time seeing how Crockett's pic was "unauthorized," or what that even means, per se.

My wife did not authorize the use of her image by another person. This is a common right people have; a case in California made famous by Bette Midler.

I'm not familiar with the Midler case. Did she, like you, complain that someone was using her picture as an avatar on a small, Mormon-centric messageboard? Is that what the case was about? I sure hope so, Bob, because if not, then it's going to seem like you are dragging in an irrelevant red herring.

[_Yoda]

Kind of beside the point, isn't it? You said, "Do posters feel that other posters should be allowed to post unauthorized pictures". Well, in what way was Crockett's picture "unauthorized"? I understand why you are trying to turn this back around on me (which is a form of ad hominem attack, by the way), but I have a hard time seeing how Crockett's pic was "unauthorized," or what that even means, per se.

Actually, no, it's not beside the point....it is the point. Either we allow posters to use other poster's family members' pictures without their permission in avatars and posts, or we don't. At least, that was my point with all of this. You were the one who stated that you didn't feel that Eric had done anything wrong.

I was not trying to slam some type of ad hom on you, Scratch. I turned the situation around so that you could see all sides of it. You claimed that Eric had done nothing wrong. Therefore, in a similar scenario....if I had found a random picture of you and your wife, and posted it in my avatar, without receiving your permission to do so, I would not be doing anything wrong.

I was honestly trying to clarify what you feel our position as Mods should be on this. If you feel that Eric did nothing wrong, then you don't see anything wrong with someone posting a picture of another poster's family member in their avatar without the permission of the affected poster or family member.

Unauthorized, in the case I was using, means, without the permission of the affected poster or family member. So, in the case with Bob and Eric, if Eric had wanted to post the picture of Bob and his wife in his avatar, he would have had to receive either Bob's permission, or Bob's wife's permission, to do so.

[_rcrocket]

I'm not familiar with the Midler case. Did she, like you, complain that someone was using her picture as an avatar on a small, Mormon-centric messageboard? Is that what the case was about? I sure hope so, Bob, because if not, then it's going to seem like you are dragging in an irrelevant red herring.

Nor did the Midler case involve Mormons. It involved a Jew. Nor did the Midler case have a photo of two persons. It had a photo of one.

So, anything can be distinguished, if you are willing to be disingenuous.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Kind of beside the point, isn't it? You said, "Do posters feel that other posters should be allowed to post unauthorized pictures". Well, in what way was Crockett's picture "unauthorized"? I understand why you are trying to turn this back around on me (which is a form of ad hominem attack, by the way), but I have a hard time seeing how Crockett's pic was "unauthorized," or what that even means, per se.

Actually, no, it's not beside the point....it is the point. Either we allow posters to use other poster's family members' pictures without their permission in avatars and posts, or we don't.

Well, it's obviously more complicated than that, right? What if the picture is of, say, Steve Benson, or GoodK himself, but it happens to contain a picture of some other individual? Should this be banned? Should you have to delete the images you posted in the Telestial since they contain images of your daughter's boyfriend? I.e., did *he* authorize you to post the picture?

My answer to all of these scenarios is: No. Don't delete images unless you absolutely have to.

At least, that was my point with all of this. You were the one who stated that you didn't feel that Eric had done anything wrong.

What did he do that was wrong? Bob has been pretty open about who he is. Did the posting of the image harm Bob or Bob's wife in some way? Did Jersey Girl contact Bob's wife in order to ask her if she was upset about GoodK posting the image?

Come on now, Liz. I think you can see how absurd this is.

I was not trying to slam some type of ad hom on you, Scratch. I turned the situation around so that you could see all sides of it.

No, Liz. The situations aren't comparable at all. I have not been broadcasting my in real life identity, or carrying on about the evils of anonymity, etc., in the way that Bob has. If GoodK had had to go way out of his way to procure the image---i.e., by hacking into some private account somewhere, or stealing, or doing something that was otherwise unscrupulous and/or illegal, then I think you might have a point, and that Bob might have legit grounds for complaint. As things are, I fail to see what harm was done here.

I was honestly trying to clarify what you feel our position as Mods should be on this. If you feel that Eric did nothing wrong, then you don't see anything wrong with someone posting a picture of another poster's family member in their avatar without the permission of the affected poster or family member.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. I think that it depends on the context, though. Generally speaking, I don't think you should delete anything unless you absolutely have to.

Unauthorized, in the case I was using, means, without the permission of the affected poster or family member. So, in the case with Bob and Eric, if Eric had wanted to post the picture of Bob and his wife in his avatar, he would have had to receive either Bob's permission, or Bob's wife's permission, to do so.

Well, that's silly. Did you ask Denise Richards if you could use her image? For a time, Kevin Graham had a funny picture of DCP as his avatar. Back on KG's board, Dr. Shades used a pic of DCP holding a donut for his avatar. Should these have been deleted? Do you believe that Shades would have needed to get DCP's permission or "authorization" prior to posting the image in his av?

Again: I think you can see how absurd all of this is. If you can point to some bad consequence that came about due to GoodK's actions, then maybe you have a point. But, I fail to see how this really hurt or negatively affected anyone. If anything, I suspect that Bob just doesn't want his wife to know what he's been up to in terms of meddling in GoodK's life, and that he's worried that, with that pic of him up, word might get back to her. I can just see it: "This is what you do at work all day?!?!"

Perhaps we can conclude that GoodK was being mean, and that it was cheap for him to post the image that included Bob's wife (i.e., couldn't he have found a pic that was just of Bob?), but at the end of the day, lots of people on this MB are mean to one another, and engage in cheapshots. And I don't think you can ever create enough rules to eliminate this basic fact of human nature.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm not familiar with the Midler case. Did she, like you, complain that someone was using her picture as an avatar on a small, Mormon-centric messageboard? Is that what the case was about? I sure hope so, Bob, because if not, then it's going to seem like you are dragging in an irrelevant red herring.

Nor did the Midler case involve Mormons. It involved a Jew. Nor did the Midler case have a photo of two persons. It had a photo of one.

So, anything can be distinguished, if you are willing to be disingenuous.

You used to have an image of Martha Stewart in your avatar, Bob. Do you believe that she would have had grounds for suing you over it? Or, did you have written permission from her to use the image?

I'm guessing that someone was trying to profit off the Midler image, and that that's why she sued. Either that, or someone was using her image in a way that she felt would tarnish her reputation. In any case, I fail to see how this relates to *your* complaints here, counselor.

[_Yoda]

If GoodK had had to go way out of his way to procure the image---i.e., by hacking into some private account somewhere, or stealing, or doing something that was otherwise unscrupulous and/or illegal, then I think you might have a point, and that Bob might have legit grounds for complaint. As things are, I fail to see what harm was done here.

Actually, Scratch, that is exactly why I asked Eric to remove the image. Bob stated that the only place the image was posted was on a private Facebook account that Bob had only authorized for close friends to access.