The Nehor has left the building...

[_Jersey Girl]

Hiya sock,

I hope all is well with you. You wrote,

I think discovering liz's private board, and reporting back the context that made liz's OP here quite duplicitous is not what I'd call 'chasing them down'.

Chasing them down would, in my view, involve hacking into their private board after it was closed, much like crashing a party. I don't know of that having happened. liz had left that board open to public view, even though only letting a few know of its existence and inviting them to it. She had no reasonable expectation of privacy while it was open to public view on the internet, and since she's closed it I do not know of any excluded person having hacked it. But if any excluded person has hacked into liz's now closed, private board, I would consider that 'chasing them down' and I would not condone that.

How do you think Liz's private board was "discovered"? Here are my thoughts on that. To the best of my knowledge, Liz sent out invitations to join her board via PM and perhaps email. I am unsure about email invitations. That is to say, a group of posters from MDB (and perhaps elsewhere) were extended a private invitation to join a board and that includes Dr. Shades.

I am left only to think that one or more of the group of posters to whom Liz extended a private invitation, passed on a link to that board to others.

Now you tell me, sock. Why is there references to PM content (including my own) on this board and why is the fact that someone obviously betrayed Liz's confidence not being addressed here?

Anyone want to take a random stab at that one?

[_sock puppet]

Hiya sock,

I hope all is well with you. You wrote,

I think discovering liz's private board, and reporting back the context that made liz's OP here quite duplicitous is not what I'd call 'chasing them down'.

Chasing them down would, in my view, involve hacking into their private board after it was closed, much like crashing a party. I don't know of that having happened. liz had left that board open to public view, even though only letting a few know of its existence and inviting them to it. She had no reasonable expectation of privacy while it was open to public view on the internet, and since she's closed it I do not know of any excluded person having hacked it. But if any excluded person has hacked into liz's now closed, private board, I would consider that 'chasing them down' and I would not condone that.

How do you think Liz's private board was "discovered"? Here are my thoughts on that. To the best of my knowledge, Liz sent out invitations to join her board via PM and perhaps email. I am unsure about email invitations. That is to say, a group of posters from MDB (and perhaps elsewhere) were extended a private invitation to join a board and that includes Dr. Shades.

I am left only to think that one or more of the group of posters to whom Liz extended a private invitation, passed on a link to that board to others.

Now you tell me, sock. Why is there references to PM content (including my own) on this board and why is the fact that someone obviously betrayed Liz's confidence not being addressed here?

Anyone want to take a random stab at that one?

The PM content references are another issue, than the one involving the 'chasing them down' matter. As to PMs, the best thing for someone who really would not want revealed what is in his or her PMs is rather than trust the other correspondents on those PMs to adhere to the MDB policy, would be instead to not send any PMs and adjust their User CP to disable the ability of other MDB posters to send PMs to you.

Why would someone betray liz's confidence? Obviously she has placed that confidence in someone that is not worthy of it. But liz chose to place that confidence in him or her, however duplicitous the recipient might be. We do not know the identity of that person. It might be DCP, ttribe the whiner or The Nehor, for all we know. Without knowing the person's identity--and I am not interested in knowing--it is even more untethered conjecture to guess at it than it would be if we knew of the individual's identity.

But I am not so sure that it was a betrayal by anyone that liz trusted. Simple Google searches for the posting names of some who went silent here in recent months would have turned it up. Someone may have typed "ttribe" into Google search box. liz had left her new board open to public, internet view, after all. So there probably is no need for her to be suspicious of those she trusted or go on a witch hunt to find out who the Benedict Arnold might be--there might not be one at all.

[_Jersey Girl]

sock

The PM content references are another issue, than the one involving the 'chasing them down' matter. As to PMs, the best thing for someone who really would not want revealed what is in his or her PMs is rather than trust the other correspondents on those PMs to adhere to the MDB policy, would be instead to not send any PMs and adjust their User CP to disable the ability of other MDB posters to send PMs to you.

Where to begin? You cannot adjust the User CP here on MDB to block PM's. Trust has everything to do with this.

Why would someone betray liz's confidence? Obviously she has placed that confidence in someone that is not worthy of it. But liz chose to place that confidence in him or her, however duplicitous the recipient might be. We do not know the identity of that person. It might be DCP, ttribe the whiner or The Nehor, for all we know. Without knowing the person's identity--and I am not interested in knowing--it is even more untethered conjecture to guess at it than it would be if we knew of the individual's identity.

I'd like to see Liz post the list of posters to whom she extended an invitation. I'm certain she wouldn't do that, but I'd love for posters here to view that list knowing that someone on that list doesn't understand or respect the meaning of confidentiality. I find this really disturbing. There are many of us who strike up efriendships on boards like these. These are obviously the kinds of folks whom Liz invited and I can think of no reason for anyone to betray her confidence. I'm starting to think that when she used the word "vultures" to describe some folks around here, she wasn't far off the mark.

But I am not so sure that it was a betrayal by anyone that liz trusted. Simple Google searches for the posting names of some who went silent here in recent months would have turned it up. Someone may have typed "ttribe" into Google search box. liz had left her new board open to public, internet view, after all. So there probably is no need for her to be suspicious of those she trusted or go on a witch hunt to find out who the Benedict Arnold might be--there might not be one at all.

That could be true however, in order to come up with DCP, for example, on that board, one would need to sift through perhaps thousands of google search hits and who would do that? Honestly, who would do that?

No, I think it more likely that someone to whom she extended an invitation disclosed the existence of the board including the link. I hope I never know who that is.

[_Chap]

Howdy Chap

You wrote,

Obviousness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

I can't imagine myself being in Liz's position of having started another board, having invited the Nehor to join it, and having him accept that invitation, then knowing all that to post as she did when he left this board.

What I see in the OP is that Liz was addressing this community of posters and discussing the loss of Nehor's participation on this board.

Or if I did do that, I would be sniggering up my sleeve at the fact that the Nehor (like DCP) was already on my private board joining me in saying unpleasant things about some posters on this board (e.g. "vultures"), while I lamented his loss over here.

Why would you be "sniggering up" your "sleeve"? Nehor chose to discontinue posting on this board. Liz announced that choice on this board. The interaction between posters on any given board is unique to the dynamic that builds between posters. That's what makes a board "tick". The Nehor's interaction on this board is history and that's what Liz appears to be addressing.

Perhaps I am just not as nice as you are, or as nice as you think Liz is, perhaps. But hey, who said all the members of this board were perfect?

It has nothing to do with being "nice", Chap. It has to do with reading comments in the context in which they are written. The context of the OP is this board.

Is there anything else you want to discuss?

In polite society, a good way to have the last word is to reply by ratcheting up your volume just a tad short of outright rudeness, and simply repeating what you said before in a more dogmatic way than before. Your interlocutor will often give up at this point, because he or she does not wish to cross the boundary and end up seeming rude.

Alas, on the internet, it doesn't work so well. Jersey Girl can state her point of view as dogmatically and confidently as she likes. But it is the readers, not her, who get to decide who is being more reasonable in what they say ... I'm happy with that.

[_Jersey Girl]

chap

In polite society, a good way to have the last word is to reply by ratcheting up your volume just a tad short of outright rudeness, and simply repeating what you said before in a more dogmatic way than before. Your interlocutor will often give up at this point, because he or she does not wish to cross the boundary and end up seeming rude.

Alas, on the internet, it doesn't work so well. Jersey Girl can state her point of view as dogmatically and confidently as she likes. But it is the readers, not her, who get to decide who is being more reasonable in what they say ... I'm happy with that.

You addressed exactly nothing that I said.

[_Bond James Bond]

You can block PM's on the User CP under board preferences - > global settings

[_Jersey Girl]

You can block PM's on the User CP under board preferences - > global settings

That's true, you can block all PM's. I was thinking in terms of blocking specific posters and didn't say that.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Why did Liz want her board to be secret?

[_Jersey Girl]

Why did Liz want her board to be secret?

Hey Scratch,

I'm going to make an attempt to answer that, but I really can't speak for Liz. I think she wanted it to be secret so that she wouldn't be swamped with membership requests for posters she'd rather not have on there. I think the idea was to have a group of posters who would be a bit more peaceful than what we have here.

Hopefully she will answer your question directly.

It bothers me a lot to think that someone may have sent this information to someone else. Of course it's their prerogative to do so, but it still bothers me.

[_sock puppet]

What I find problematic in liz's behavior is not that she created a 'secret combination' board separate from MDB.

What I find deceptive is for her to

(1) establish such a place,

(2) lead a defection of her favorite MDB posters, and then

(3) come here and try to mislead us that we've driven off one of her favorite poster that she'll now "miss".

Had liz never made a post here along the lines of the OP of this thread (#3), and I later learned of #(1), I would not have given it a second thought. But then came (#3), and the revelations that followed. Clearly, one writing the OP in this thread hoped that her ##(1) and (2) steps would never come to light. As a consequence of the context ##(1) and (2) give to her #3 OP in this thread, I call BS to that duplicity. #(2) in its own right is disconcerting--particularly by a mod that should have some sense of loyalty, even the smallest modicum of it, to a board (MDB) on which she is a mod.

liz herself would be making tons of hay of such if Juliann had done so, but here liz is having done so herself.