Reporting Crockett to the Bar

[_Angus McAwesome]

Nope. IT. He's a computer geek. ;)

(Note to Angus---the computer geek title is one used with affection. I'm a computer geek, too. LOL)

There are only 10 types of people in the world... Those that understand binary and those that don't.

[_Yoda]

Nope. IT. He's a computer geek. ;)

(Note to Angus---the computer geek title is one used with affection. I'm a computer geek, too. LOL)

There are only 10 types of people in the world... Those that understand binary and those that don't.

Amen! ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Frankly, I think that if Bob or Dan had taken a step back for a moment, they might have realized that.

I never imagined that GoodK was trying to embarrass his father. That played no role in my thinking.

But they acted out of emotion as well.

I don't remember feeling particularly emotional at the time, and my brief note to GoodK's father was pretty brief and calm.

They were both good friends with GoodK's father, and felt duty-bound to align with him.

Now that's true. That's pretty much what friendship is about, in my opinion.

The problem is, in my opinion, in this case, telling GoodK's father did more harm than good.

I continue to regard that as dubious and not demonstrated.

Think about it. If GoodK's father had never been notified about any of this, their relationship would not be strained now.

You know nothing, I'm assuming, about the nature of their prior relationship.

I don't doubt that there's been some added strain over the past few weeks, but not as a direct result of my sending a link to GoodK's father. The recent thread about that, including the extraordinarily nasty things that GoodK said about his father when he knew that his father was following the thread, is responsible for any unusual recent strain.

Not only has this been a bad situation for GoodK, but it sounds to me like it really hasn't been a great situation for his father, either.

Im sure that's true to some extent or other, and it's regrettable.

[_Yoda]

They were both good friends with GoodK's father, and felt duty-bound to align with him.

Now that's true. That's pretty much what friendship is about, in my opinion.

Agreed. However, sometimes I think that it is in a friend's best interest not to divulge something that may prove to be harmful rather than helpful.

You have stated that if it was your son making these statements, that you would want to know. Really? Even if he was just blowing off steam?

We will just continue to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

I just think that there are venues for everything, and since GoodK was not purposely trying to lash out at his father (in the initial post), you and Bob should have both left well enough alone.

(UNLESS you felt that there was a good chance that GoodK's father would have found the information on his own, but you had stated previously that you did not believe this to be the case, either.)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is a public forum, so there was no anonymity about it.

Tell that to Crock; he's been harping on the anonymity ever since posting here. And he took out his frustrations on GoodK.

[_Daniel Peterson]

We will just continue to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

Apparently so.

Such is life.

[_Ray A]

Since anonymity keeps the headlines, here's an interesting tidbit I came across in an Oz forum, a link to an article from The Age (Melbourne):

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now that, Ray, was an interesting article.

It's hard to imagine, isn't it?, that anonymous or pseudonymous posters would continuously attack, malign, and defame named people, in public venues, while jealously hiding their own identities.

[_Trevor]

Since anonymity keeps the headlines, here's an interesting tidbit I came across in an Oz forum, a link to an article from The Age (Melbourne):

Ouch! Well, that's unpleasant business, and certainly something to think about before one starts ripping into Daniel again.

[_Ray A]

Now that, Ray, was an interesting article.

It's hard to imagine, isn't it?, that anonymous or pseudonymous posters would continuously attack, malign, and defame named people, in public venues, while jealously hiding their own identities.

Regardless of the arguments being made here, pro or con, I think we're going to see more of this in the future. I have no objection to criticism of individuals, and like you I don't decry anonymity, per se. But the case of "Hack" and "Caz" is illustrative of more than just "fair criticism". They deliberately set out to destroy reputations and expose people. It took five years to uncover them, and lo and behold they both turned out to be journalists working in "respectable media".