Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[Analytics]

I guess that ends this thread then since it is pretty much about those three things.

My point exactly.

No personal offense to anyone, but further discussion just makes it worse, or so it seems.

[_dblagent007]

Can we lock this thread? Please? Pretty please with green jello and shredded carrots on top?

You can always choose not to read it.

[_harmony]

Dear dblagent007

Shut up.

Sincerely,
Asbestosman

P.S. That goes for anyone talking about GoodK, Daniel Peterson, or the merits of their cases.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, now would be a good time to not do so, asb.

[_asbestosman]

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, now would be a good time to not do so, asb.

Normally I'd be happy to oblige, but I fear that this thread has real life implications for people. As such I wish to put out the fire. I am asbestos after all.

[_Trevor]

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.

I don't have to agree with you in thinking that this particular state of affairs is the only option or even a preferable one. If we find that certain behavior is unacceptable in our online community, I am happy to share my thoughts on it. Or should someone threaten to stop me?
.
.
.
.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

OK, so this is what you meant, but... here's the disconnect, as I see it.

That point of that post wasn't personal. The intention was to spark a Mormon discussion. He was talking about the idea that people believe there's actual power in the priesthood. Just because it was a letter from his family that sparked the idea of the thread didn't make it relevant.

So either DCP has atrocious reading skills or he was using the post as an opportunity to mess with GoodK personally. If you want to talk about "what started this mess" it would have to be DCP taking a post, intentionally misreading it (or reading what he wanted to), and using it against GoodK because he could (remorselessly, I might add).

Essentially what you're saying is that if anything you write in a post sparks a large controversy, you're responsible for that controversy, and you should have thought about all possible consequences of your words before you posted them, or you're immature, because you couldn't anticipate everyone's reaction.

Color me dubious of that opinion.

[_harmony]

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.

I'm not saying GoodK holds all the blame. I'm saying he's not blameless and he should have foreseen the outcome when he posted the email.

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.

Neither GoodK nor Daniel cares diddly about this community. They have both expressed disdain for everyone here. This is just a further manifestation of that disdain.

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.

This isn't MAD, Trevor. We take whoever can take the heat. The only one we really need is Shades. If Daniel or GoodK can't take the heat, then neither would be missed any more than I would be if I left and never came back.

[_beastie]

think the legal eagles will have to work that out, but here's my perspective. I thought DCP's first post was serious, because he knows Eric's step-dad very well, and I thought this may have been "inside information", and that DCP wanted to finally "burst the bubble". It did momentarily shake me and make me wonder if my support of Eric may have been misguided, until the clarification came. When it did come, my estimation of Eric actually grew stronger, those accusations out of the way, but that's just my perspective. I could see how it would have been extremely offensive to Eric. I think DCP was also trying to demonstrate how he has been subjected to "Scratch's lies", in an indirect way.

Eric's counter-post was more obviously a counter-parody, but still somewhat persuasive, initially. I'm not sure how the lawyers will deal with this.

I think you may be right - the difference may be that Eric's was pretty obviously a parody. It reminds me of Falwell vs. Hustler magazine: that ended up being legally protected because no one could be expected to believe it was serious.

OTOH, DCP's post sounded quite realistic, particularly, as you say, due to the possible background knowledge of Eric and his family.

I think the hardest case will be to prove damage. Also, this article claims that the complainant must ask for the offensive material to be removed before taking action.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2040840_sue-som ... libel.html

Asbman is probably right, we should all just shut up. I will try to follow his advice, but since I brought up the "addict" thread question earlier, I thought it fair to respond.

[_asbestosman]

I don't have to agree with you in thinking that this particular state of affairs is the only option or even a preferable one. If we find that certain behavior is unacceptable in our online community, I am happy to share my thoughts on it.

Excellent point. Even our legal system is being updated as people consider online actions and decide that it is unacceptable. One current case (of which I don't entirely agree) is that mom who helped a daughter pretend to be a cute boy on a social network to take revenge on another girl who later hanged herself.

[_dblagent007]

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.

I don't have to agree with you in thinking that this particular state of affairs is the only option or even a preferable one.

Completely agree. There are other options, but anyone that thinks those other options represent reality they are only deceiving themselves.

If we find that certain behavior is unacceptable in our online community, I am happy to share my thoughts on it. Or should someone threaten to stop me?

You are free to share your thoughts. However, if you expect people to refrain from using the thoughts you share in ways you think are unacceptable, then you are fooling yourself.