Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

Thank you MarkTAW for honoring my request

to remove all of my previously posted material from Blah.

I know it wasn't a popular decision and I applaud you for honoring your previously stated policy and your agreement despite dissent.

It was not a request made to be vindictive, though everybody seems to think so.  I DID say that simply replacing the text of all my posts with "removed by request" or similiar would have been fine with me, thereby preventing the removal of anyone else's material as collateral "damage".

Honestly, though, the only material of anyone else's removed as a consequence would have been replies to MY threads, and it's more or less universally agreed that those have little value anyway, isn't it?

I think the dissent is less about people losing their treasured historical posts and more about giving you a hard time for treating me fairly (because I really don't deserve it, being such a bastard.)  They're interested in blocking the request to spite me, not in preserving a couple of dozen "fuck you muppet"'s.

Anyway, thanks.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 9:23am
Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!  It's like The Return of Steve Dallas!
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 6th, 2007 9:27am
Does anybody actually give a fuck?
Permalink what are you reading for? 
March 6th, 2007 9:30am
AND

I'm not thanking Mark publicly to whore for attention, although I fully expect that to be the consensus of this group.  I haven't got a lot of faith left in or regard for most of you at this point, frankly.

I'm thanking him publicly because I think it'd be weaselly to thank him privately, especially considering the fairly public lambasting he's getting over on Blah for his decision.  Mark did the right thing and has stuck to his word, and I think it's commendable.

Thanking him on Blah isn't an option, not because I've been banned from posting there (I haven't, so far as I know), but because it'd be hypocritical at this point to submit any more content there.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 9:31am
I suspect that most people on CoT don't give a fuck, because they've got no idea what's going on over there.

Still, there's enough overlap that the concerned parties ought to see this, and it's less tedious than trying to figure out everybody's email address.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 9:32am
"not in preserving a couple of dozen "fuck you muppet"'s."

An admirable and noble goal, to be sure.

Remember my Christmas poem? :)
Permalink Send private email JoC 
March 6th, 2007 9:42am
So.... welcome back?
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 9:47am
hey, you could have (start) posted thank you over there.

then asked him to remove it.
(goto start)

we could have tried to use you as an alternative source of energy.

wind power?
Permalink $-- 
March 6th, 2007 9:48am
Yeah looks that way.  I can be reasonably certain that Wayne won't alter the content of all of my historical posts to make a point.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 9:48am
No, but it can be harder and harder to get a new post in these days.  The laisez faire days of spam, non-obvious impersonation and personal information are gone.  Now, wsv makes a pretty careful study of what's funny and what's not.  You can be sure that Pandimensional Thursday's wouldn't take-off in this environment.  Not that it's entirely bad mind you.

What point was ~~x trying to make?  These are my toys and I'll do what I like?
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 9:55am
I really don't want to rehash the whole thing.

Basically one member got very upset about something I posted here on CoT, and because of that member's particular social position, they received a level of support that defied logic or reason.

The resulting witch hunt saw a lot of changes made to Blah, including a banner added at the top of every post I had ever made there.

It's been remedied.  Mark acted honorably in the end.

There are still some murmurings that I should apologize for posting inflammatory (but ultimately non-damaging) material.

Next we'll ask dogs to apologize for barking.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:11am
"I really don't want to rehash the whole thing."

ROFLOL. Is that why you started the thread?

"and because of that member's particular social position, they received a level of support"

That member received that level of support being you were being a dick.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 10:14am
I started the thread to thank Mark.  I didn't steer it in any particular direction, Flasher.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:16am
You could have easily thanked Mark by email, or by whispering from your alternate Blah account.

The fact that you chose to start a thread clearly means that you intended to continue a public dicussion of the issue.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 10:18am
Well I for one think it's very important to know what our children over on Blah are doing.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
March 6th, 2007 10:19am
If you want to know what's happening on Blah, why don't you ask for an invite, then go and contribute to the discussions there?
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 10:20am
Thanking Mark by email when others are busy bashing his decision publicly on Blah would have been silly.

If others can express your utter contempt for me and for Mark's decision then I can certainly express my support.

Or am I a special case in your eyes?  Some sort of second class citizen who should be seen and not heard?  Maybe I should use a different drinking fountain.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:24am
If you would.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 10:25am
I think someone sent me an invite awile back. I was being facetious.

I resent Blah to the smallest degree for pilfering users and content from here. For instance, you hardly ever post anything here any more. There are several the same.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
March 6th, 2007 10:25am
I hardly ever post anything there, if it makes you feel better.

I got sick of all the pointless meta and wSV threads on here, and went over to Blah because it had a better signal/noise ratio. That's been deteriorating. I used the feed to monitor CoT and reply to threads I found interesting. Killing the feed to force me and others to hang out on CoT solves the tertiary symptoms - less users - not the problem.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 10:29am
...because wSV threads are just like meta.

What you mean is that you left because the content here was not to your draconian standards, and now that Blah is becoming more open you're resenting that, too.

Honestly Flasher you should just start your own forum and then you can have everything just so.  Good luck.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:31am
>they received a level of support that defied logic or reason.
Muppet. You're the sociopath. The other person isn't. That "level of support" that you don't understand is actually impossible for you to understand, being a sociopath and all.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0767915828/ref=nosim/librarythin08-20

>We are accustomed to think of sociopaths as violent criminals, but in The Sociopath Next Door, Harvard psychologist Martha Stout reveals that a shocking 4 percent of ordinary people—one in twenty-five—has an often undetected mental disorder, the chief symptom of which is that that person possesses no conscience. He or she has no ability whatsoever to feel shame, guilt, or remorse. One in twenty-five everyday Americans, therefore, is secretly a sociopath. They could be your colleague, your neighbor, even family. And they can do literally anything at all and feel absolutely no guilt.

>How do we recognize the remorseless? One of their chief characteristics is a kind of glow or charisma that makes sociopaths more charming or interesting than the other people around them. They’re more spontaneous, more intense, more complex, or even sexier than everyone else, making them tricky to identify and leaving us easily seduced. Fundamentally, sociopaths are different because they cannot love. Sociopaths learn early on to show sham emotion, but underneath they are indifferent to others’ suffering. They live to dominate and thrill to win.

You have a habit of pissing off other forum posters to the point where many of them will just go away. There are very few people who would improve the Earth from their deaths, and you, muppet, happen to be one. There were people you basically pissed off on ?off to the point that they left and never came back. You repeated that behavior with CoT. You repeated that behavior with Blah. You'll repeat that behavior with every place you go.

>Next we'll ask dogs to apologize for barking.
Dog in the manger. And all that. As long as you're the center of attention, you'll keep barking.

I'd like to believe that there is some good in all of us. You've managed to prove that there are some irredeemably fallen individuals.
Permalink Peter 
March 6th, 2007 10:45am
Why is Flasher in this thread? Flasher, go away.
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 10:46am
Peter -

It's terrible when people are so offended and threatened by the free exchange of ideas and the tolerance of alternate viewpoints that they will literally leave a place and never come back.

You take it a step further and start calling for people's deaths, declaring that it can only be an improvement.

And you call ME the sociopath.

You're sick, Peter.  You need help.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:48am
"Why is Flasher in this thread? Flasher, go away."

No. But thanks for your input.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 10:49am
Being an asshole is not a viewpoint.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 10:50am
++muppet on that last one. Peter is tolerable in his endlessly judgmental quotes and opinions, but not so much in his desire for an immediate Judgment Day, here and now.
Permalink anonymous hordes 
March 6th, 2007 10:54am
Flasher -

What evidence have you got that I'm an asshole?  You haven't met me.  I haven't kicked your dog.  I haven't pulled your sister's hair.

What you have are my ideas, opinions, and viewpoints, as expressed on this and other forums.  That's all.

You have made a moralistic judgement based upon the things that I espouse in a public internet forum, which may at times be my actual opinion and may at times be not at all my actual opinion.

There is no way to "be an asshole" via a communication medium that is voluntarily and wilfully participated in by all involved.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 10:55am
Now, if you take things to the real world, THEN you can be an asshole.

If you use cues and clues given on an internet forum to track someone down, access their public records, pry into their lives, and then post the results with the intention of causing that person harm in some way, then THAT'S being an asshole.

But it has to go outside of the forum.

I have never done anything like that.  Not once.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 11:04am
Oh! C'mon muppet. You are just trolling. This thread and the one below shows you get just as upset. Think that only you monitor the CoT feed while at Blah? We all saw that spoof today. And it got your goat.

Saying "sorry" needn't be this tiresome. And we know are. Your online persona for the past half a decade is sufficiently well documented and we can fairly judge when you are hurt, how you feel about something and how you react.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 11:10am
I'm glad that you're such an expert on me.  :-)

What spoof are you talking about?  I honestly have no idea.

I started this thread to do exactly what I said: to thank MarkTAW for sticking to his word.  The direction the thread has taken since then is none of my doing.  Review it again if you like.

Unless you think I'm such a master of psychology that I can manipulate people like puppets, this thread devolved utterly without my prompting.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 11:13am
People process symbols constantly. Symbols mean something in the mind which is real and are therefore real themselves (winning the lottery will make you happy today, not when you actually spend the money on "real world" things at a later date).

Therefore one can be an asshole using mere symbols (aka, a forum, or 'virtual space'). Despite the nursery rhyme it is possible to hurt with words, not just sticks and stones.
Permalink Send private email strawberry snowflake 
March 6th, 2007 11:16am
Winning the lottery is a far cry from getting into an argument on the internet, snowflake.

Love the nick, by the way.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 11:17am
>> What spoof are you talking about?  I honestly have no idea.

Now, I am sure. 'Cause I read your response in that thread.

>> I started this thread to do exactly what I said: to thank MarkTAW for sticking to his word.

That's not what I am talking about. Nice of you to say "Thank You". Now, can you say "Sorry"?

>> The direction the thread has taken since then is none of my doing.

Huh? So what?

>> Unless you think I'm such a master of psychology that I can manipulate people like puppets

And you too can be manipulated. No need to be masters in psychology. Just being normal is sufficient.


The whole thing ended up the way it did not because of something you did. It was because of something you didn't do and that is apologise for what you did. You know you fucked up and in true muppet style, you stuck to your guns. And hence the flare up.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 11:19am
And snowflake -

Words only have the power you give them.  If you are so enamored with your own ideas that contrary notions anger, offend, and sicken you to the point of calling for somebody's excommunication (or even their death), then you have issues of your own that need to be worked out internally.  The owner of the dissenting opinion has not injured you; you have injured yourself.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 11:19am
"Now, I am sure. 'Cause I read your response in that thread."

Are you talking about the dumb PHP question with my real life name attached?  What has that got to do with any of this?  Do you honestly believe that there is a connection?  Are you another wacky dope-smoking Indian?  Newsflash: Americans don't think like you do.  You see these whacked-out connections and insults where we simply do not.

Why, in your addled head, do you think that someone posting under my name would prompt me to post a thread thanking MarkTAW?  I'm honestly, sincerely interested in a detailed accounting of your thought process here.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 11:21am
Why in the world should I apologize for doing something benign that a largish knot of people subsequently violently overreacted to?  Their response was the problem, not anything that I did or said.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 11:22am
> doing something benign that a largish knot of people subsequently violently overreacted to?
Nothing you do is benign. You have no ability whatsoever to feel shame, guilt, or remorse.

>Sociopaths learn early on to show sham emotion, but underneath they are indifferent to others’ suffering. They live to dominate and thrill to win.
Permalink Peter 
March 6th, 2007 11:27am
You've divined all this from my posts on a forum, Peter.  That's very impressive.

Except that it's impossible.  Leave the armchair psychiatry to the psychiatrists.  I'm not the one extolling the virtues of killing participants on a website, Peter.  You are.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 11:32am
Oh! Boy!

>> ...PHP question with my real life name attached? 

Yes.

>> What has that got to do with any of this?  Do you honestly believe that there is a connection?

Isn't the whole issue is "REAL LIFE" in this case?

>> Are you another wacky dope-smoking Indian?  Newsflash: Americans don't think like you do.  You see these whacked-out connections and insults where we simply do not.

Glad you choose to remain you.


>> Why, in your addled head, do you think that someone posting under my name would prompt me to post a thread thanking MarkTAW?  I'm honestly, sincerely interested in a detailed accounting of your thought process here.

You are fucking stupid if you think this thread is just about thanking Mark. You may have wanted it to be. We just have to take your word on it. But it is not. This thread is about making you, and others reading this, realise that you are stubborn arsehole who can't say "sorry", even if you really want to say so.

>> Why in the world should I apologize for doing something benign that a largish knot of people subsequently violently overreacted to?  Their response was the problem, not anything that I did or said.

It was not benign. Scroll up to read what you said about online fora and its separation from real life. You went out of line by posting something personal. Even though you made it anonymous, it hurt someone bad. It means jack squat whether you think it should hurt or not, whether it is stupid or not to fell bad about what you did. Fact is, it hurt. That was made clear to you. You did not apologise. A simple, "I'm sorry" would have gone a long way.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 11:34am
"Even though you made it anonymous, it hurt someone bad. "

That someone should grow the fuck up.

Hey announcement:  Wibbly Weegy Willy* was mean to a puppy when he was seven.

* an alias for a real person, who I am not going to name.

Anyone who is hurt by anonymous postings on a internet forum such as cot needs to grow a thicker skin and maybe take some time off of anonymous internet forums such as cot. Newsflash:  cot - not for the easily offended.
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 11:41am
You still are refusing to accept that you actually get it. :-) Good. Tenacity is admirable.

>> That someone should grow the fuck up.

Not your call. Nor mine. It is entirely theirs.

>> Hey announcement:  Wibbly Weegy Willy* was mean to a puppy when he was seven.

* an alias for a real person, who I am not going to name.

Where did you learn this fact from? From Blah? Then it is flat out wrong. Because..

>> Anyone who is hurt by anonymous postings on a internet forum such as cot needs to grow a thicker skin and maybe take some time off of anonymous internet forums such as cot.

..Blah is definitely not CoT. Explicitly so. And you carried over info from there to here. Personal stuff there is not CoT accessible. By definition. You reneged on that contract.

>> Newsflash:  cot - not for the easily offended.

Exactly.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 11:47am
Peter, get a grip. It makes you sound like an idiot. There are plenty of things to call muppet without having to make absurd claims. I am sure he might even agree to some.
Permalink Practical Geezer 
March 6th, 2007 11:52am
> You still are refusing to accept

have we spoken before?  what are you talking about? 

> And you carried over info from there to here. Perso

Hi, I'm zed.  Nevermind the rest of the post.  Could you go back to blah now?
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 11:59am
??.?? (post some displayable characters you fuck) -

You do know that zed and I are not the same person, right? 

"You went out of line by posting something personal. Even though you made it anonymous, it hurt someone bad."

Then that is the responsibility of that someone.  They are responsible for their own reaction.  They were not named.  They were not identified.  There was no chance, from my post, of identifying the person.

THEIR REACTION was the only thing likely to identify them.  They are responsible for that.  Not me.

Posting a blind item, for the 103rd time, is not "personal".  It is not personal information.  It simply isn't.  In order for an item to qualify as personal information, it has to both be of a personal nature AND be identified to a specific person.  Case in point:

Somebody has hemmorhoids.

This is not personal information.  Someone on this forum with hemmorhoids, who read this, and reacted badly to it, would be considered childish and unreasonable.  OF COURSE somebody has hemmorhoids, somewhere.

Wayne has hemmorhoid.

THIS is personal.  THIS is invasive.  This is publishing personal information about someone specific.  The person is well identified and the information of a personal nature is tied to them inextricably.


Now, as far as I know Wayne does not have hemmorhoids.

But honestly, trying to argue that my posting "Somebody got arrested" was hurtful or damaging is ludicrous.  It simply wasn't.  OF COURSE somebody got arrested.  Somewhere.

Granted, the pool of people is "the subset that posts on Blah" rather than "the population of the world", but give me a fucking break.  I'll bet that MORE than TWO people on Blah have been arrested at some point.  I'VE been arrested.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:00pm
Who cares about this blah/muppet/cot thing. I want to know who got arrested.
Permalink hello. 
March 6th, 2007 12:03pm
I just told you, I've been arrested.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:05pm
Were you anyone else other than the 'muppet' I've known since the pre-?Off days, I would have just said "clutching straws". But since it is that 'muppet' and apparently 'zed', I must admit you actually think you hanging on to the Rock of Gibralter.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 12:07pm
Dude, wait...


what?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:08pm
Have you just had a stroke?  Should we call someone for you?

What's the number for the donkey ambulance wherever the fuck you live?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:09pm
LOL! It's like programming. You've just got know which buttons to push.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 12:11pm
People with hemorrhoids should get a thicker skin.
Permalink anonymous hordes 
March 6th, 2007 12:12pm
"You have made a moralistic judgement based upon the things that I espouse in a public internet forum, which may at times be my actual opinion and may at times be not at all my actual opinion."

Ideas expressed are action whether you believe in them or not. Furthermore, the threat of divulging information reasonably held to be in private is also action, and the action of an asshole.

(I don't believe you honestly do not see how one would reasonably expect an invite-only forum to be private, and how making potentially damaging information public is an asshole's action. If you really think nothing on the Internet matters and that behaviour online is different from behaviour IRL, then you are not only an asshole but a complete, blithering idiot.)
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 12:13pm
>  on to the Rock of Gibralter.

You've hurt hello very badly by mentioning the Rock Of Gibralter.  You need to apologize to hello for mentioing the Rock of Gibralter.  You are not to mention the Rock every again.
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 12:13pm
" the threat of divulging information reasonably held to be in private is also action, and the action of an asshole. "

Yes.  But posting anonymous non-identifiable information is not.  Right?
Permalink zed 
March 6th, 2007 12:15pm
"Ideas expressed are action whether you believe in them or not."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAA

....OK hold on....


...OK


"Furthermore, the threat of divulging information reasonably held to be in private is also action, and the action of an asshole."

I didn't make any such threat.  I also didn't do any such thing.  Who are we talking about here?  It isn't me.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:16pm
"Yes.  But posting anonymous non-identifiable information is not.  Right?"

There's a reasonable fear by the person involved that their identity will also be revealed, at some time in the future. There is absolutely no good reason to tell an open, indexed forum that someone on a different, closed forum - but someone that also posts on the open forum - was arrested, unless it is to be an asshole and troll that person and the closed forum. There is simply no value in that information except for the troll value. Trolling is an assholey behaviour to begin with; trolling with potentially life-destroying information is assholey to a much greater degree.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 12:23pm
muppet, you still aren't addressing the issue I raised. You may not want. Fair enough. But at least say so.

It is not so much as what you did as it is your continued refusal for not apologising post facto. Again, it means nothing what you feel about what the other part *should* feel. Unless, you actually believe that the other party is not sincere in their statements.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 12:23pm
People who don't understand pointer reflection shouldn't live in glass houses.
Permalink anonymous hordes 
March 6th, 2007 12:26pm
"There's a reasonable fear by the person involved that their identity will also be revealed, at some time in the future. There is absolutely no good reason to tell an open, indexed forum that someone on a different, closed forum - but someone that also posts on the open forum - was arrested, unless it is to be an asshole and troll that person and the closed forum. There is simply no value in that information except for the troll value. Trolling is an assholey behaviour to begin with; trolling with potentially life-destroying information is assholey to a much greater degree."

It's not a reasonable fear.  It's a fear borne of that person's own insecurity about what happened.  There is no reason to believe that once I've posted a blind item, I will continue by posting the full story.  Newspaper columnists do this sort of thing all the time.  They never reveal the whole deal.  Newspaper columnists are also not famous for being stable personalities.

It has everything to do with the member's own reaction, and nothing to do with anything I've done.

The value was in contradicting something vindictive that was said in a thread involving wSV.  The fact that I'm not more specific is a nod to the person involved that I'm not in any way obligated to make but I'm trying to be nice.  If you insist upon rehashing this, then I'll be happy to be more specific.  Suffice it to say that someone belittled wSV in a vindictive and malicious manner in a thread he posted by casting aspersions on his assertions and trying to make him look like a silly child by flat out denying reality and hand-waving rather than by logic or any sort of real argument.  I find this practice repugnant, and so I responded with a rebuttal.  The rebuttal happened to be offering up the fact that there was, in fact, personal information to be had on Blah.

I don't like hand-waving, belittling bullshit.  It was a cowardly and unnecessary move.  I responded to that.  Quite morally, I did not divulge the source of the information nor the involved party.

There is no issue here except an attempt to condemn me out of spite.  It has nothing to do with what really happened.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:29pm
I'll take that as you don't want to. OK, then.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 12:33pm
I'm not in the habit of apologizing for mundane things which don't require apology, no.

In the same way that I won't apologize for walking my dog this morning, I won't apologize for posting a harmless blind item to an internet forum.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:36pm
"It's a fear borne of that person's own insecurity about what happened."

No shit, Sherlock! That's why it was on a closed forum!

"There is no reason to believe that once I've posted a blind item, I will continue by posting the full story."

Yes there is: you're an asshole.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 12:37pm
We've already been through that, Flasher.  As much as you dearly believe it with all of your little politically correct, Peter Pan heart: words are not actions.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:38pm
"The rebuttal happened to be offering up the fact that there was, in fact, personal information to be had on Blah."

So, the sequence of events is the following:

1) wSV says there's personal information on Blah and he's gonna post it.

2) Somebody gets scared for the personal information they posted on a closed forum and tries to discredit wSV.

3) You post the information in question, albeit without identification.

How can you argue in good faith that there was no presumption of privacy that you were aware of?
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 12:40pm
I didn't break any presumption of privacy.  No one's privacy was violated.

Also, bullet point two requires a little more detail.  It wasn't the attempt to discredit, but the backhanded, immoral way in which it was done.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:44pm
Not to mention that I'm not alone in believing that there was no special expectation of privacy on Blah before now.  Colm had the same interpretation I did, and he's just the only one I can think of who spoke up.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 12:45pm
<MASTER OF THE OBVIOUS>
Once you let strangers (i.e. people who you don't fully trust) get into your inner circle, everything you say, cannot be considered private. Even if that information is never divulged.

</MASTER OF THE OBVIOUS>

Why are you doing such a big deal if no harm has been done?
Permalink Send private email Masiosare 
March 6th, 2007 12:50pm
Because harm has been done. The affected party had made it amply clear.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 12:54pm
People invited into Blah are people whom the invitee trusts. There was an implicit cascading presumption of trust, as evidenced by the fact that:

a) Mark explicitly said that you were responsible for those you invite;

and

b) New accounts that did nothing but lurk were banished to Metal Mayhem.

Colm did not raise anyone's ire because Colm is not enough of an asshole to divulge information that someone obviously wouldn't want public.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 6th, 2007 12:56pm
I've said before that the only way to enforce "what happens on Blah stays on Blah" is if anyone who violates that is kicked off.  I was thinking of Mark deleting their accounts, but I guess hounding them over it works as well.

Sorry, that really has no bearing...

In the context of what was being said here on CoT, I think muppet's post about "sure there's interesting stuff on Blah, here's an example..." made sense.  Without having been part of any of the discussions about this on Blah, I can't comment on whether it was so terrible to mention it at all, but from the outside, it was pretty inoccuous.

_And_ it's a good reminder that this stuff isn't private, not even on Blah (so it seems).  Anyone there who gets pissed off at someone else could grab that private information and re-post it.  If they post it here on CoT, you'll probably notice it, but if it's anywhere else, you might not even know until you start getting emails...
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 6th, 2007 1:16pm
To protect the privacy of Blah people, I propose that all forum posts are rendered to images with a captcha algorithm that's watermarked for each user. Then break each posting image up into little puzzle pieces, like a porn site, to make it even more annoying.
Permalink Send private email no label 
March 6th, 2007 1:46pm
"The affected party had made it amply clear."

It's not up to the affected party to determine damages.

Anyhow, it's a damn good thing that I did what I did, because now there's a special private section and people are more wary.  If it had been someone else, they might have ACTUALLY invaded privacy by posting the identifying information along with the item.  THEN there would have actually BEEN a problem, instead of this self-righteous indignant whinefest.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 1:52pm
Doesn't the the: "it's the internet, it doesn't count, words aren't actions" spiel contradict your "I only posted to protect wsv's honor which was seriously violated by the post" and your "tagging all my posts with attention whore is demeaning" lines?

I think the point isn't necessarily that your posting revealed someone's identity, instead you knew very well it upset the person yet you persisted in posting and reposting the the same crap over and over even when you needed to use an anonymous proxy to do so. Are you denying you weren't purposely trying to unsettle the person further by those actions? You were trying to intensely to get on people's nerves.
Permalink Send private email a2800276 
March 6th, 2007 1:59pm
>> It's not up to the affected party to determine damages.

Apologising is awarding damages? What you want to say is "Apologising means I did wrong." What I'm saying is, you stamp someone else's toes on a crowded train and say "I'm sorry".
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 2:01pm
Tim-

The moderation was unfair, so I circumvented the moderation.  It was not Wayne who was doing the moderating, but rather someone who was a poor choice for moderator to begin with:  you.

Attaching the prefix "Attention Whore" to everything I've ever said on Blah was childish and malicious.  While it's Mark's right to expouse his opinion, it's another matter entirely to modify original content posted by me in order to do that.

The fact that the person was upset by my post is irrelevant.  I wasn't trying to upset anyone.  Their upset was their own fault, and frankly it was EXTREMELY silly.  I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

I wasn't reposting the material with the intent of upsetting anyone further (the upset was so out of left field and so unjustified that it was pretty much off my radar), but rather because you were trying to moderate me based only on your own contempt for me and nothing else.  The threads in question were undeleted as soon as other moderators were available to do so, Tim.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 2:04pm
>> The fact that the person was upset by my post is irrelevant.  I wasn't trying to upset anyone.  Their upset was their own fault, and frankly it was EXTREMELY silly.

It isn't.

>> I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Ditto.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 2:09pm
>Attaching the prefix "Attention Whore" to everything I've
>ever said on Blah was childish and malicious.

So we can at least agree in general that words can be malicious, demeaning and insulting?
Permalink Send private email a2800276 
March 6th, 2007 2:09pm
"What I'm saying is, you stamp someone else's toes on a crowded train and say "I'm sorry"."

But I haven't stamped anyone's toes.  I've stood near someone and that someone has started screaming "rape."

I'm not going to apologize to that person.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 2:11pm
>So we can at least agree in general that words can be malicious, demeaning and insulting?

The *act* of modifying someone else's original content can be malicious, demeaning, and insulting.

Mark did not reproduce my posts and then comment on them, but rather he modified their original content.  These are different things.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 2:12pm
>> I've stood near someone and that someone has started screaming "rape."

Degrees. Both my example and yours are just that. Examples. However it is true that an adverse effect has occurred. Only question is the veracity of the statement made by the allegedly injured party. I hold that to be true. You haven't called on that person's insincerity. Ergo, adversely affected. Hence, apology. No guilt, since no intent to injure. Your sincerity of that is also not under question.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 2:15pm
Someone who is sincerely upset by no fault of my own is not someone who is due my apology.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 2:20pm
"The rebuttal happened to be offering up the fact that there was, in fact, personal information to be had on Blah."

So, the sequence of events is the following:

1) wSV says there's personal information on Blah and he's gonna post it.

2) Somebody gets scared for the personal information they posted on a closed forum and tries to discredit wSV.

3) You post the information in question, albeit without identification.

How can you argue in good faith that there was no presumption of privacy that you were aware of?"

Muppet, I agree you got psychopath tendency. The matter of fact is, that somebody posted that information on Blah because that he expected it, correctly or not, to remain there and not get out. So why did you mention it here?

Even if he is unreasonably paranoid, it is his information after all. And you blame him. That is inconsiderate.

You can also post YOUR information to defend wSV. Why didn't you do that?

Just say sorry, that you didn't meant to hurt his feeling.

For the record, I also believe that person is not totally innocent since he basically said wSV was lying, and I believe he posted some of your information here as well.
Permalink Send private email Rick, try writing better English 
March 6th, 2007 2:20pm
The person was not innocent at all.  They basically attempted to throw wSV's credibility under the bus in order to defend themselves, which is reprehensible behavior on any scale.

"The matter of fact is, that somebody posted that information on Blah because that he expected it, correctly or not, to remain there and not get out. So why did you mention it here?"

I didn't.  I posted an unconnected blind item.  We've been over this.

Private information requires as a component some identifying element.  Otherwise it's not private but rather, general.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 2:24pm
Well, I guess we need to agree to disagree.

But, just to remind you, basically everyone who joins Blah think you are wrong. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but you definitely has very poor judgement if you care at all.
Permalink Send private email Rick, try writing better English 
March 6th, 2007 2:32pm
>>> But, just to remind you, basically everyone who joins Blah think you are wrong.

If that really is what everyone on Blah thinks, they're kidding themselves.  The only mechanism that exists to enforce it is to kick an offender off - after the fact. 

In most private forums, it wouldn't be an issue.  Yes, if I'm part of the NSX mailing list and I post here that Jean Leblanc lives in Armpit, NV and works for Slots-O-Fun Casino and lost his house in a bitter divorce (info from the list), that's harmful to Jean, but it's less of an issue since no-one here has any connection to him.  If Jean is active on the NSX list _and_ on newsgroups and I post there, it's a lot worse for him.  But in either case, though, if Jean lets people know too much about him, he should keep in mind that it could come back to haunt him.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 6th, 2007 2:51pm
No one thinks it wouldn't get out, perhaps except the exposed person, but just that whoever lets that information (without explciit naming) out is inconsiderate when there is no need for that information to get out.

Yes, we see each other as friend and feel betrayed. Naive perhaps?
Permalink Send private email Rick, try writing better English 
March 6th, 2007 3:14pm
No one thinks it wouldn't get out, perhaps except the exposed person, but just that whoever lets that information (without explciit naming) out is inconsiderate when there is no need for that information to get out.

Yes, we see each other as friend and feel betrayed. Naive perhaps?

Well, no more comment. It's history now.
Permalink Send private email Rick, try writing better English 
March 6th, 2007 3:15pm
Betrayal will be punished, Ward!!!
Permalink Jean Leblanc 
March 6th, 2007 3:17pm
come on people.  if muppet truly had sociopathic tendencies he would have apologised by now, the apology would have been entirely meaningless to him, so he would have done it without a second thought.

he would also have named the person in question by now, if for no other reason than to respond to the incredible 'Attention Whole' banner.

It is an interesting statement on the depth of his character that he has done neither, and a _really_ interesting statement on the character of blah that they thought a banner of that nature was a good solution.

what a bunch of screaming, self-righteous twits.

on the bright side, they all live in blah :)
Permalink Send private email zestyZuchini 
March 6th, 2007 3:30pm
"and a _really_ interesting statement on the character of blah that they thought a banner of that nature was a good solution."

Hey, A, it's not they, B, it's not a solution to anything.

C, no, a psychopath might not name the person since he wants that person to live with the fear that it will eventually get out.
Permalink Send private email Rick, try writing better English 
March 6th, 2007 3:49pm
How do you know what a psychopath wants, unless....

Scoobie!
Permalink Send private email JoC 
March 6th, 2007 3:55pm
"psychopath might not name the person since he wants that person to live with the fear that it will eventually get out."

interesting.  so how exactly do you distinguish between the behavior of a psychopath and a person with enough integrity not to release personally identifying information when he has promised not to?

seriously?
Permalink Send private email zestyZuchini 
March 6th, 2007 4:09pm
Well, I don't know!

Look at prior history. I can't really say much here since it's said in Blah....
Permalink Send private email Rick, try writing better English 
March 6th, 2007 4:36pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2007 Other topics: March, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics