General
13 Dec 16
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou don't seem to understand the pre-qualifier of this pernicious 'threat'. She said
You are wise to fear me sir. (Joke).
And I agree there was no 'real intent to harm' in Suzianne's PM. That still however doesn't make the threat palatable.
'if you ever come near me'. That requires an action on FMFAILURE on his part. Like stay away from me, jack, that is the message.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's you who is missing the point, which very simply is this; if you are going to send a PM like that to someone then you obviously lose any right to confidentiality. That's it. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
You don't seem to understand the pre-qualifier of this pernicious 'threat'. She said
'if you ever come near me'. That requires an action on FMFAILURE on his part. Like stay away from me, jack, that is the message.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by sonhouseIs there more than one version of the PM. (Sorry if I have missed it but haven't been following both threads).
You don't seem to understand the pre-qualifier of this pernicious 'threat'. She said
'if you ever come near me'. That requires an action on FMFAILURE on his part. Like stay away from me, jack, that is the message.
I see no pre-qualifier in the PM I have seen. The threat there comes after, 'And if I am ever unfortunate enough to meet you face to face, I will hurt you.'
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI sent you and others the one I received from Suzianne. I don’t know if there is, but there may be a doctored version in circulation too.
Is there more than one version of the PM. (Sorry if I have missed it but haven't been following both threads).
I see no pre-qualifier in the PM I have seen. The threat there comes after, 'And if I am ever unfortunate enough to meet you face to face, I will hurt you.'
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHow silly Suzianne's message was is not the issue. The issue is whether there is an onus on the recipient of the message to keep her behaviour secret.
And I agree there was no 'real intent to harm' in Suzianne's PM. That still however doesn't make the threat palatable.
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by sonhouseYou seem to be referring to a doctored version of the message. But whether someone has tried to change the wording after the event or not is hardly relevant to the issue of confidentiality.
You don't seem to understand the pre-qualifier of this pernicious 'threat'. She said
'if you ever come near me'. That requires an action on FMFAILURE on his part. Like stay away from me, jack, that is the message.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThis was the flimsy threat that compelled the leprous FMF to justify his betraying a confidence? My goodness what a pansy. I might send him an abusive PM myself promising to crush him like a grape if ever we meet. Wendy doesn't do him justice.
Is there more than one version of the PM. (Sorry if I have missed it but haven't been following both threads).
I see no pre-qualifier in the PM I have seen. The threat there comes after, 'And if I am ever unfortunate enough to meet you face to face, I will hurt you.'
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's really ridiculous these days, the advent of PC. There was a case of a child of 8 getting suspended for using his index finger shaped like a gun, going bang bang.
This was the flimsy threat that compelled the leprous FMF to justify his betraying a confidence? My goodness what a pansy. I might send him an abusive PM myself promising to crush him like a grape if ever we meet. Wendy doesn't do him justice.
Seems a bit like that here.
MOMMY MOMMY, he pointed his finger at me AGAIN.
WHAT? OFF WITH HIS HEAD.
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFMF has admitted he did NOT feel threatened, and has now shifted to 'not liking her behavior'.
This was the flimsy threat that compelled the leprous FMF to justify his betraying a confidence? My goodness what a pansy. I might send him an abusive PM myself promising to crush him like a grape if ever we meet. Wendy doesn't do him justice.
In his PM criteria, it is okay to divulge a PM, personal message, when he disagrees with behavior.
It is wrong, and a betrayal of trust. His RHP 'friends' should think twice about future PM's, because depending on FMF's mood, the message will be shared.
If Suzianne is pissed, she has every right to be. Her behavior in that message did not warrant what FMF did. Most posters on this thread agree.
15 Dec 16
Originally posted by divegeesterYes, FMF sharing a PM because he did not 'like' her behavior is wrong.
You actually make a very good point chaney3.
Do you apply the same logic to FMF sharing the PM as being a "genuine" (your word) breach of trust?
If he didn't 'like' her behavior, then here's what he could have done:
Hit the 'reply button'.....and tell HER.
15 Dec 16
This issue is beginning to set a very ugly precedent.
Friends sending a PM to friends may not worry too much, but this 'precedent' is warning RHP members to NOT send a PM to another member who is not considered a 'friend', especially if you are debating them on subjects in the forums, because they may not 'like your behavior', and feel "justified" to share your message.