@Suzianne

Originally posted by josephw
That you should frame the question in such a way, or even pose it at all, is indicative of either whether you are cognizant of what one means by what they say, or you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the discussion. Or both.

If there's something that you really and honestly just don't understand [I presume there is and I presume it's the cause of the tangled sentence above] then just ask.

BUMP

Originally posted by josephw
Where in the rule "Please refrain from sending any messages that may be considered abusive by the recipient" does it say you are then free to share it?

Show me a "rule" that says I must keep what I consider to be an abusive message - or indeed any message - secret. I have only kept the 5,000 or so messages I have (probably) received confidential because I have chosen to. Same goes for everyone. If you have a "rule" that you'd care to cite, be my guest.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
I don't think Andy will P.M. with me as he requires an audience.

Andy doesn't believe in secrecy. Do you?

Originally posted by FMF
Show me a "rule" that says I must keep what I consider to be an abusive message - or indeed any message - secret. I have only kept the 5,000 or so messages I have (probably) received confidential because I have chosen to. Same goes for everyone. If you have a "rule" that you'd care to cite, be my guest.

The rules for keeping a PM private:

Honor, decency and respect.

It's time to stop whining about the 'recipient', and to also consider the 'sender'.

In this particular case, the majority has ruled that the 'sender' did absolutely nothing wrong, but the 'recipient' did.

If RHP has no 'rule', that's fine, but that may be because RHP didn't think stating such a rule was needed. A PM is simply designed to be between the sender and recipient ONLY.

Originally posted by chaney3
The rules for keeping a PM private:

Honor, decency and respect.

It's time to stop whining about the 'recipient', and to also consider the 'sender'.

In this particular case, the majority has ruled that the 'sender' did absolutely nothing wrong, but the 'recipient' did.

If RHP has no 'rule', that's fine, but that may be because RHP didn't think sta ...[text shortened]... ing such a rule was needed. A PM is simply designed to be between the sender and recipient ONLY.

Tell that to the world's numerous "spy" agencies.🙄😲😉

Originally posted by chaney3
In this particular case, the majority has ruled that the 'sender' did absolutely nothing wrong, but the 'recipient' did.

Your opinion in this regard is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever and has no bearing at all on how I will deal with a message like that again if the same situation should arise. If you believe that Suzianne exemplified "Honor, decency and respect" in her use of the web site's message facility, then good for you. But I don't see how your feelings about all this have any impact on what I do at all, nor should they. If there is a "rule" that says I must keep what I consider to be an abusive message - or indeed any message - secret, then point it out to me.

Originally posted by chaney3
In this particular case, the majority has ruled that the 'sender' did absolutely nothing wrong, but the 'recipient' did.

Threatening to hurt someone doesn't qualify as doing "absolutely nothing wrong."

Originally posted by chaney3

In this particular case, the majority has ruled that the 'sender' did absolutely nothing wrong, but the 'recipient' did.

Lets saddle up the lynch mob boys,
majority rules.

Originally posted by Captain Strange
Lets saddle up the lynch mob boys,
majority rules.

"It's alive...It's alive".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This has been a PR disaster for FMF and his droog, the Jeester.

Ha-ha. You would love to think that wouldn't you.

You and your little team of unprincipled groupies all stroking each other in a gross display of simpering toadyism, despite mostly hating each other the rest of the time, is as facinating as it is revolting.

Originally posted by divegeester
Ha-ha. You would love to think that wouldn't you.

You and your little team of unprincipled groupies all stroking each other in a gross display of simpering toadyism, despite mostly hating each other the rest of the time, is as facinating as it is revolting.

I think he's bang on.

The thing that gets me is how the "crusade" goes on for weeks and hundreds of posts. All over a threat that the recipient himself acknowledges to be empty.

A socially sane person would have dropped this non-issue long ago.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem


A socially sane person would have dropped this non-issue long ago.[/b]

Nobody on here has claimed to be socially sane doggy.

Originally posted by Captain Strange
Nobody on here has claimed to be socially sane doggy.

Like monkeys hooting at each other across the limbs. Krist, hasn't enough bandwidth been totally wasted on this shyte?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Like monkeys hooting at each other across the limbs. Krist, hasn't enough bandwidth been totally wasted on this shyte?

Give the monkey a pen and eventually he will write a work of genius.

Originally posted by Captain Strange
Give the monkey a pen and eventually he will write a work of genius.

The infinite monkey theorem, actually, is... well, no, forget it. I won't
do what your parents and the educational system failed at.