|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 7, 2019 21:44:57 GMT -5
I think that's ridiculous, and does nothing but protect and empower abusers, trolls, and harassers. ETA: My take: a private dispute with a friend is private (even if it ends the friendship). Private info (in a message board context like this one, that means e.g , real name behind screen names or emails, known only because of friendship) is private. Past confidences made because of then-existing friendship, or any communication where the recipient, regardless of relationship, pledged confidentiality: private. Disclosures made solely because the recipient had a legal duty to keep them confidential: obviously private. But one way screeds-o-hate? Sent to someone who is decidedly not your friend, and indeed sent because you hate them? Not private Especially (but not only) if the sender already dragged in an audience for no apparent reason except so that he has sympathetic listeners for his screed-o-hate. And that's what this was. ETA: I also think if you flounce, you STAY flounced. But if you later regret it and want to rejoin, you don't pretend you never flounced. You acknowledge it and ask to come back. I flounced from another community (though I did so with a short message of goodwill to the community and its mods and no screed of hate, behind the scenes or otherwise, even though I WAS very angry and thought I'd been treated badly). I sometimes miss that community, though I do not plan to go back. But were I to go back, even though I did NOT aim a wall of abuse at the owner or mods, my first step would be a message to the owners telling them I regretted flouncing and asking if I could rejoin. My first post would acknowledge my flounce. And FFS, if some other member made a snide "wait, didn't you flounce," I sure as fuck wouldn't deny it and call them a liar.
Please crawl out of your own rectum for a moment and act as if you have some good common sense, Cassandra, for Christ's sake. You are desperately trying to make black into white, up into down, and sleazy as hell into an act of courageous virtue.
IT. AIN'T. WORKING.
Take a breath and look around you. No one but you and the voices in your head are buying into that bullshit.
Or haven't you noticed how utterly totally completely ALONE you are in this ridiculous "Okay, I did something uncool, but nighttimer made me do it so it's his fault. WAAAAAAHHHH!!!!" line of argument. Until such time as a member of your fan club parachutes in to say "Ditto" you are coming off as totally cray-cray.
Really, what's your point? nighttimer is being mean and caustic and sarcastic and abrasive to me? Okay. I call that Monday, but everything and I do mean EVERYTHING you can say that is foul and wrong about me can be applied just as much to you.
Mean? Check. Caustic? Check. Sarcastic? Check. Abrasive? Check.
If nighttimer hides behind "but the Racism!" to cover for his bad behavior, Cassandra hides behind "but the Sexism!" to cover for her bad behavior. If nighttimer hides behind his race to cover for his bad behavior, Cassandra hides behind her gender to excuse her bad behavior. If nighttimer doesn't belong on this board because he pisses you the fuck off, Cassandra doesn't belong on this board either because she pisses me the fuck off.
I don't flounce, but if I did I wouldn't do it your way. Fuck that shit and fuck it hard. Hell, I don't even want to breathe like you . I don't think like you and I don't do like you and I don't ever want to and I will never-fucking-ever take any lessons or advice from someone who is so clearly in love with their own opinion and contemptuous of any that disagrees with it.
That is why I'd rather be cool with celawson whom I disagree with on so many issues than with a raging egotist and vain narcissist like you, because being in agreement with you makes me feel kinda bad and maybe that I shouldn't be in agreement with such unscrupulous people of such dubious character who shit on The Rules when they get in the way of their selfish and petty tiny little satisfaction.
But here's the best thing about being an asshole is? It's easy to spot another one, and darn if you don't look mighty familiar, Cassandra. Don't delude yourself that you are somehow more principled or dignified or even that your ass belongs on this board more than mine does. You're not better than me. You're not better than anyone.
The problem is with all three of your "What If's" is WHAT IF the fucking screed or tirade of abuse wasn't sent to you in the first fucking place, but you disclosed it anyway because it was disclosed to you, and despite the fact the person(s) it WAS sent to was far more circumspect than you are, you took it on yourself to say, "Aw, fuck it. I'm in my feelings and I hate the guy, so that makes it okay."
That's the problem with "What If" scenarios. They are poor substitutes for "What Did."
For those counting at home, those were eight--count 'em---eight references to me as Cassandra's version of the Anti-Christ. I don't care for the furnishings and the service around this joint sucks, but I do find a small degree of joy knowing I am living rent-free in Cassandra's head.
As for the rest of this messy, self-serving rant, I'll say this about that.
"He's lucky I restrained myself..." (Or what? You're gonna follow me home and beat me up? Shoot me in the back? Call me an 'asshole' to my face? And luck is for rabbits.)
(Hey, if you really want to put the whole PM on the board Cassandra, then why don't you stop threatening to and talking shit that you're going to and JUST FUCKING DO IT. What's stopping you? That fake-ass non-apology apology to robeiae? Don't sweat it. Just write him another one).
(Because if you are waiting for me to beg and plead and fall on my knees for you not to, then you're are seriously delusional and will be waiting a long time. Like the rest of your life).
"...to the extent anyone has a right to be angry at me, it's Rob, not NT..." (If that comes off as smug, elitist, arrogant, and totally clueless entitlement, that's because that is exactly what entitlement looks like. The entitlement of declaring whose grievances are legit and whose are not, because to hear her tell it, the only legitimate criticism of Cassandra can be from the persons Cassandra bestows the right to call her out on her bullshit and nobody else. Fuck. All. That. Noise. And. Fuck. It. Hard).
Cassandra stepped on your foot and did it again even harder. You don't have the right to be angry at her. Cassandra swindled you out of your life savings and rubbed your nose in it. You don't have the right to be angry at her. Cassandra killed your dog and laughed in your face about it? You don't have the right to be angry at her.
(Nobody has to ask for Cassandra's permission for the right to be angry at Cassandra. You take the right).
"...I think Rob knows that my anger at Nighttimer is partially on his (Rob's) behalf..." (Hey, I just realized something. I've crossed swords with robeiae for well over a decade, but it wasn't until right now I realized you were old enough to be his mother and fight his battles for him.
Personally, I think Rob/robieae has proven himself more than capable of fighting his own fights without your help and I bet he can tie his own shoes too.
But you be you.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Jul 7, 2019 21:48:20 GMT -5
So, Cass. Yeah, pretty much. Private is private. Insults? Who gives a shit....what are we, children? If someone is a vile, disgusting piece of shit to me in private, I'm probably not going to engage with that person. But I'm not going to share a private message without a damn good reason. Your example of creepy sex stalking would be such a reason. Being called names....who cares? And I'm not falling for any bullshit. I know NT is abrasive. We've butted heads a few times. We've been on the same side a few times. I think he's over the top sometimes. I think YOU are over the top sometimes. Whatever. I'm not condoning or supporting EITHER of you hurling insults at the other. All I'm saying is sharing a private message - that from what I understand wasn't even SENT TO YOU - to a public board is a pretty shitty thing to do. When a private message is shared by the perp with two of his fanboys or fangirls, it is, by definition, no longer a private message. Private is one on one. When you bring your audience in to see your brilliant post, all bets are off. In another world, I had the pleasure of serving as a moderator and enjoyed receiving the abuse via PM of many members because of that fact. One member in particular stands out. But because the PMs weren't copied to others, I honored the privacy, even though they were nothing but angry screeds full of personal attacks. And almost, but not quite accusing me of being a racist. It's always almost. He can't come out and say it. He's very careful that way.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jul 7, 2019 23:32:40 GMT -5
So, Cass. Yeah, pretty much. Private is private. Insults? Who gives a shit....what are we, children? If someone is a vile, disgusting piece of shit to me in private, I'm probably not going to engage with that person. But I'm not going to share a private message without a damn good reason. Your example of creepy sex stalking would be such a reason. Being called names....who cares? And I'm not falling for any bullshit. I know NT is abrasive. We've butted heads a few times. We've been on the same side a few times. I think he's over the top sometimes. I think YOU are over the top sometimes. Whatever. I'm not condoning or supporting EITHER of you hurling insults at the other. All I'm saying is sharing a private message - that from what I understand wasn't even SENT TO YOU - to a public board is a pretty shitty thing to do. When a private message is shared by the perp with two of his fanboys or fangirls, it is, by definition, no longer a private message. Private is one on one. When you bring your audience in to see your brilliant post, all bets are off. In another world, I had the pleasure of serving as a moderator and enjoyed receiving the abuse via PM of many members because of that fact. One member in particular stands out. But because the PMs weren't copied to others, I honored the privacy, even though they were nothing but angry screeds full of personal attacks. And almost, but not quite accusing me of being a racist. It's always almost. He can't come out and say it. He's very careful that way. Sorry, but your definition sucks. The real definition is
"Definition of private
(Entry 1 of 2) 1a : intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class a private park"
Perhaps we should let these peas sort this out for themselves?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 7, 2019 23:48:22 GMT -5
When a private message is shared by the perp with two of his fanboys or fangirls, it is, by definition, no longer a private message. Private is one on one. When you bring your audience in to see your brilliant post, all bets are off. So is your analogy.
A "perp" is cop slang for "perpetrator" and as there has been no criminal act occurring here (beyond one individual's rant and raving and disturbing the peace and derailing the thread) and you are no cop. As far as "fanboys" or "fangirls" that's highly dismissive of one female member of this board and of another who no longer posts here on a regular basis.
Plus, your definition is wrong. A private message can be shared as a "CC" (carbon copy to others) or "BCC" (blind carbon copy which can be seen only by those specified recipients, but not the original recipient. At least that's how it is supposed to work). Therefore, I could send a PM to you, haggis and BCC the other 56 members of this board and you wouldn't know it until one of them told you. Probably by a PM.
There is nothing---literally nothing---in this board's rules that state a PM must be shared only with the person it is being sent to and no one else, and why should there be? It should be evident. Just as it should be evident you can't justify the public sharing of that PM. Only one person did that and that was the person who had no business even knowing about it because it wasn't any of her business. So nice try, but you're just going to have to try harder, sir.
And private does not mean "one-on-one." Private means "intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class," and not someone who isn't that particular person, part of a specific group and has no class. I'll go with the Merriam-Webster definition over yours, thank you.
It is a reasonable precautionary measure when you are sending a PM that it might be misinterpreted or misread or misunderstood (or exposed by a third party with an axe to grind and no scruples), to protect oneself by sharing it with someone else who can be trusted and can vouch for the message's content. Little could I have known The Rules of The Colline Gate are considered to be null and void when an ex-moderator has an axe to grind and a score to settle.
...and speaking of dull axes to grind and old scores to settle...
I have never been uncomfortable calling someone a racist when they have proven themselves to be a racist, sir. The discomfort occurs for the racist when they are called a racist, because that it not a nice way to be identified. I hope that's clear, but even it is isn't I'm done with that.
I still have your PM's from that time you refer to, and I recall the matter somewhat differently than you. I am not Cassandra so I won't play myself by posting verbatim an irrelevant message from another board that is nearly six years old and which I should have deleted nearly six years ago. All I'll say it was something along the lines of my posts at that other place, not being supportive of old people unless their name was Hank Aaron with the clear inference I was only supportive of old people if they were Black old people.
You almost, but not quite accused me of being racist against White old people like John McCain, but just almost. You didn't come right out and say it. You were very careful that way.
And now here you are, years later and still all full of piss and vinegar over ancient history, but just waiting for the right and strategic moment to dredge up this Mickey Mouse b.s. one more time. Damn, this really IS some high school shit.
I would feel sorry for you holding on that sort of crap for so long, but frankly I don't think enough of you to waste my time to think of it any further. It's just crazy and not worth any more of my time. If holding on to the past so you can drag it into the present does something for you and your unresolved butt-hurt, keep on keepin' on, Haggis. Just know you're no more impartial or neutral or objective than anybody else, so I hope you feel better now that you got it out of your system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 23:49:24 GMT -5
Yeah, nice try, Mikey, but if you've got a private group, it's private because all the members of that group have agreed to make it so. You have a private members only golf course? Members who join, join on that basis--they all agree it's a private club because restricting membership benefits them all. You don't get to stalk into a room and say "This is my private club and you're all members, because I say so!" In other words, privacy stems from an agreement by all parties that something is private. With friends, that agreement is a standing one and need not necessarily be explicitly stated (though I frankly think it's wise to ask your friends that you want something kept private -- it's not necessarily a given just because you're alone in the room with them and haven't taken out a newspaper ad). But with strangers or enemies? Naah. Bullies don't get to drag people off into a secluded corner to berate them and then snarl "this is a PRIVATE conversation, you hear?" The other person--the recipient--decides whether it stays private, even if the bully expressly states he wants it kept private. Certainly there's no tacit assumption that a bully berating you is a private conversation, or that he and his two buddies have forced you into a private group that obligates you to omerta.
Here, Rob didn't agree to keep anything private and this message was absolutely not sent in the context of a friendship. (How many times has NT declared his hatred of Rob on this board?) Rob didn't choose to join this "private group" formed to hear NT's tirade, and he didn't choose to receive the communication. NT chose to send his nastygram and chose the group he wanted to hear his bullshit without consulting Rob. (Nor did NT ask for confidentiality, but that is a by the way--even if he had, Rob doesn't have to agree.) NT's unilateral choice to shove Rob into a chair and force him to be abused in front of NT's chosen audience didn't put Rob under any obligation whatsoever. Rob was perfectly entitled to share it with his own group or the entire damn world. Rob did so, and in doing so, he noted that the fact that NT included an audience meant that he didn't consider himself under any obligation to keep the conversation confidential. That being the case, I wasn't under any particular obligation to keep it confidential, either. (However, since Rob IS my friend, I feel he's due some extra consideration. That's why I, were I to do it again, I'd ask Rob first. That stems from the mutual friendship between us, not any special PM magic.)
Having been in that shared group, once NT chose to come back to Rob's board after that bullshit, blatantly lie, and then call me a liar...what, I'm duty-bound to meekly allow NT to call me a liar when he's the one lying?
No. Fuck that noise. You don't get to unilaterally decide to abuse people in front of your own chosen audience and then claim it's "private." You don't get to complain because you've been called on your own bullshit.
As Haggis notes, Nighttimer sends PM stinkers full of bullshit abuse all the fucking time to dodge the consequences of sending said stinkers. It's been his modus operandi for quite a while. It's high time he got fucking called on it.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 7, 2019 23:53:46 GMT -5
Yawn. I'm tired of waiting for you to share this "nastygram" with everybody else. Talk is cheap and your trash talk is even cheaper.
Have a good night. Or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 0:00:12 GMT -5
Oh, I have your explicit permission to share it?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 8, 2019 7:41:06 GMT -5
And once NT chose to come back to Rob's board after that bullshit, and lie, and then call me a liar...what, I'm duty-bound to meekly allow NT to call me a liar when he's the one lying? No. Fuck that noise. You don't get to single-handedly decide to abuse people in front of your own chosen audience and then claim it's "private." As Haggis notes, Nighttimer sends PM stinkers full of bullshit abuse all the fucking time to dodge the consequences of sending said stinkers. It's been his modus operandi for quite a while. It's high time he got fucking called on it. And that's your job, huh?
I could have swore you quit as a Moderator because you couldn't hack it.
Oh, I have your explicit permission to share it? Hell no. You didn't need my explicit permission to share it the first time, so if you were that sleazy once, I'm sure you can vomit up another bizarre rationalization to do it again. You're gonna do what the hell you wanna do because you feel zero accountability to anyone, so do whatever you want.
I'd expect nothing less from someone like you. Once you've convinced yourself you are pursing justice it becomes easy to deceive yourself that you're not merely looking for revenge. You've always envisioned yourself as the hero of your own narrative.
Just remember---everything you said about me applies equally to you.
Have an ordinary day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 8:28:29 GMT -5
Jeer at me for not posting it, then say I don't have your permission. Dodge, weave, insult, repeat.
Again, the only reason you put that message in PM and copied just your buddies was because you knew you'd look like an asshole if everyone saw them.
Nothing about your words was confidential. You just didn't want to own them. You wanted to be able to deny you ever said them. You were willing to lie about saying them if confronted, and to call others liars for telling the truth.
Sad.
ETA:
Heh. On this board, the term is "personal" message, as opposed to private message or direct message. They all mean the same thing, of course--I think "direct" message expresses the meaning best. But it's amusing to me here because the message NT sent to Rob was certainly "personal" (in the sense of intentionally offensive), though it wasn't "private", since NT brought an audience.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 8, 2019 11:25:16 GMT -5
I'm not going to wade into the middle of this, as it seems personal. I just want to add my voice in saying that sharing a private message to the public is pretty shitty. I can't really get behind Rob's reasoning for sharing it with others. There is no need to repeat that the feeling is NT "waived" privacy by CCing others. I understand that is the argument being made. I just don't buy into it. So yeah, in my view no matter how abrasive NT can be....that was a pretty shitty thing to do. I can accept disagreement on the matter. But let me be clear here: I shared a message to others because the message actually concerned them to some degree, since they were named in it and had been a part of the discussion that spawned the message. And I only took that step because NT has copied others in already. That's not me sharing the message to the public, at all (though I would argue that doing so would still have been justifiable, all things considered). Cass is right, insofar as she kinda did owe me an apology (accepted, Cass) and should have checked with me before posting a portion of the message on the board. If she had asked, I would have said that I'd prefer it if she didn't post any direct quotes. But I have no issue with her referencing the flounce from NT. Because a flounce is exactly what it was. Make no mistake, NT unloaded on me and declared that he was no longer a member of TCG (and again, copied in other people so they could see how awesome he is). I didn't bother responding, as I assumed it was the last I would ever hear from him, as I wrongly thought he was a man of his word. And the only reason why we are now having this rather pointless discussion (thought to be fair, it's the only action on the board, really) is because NT isn't a man of his word, because he promptly returned less than a month after his flounce and acted like nothing had happened, like he didn't tell me--the owner and sole moderator of TCG--that he was no longer a member. I don't know about everyone else, but when I tell someone, some org, some website, or what have you that I am severing ties with them, I actually sever ties with them. If I desired to "come back" as it were, I would tell them (ask them, really) that I'd like to come back. That's simple manners and transcends any issues of messageboard etiquette by a long shot, imo. But NT is right insofar as I didn't ban him so there was nothing to prevent him from posting again, aside from his own conscience. And as I explained upthread, there's precious little going on here; I'm leaving it open for the handful of people in the Tim thread more than anything else (and for me, as it still provides some release, even if I'm mostly talking to myself) though I'm happy to see people post serious stuff and will still happily engage in such threads. My desire to moderate is--at this point in time--exceedingly low, though I am going to clean this thread up, port some posts, and so on.
|
|