That all followers of the "desert cults" have the potential to be violent, evil lunatics? Yep, that's crossed my mind. Should we quote some Leviticus just for shits & giggles?
All humans have the potential for violence. In addition, all humans have the potential for violence. See the difference? That some use religion as an alibi is merely subtext.
It's my fault he made a complete and total ass of himself? I guess I can live with the credit for that.
What makes me laugh is how he's sitting by Facebook constantly refreshing, desperate to see if his thread had been replied to so that he gets the intention he craves. That's what gives him away.
He's not laughing at himself. He just realises that his bullshit yesterday had zero effect so now he's changing tactic so that he can say "oh, I'm just a chilled out old sole, unlock my account so I can back now and cure my loneliness)".
I'd say that there's no expectation of privacy for someone making bad faith legal threats, and in fact a lot of good that can come from exposing the communications of people making such threats. If ninja Dan's cluttering up your PM box you really should feel free to share if there's amusement to be had.
^ Told you. He's a sad loner. Now that his threats and demands haven't worked he knows he has two options. Either stay away and become even more lonely with nothing to do online, or kiss butt to crawl back and pretend it's the master of all wind ups. What a pathetic human being.
The PM rule is one thats never sat right with me. If you are having a conversation with someone where you have both agreed to keep things private, then sure. If you just message someone however there isn't any xpectation or obligation to privacy.
Do you let friends and family read your personal correspondance or emails without consent? I don't like the fact that PMs are used here to pass around personal info. But, at the same time, I don't see a free for all on PM contents in keeping with the "P" in "PM".
No. But at the same time if I send someone a letter or email I don't think they have an obligation to keep its contents private. The way the rules are right now for example, if I sent you an abusive pm out of the blue you technically aren't allowed to show that.
Another conversation I'd like to have is regarding private info going forward. I think Tex brought this up before and it wasn't really clearly followed up.
Maybe the solution is for there to be an exception that people can forward PMs to mods if they consider them abusive, or are misusing personal info.
Unfortunately thing is that this is an abuse that Tamar, and possibly yourself, has engaged in. Are you the best oeople to tackle the problem?
Probably not. But suggestions are welcome. Personally, if it were up to me, I'd adopt a policy that states unless this information gives away a person's first and last name, and/or address or any other identifying features such as a government ID number, it's all fair game. I am pretty liberal in that regard. I've always hated this rule.
People already do forward pms to mods sometimes if they think they are breaking rules. The way I look at things is why does the rule exist. Pretty sure it was brought in as part of the personal information rules. It's one I believe goes too far however and is unneccesary as the rules already cover revealing identifying information about someone.
Isn't the whole point of a private message the idea it's not something you want to share with the whole board?
yup private correspondence is the first line of defense for the personal info rule. mods that have PMs forwarded to them, of course, should be expected to maintain that confidence withthe parties involved.
Are you, with your profile all dressed up in someone else's paraphernalia, the best person to question their fitness to tackle that problem?
