Where is everyone?

[Brad the Impala]

When Poster A first requests then subsequently insists that the Moderator substantiate a comment, and that substantiation can only be in a PM from Poster A to the Moderator, then Poster A has implicitly given permission to the Moderator to reveal that PM. Obviously.

Whether the release of that PM does substantiate the comment is a separate issue, but there is enough justification that the Moderator believes that it does and is responding to Poster A's request.

I expect that there are a lot more whiney PMs from Poster A to the Moderator, does Poster A want us to see them all, if the Moderator can be bothered......

[scottish-guy]

Implicitly Shimplicity.

Sorry, but in my view there is no justification in Admins publishing PMs without explicit permission (such as, in the heat of an argument when a member might dare him to do so)

That also ought to apply in regard to PMs between members. In other words, if I send a PM to member A saying that member B is a cunt, member A is not at liberty to disclose that.

A447 mentions the Fat Cunt and his ability and predilection for "interfering" in the PM's of members:

Anyone with a memory of that time will remember me calling him out on interfering with my mailbox - and the result of that was my being banned and my account deleted. To this day, several years of my posting history have been lost - members might be thinking that blessings can come in disguise I guess!

I found PMs either didn't arrive in my Inbox in the first place or mysteriously disappeared from it, with the contents of said PMs known to him. Of course when I went public on that I was threatened with his famous "libel" actions, arrest at BKK airport, physical assault by hired thugs, and exposure of (what he thought) were my personal details including my name, address, and occupation. In that regard if the guy had a brain he would have been dangerous - but he actually convinced himself that I sold car bumper stickers for a living and was presumably going to ruin my bumper sticker empire! His ludicrous argument was that although he admitted emptying my PM folders (yes, the Admin can/could do that), he was not "interfering" with my PM's because he (allegedly) could not/did not read them first!! Kinda like saying you didn't sexually assault someone because you only wanked them off and didn't fuck them

I also have to say that there are members still on this board who at worst supported that sort of shit at the time and at best turned a blind eye. A447 was not one of them and neither was NIrish.

So, I do sympathise with a447 when he complains that his PM has been published and I don't accept that he implicitly gave permission.

On the other hand I understand anybody's frustration when a member says something you believe can be disproved from something he has written in private.

The owner of the forum ought, however, to be above simply publishing a PM in retaliation. The challenge to the member should be put in a public post e.g. "I think you're lying and I can prove it - can I publish your PM?" Thus "implicitly" becomes "explicitly" and there can be no argument,

Of course ultimately the owner can do any damned thing he wishes - but Surfcrest has been a breath of fresh air since he took over and it would be disappointing if members came to think their PMs could be published on a whim. It undermines one's trust completely, and to this day I'm still reluctant to engage in PMs and only about 3 people on this forum know the least thing about me. Only one member has ever met me (although I did spy Francois behind some cushions in a go go bar )

I think publishing a447s PM without explicit permission was ill-judged irrespective of how provoked Surfy might think he was

[a447]

Brad, you have totally missed the point. SG hasn't.He's spot on.

My argument was that Surfcrest should not have made those accusations, precisely because he was unable to substantiate their validity. Why? Because he was not able to divulge the contents of my PM! There was no permission given, "implicit" or otherwise. I was never asked for permission. PM'S are sacrosanct - end of story - and certainly not to be released under any circumstances.

What would happen if a poster made very personal disclosures in a PM? Do you honestly believe the contents should be released based on what is considered implied permission? Are you for real, Brad??

If you can't prove something, don't say it. That was my point.

If you were making accusations in, say, a court of law and when asked for evidence you simply said, "Sorry. I'm not allowed to tell you. " you'd be made a laughing stock.

The same basic principles apply here. They apply in everyday life, although perhaps not in yours.

And you need to stick only to the facts, Brad. Don't speculate. Don't imply. Don't hazard a guess. Don't "expect" anything. Concentrate on the facts at hand. (Although I suspect if you did that, your posts would be of a very limited nature.)

You have no idea how many PM's I've sent. You have no idea of their contents, nor whether they are "whiney" or not. Who knows? We may even have exchanged pleasantries, had a bit of a laugh,.....

And why on earth would you suggest I give permission for my Private Messages to be released? What business are they of yours?

What don't you understand about the word "private"?? Go grab a dictionary and look up the definition.

But I'll tell you what - I'll gladly give permission if you post certain private information that I would like to have about you - let's start with your phone number, address and bank account details.

Fair enough, Brad?

[Brad the Impala]

Oh dear, toys out of the pram time now!

Am I really still the same person that you were sending PMs to a couple of days ago, explaining why you were leaving, and calling me your "mate"! What's changed that so dramatically? I disagreed with you, that's all.

You are currently behaving like a monster of self righteousness over a spat on an internet forum of anonymous handles. Good luck when you challenge Gaybutton over his interpretation of his rules. Half of your posts on this thread would have been censored.

Oh my god, I have just made public part of a PM. Shock horror. The information released will doubtless be fascinating to GCHQ.

[scottish-guy]

Suggesting that Gaybutton might censor someone's posts is hardly a reflection on the poster.

I'm sure that at his funeral he'll open the fucking coffin to express an opinion on the obituary and fire the celebrant

[fountainhall]

I can't recall someone ever divulging the contents of anyone's PM., let alone yours. It's unheard of in chat forums.!

With all respect, I reckon everything has been heard of in chat forums at some time. Without dredging up detail, the content of a pm I sent to a poster on another Board was quickly revealed in a post made by one of his pals. The only problem for me was that it contradicted what I myself had written to the owner in the hope of avoiding any conflict and which he had posted a day or so earlier. It was ages ago and best forgotten - but it happened.

[a447]

Yes, you have "made part of a PM public". That's your shame, not mine.

You said I sent you "PM's." Note you specifically said PM'S, not PM.

Tell me Brad, how many did I send you?

Was it one, or was it more than one? Mm? What are you suggesting? That I sent you multiple PM's? A barrage, perhaps? That's what you want people to believe, isn't it.

Weren't you accusing me recently of having "a tendency to twist the truth to suit yourself in a pretty insincere way."?

Well, there you go Brad. That makes two of us.

We refer to people here in Australia as "mate". Even people we don't know, we refer to in those terms. Obviously, a total stranger can hardly be considered a real friend.

But I suspect you already knew that.

If decrying the divulging of private messages is an example of me "behaving like a monster of self-righteousness " then that's better than being a monster of hypocrisy, don't you think?

Your mentioning of gaybutton is totally irrelevant; this thread is here, not over there.

Don't forget to tell us how many PM's I sent you. Ok?

[Brad the Impala]

Suggesting that Gaybutton might censor someone's posts is hardly a reflection on the poster.

It is ironic that Poster A states that he now prefers to post on gaybutton, although most of his posts challenging the owner here, not just in this thread, would never have been allowed on that site! So he actually has more freedom to post here, as does everyone else, it only being the latter that he objects to.

I have a vested interest. I like this site and the freedom and eccentricities that it brings. I think that we should cut the owner and moderator a little slack for providing it in the first place.

I've disagreed with moderator's decisions before and will do so again, but I appreciate being on a board where I can actually express those points of view.

[a447]

How many PM'S did I send you, Brad??

Come on, own up.

You lied, didn't you.

Oh, and I have never complained that I was unable to express my point of view here. I agree 100% with you.

But what on earth does the freedom to express an opinion have to do with the legitimacy of that opinion?

[Brad the Impala]

Yes, you have "made part of a PM public". That's your shame, not mine.

You said I sent you "PM's." Note you specifically said PM'S, not PM.

Tell me Brad, how many did I send you?

Was it one, or was it more than one? Mm? What are you suggesting? That I sent you multiple PM's? A barrage, perhaps? That's what you want people to believe, isn't it.

You are correct that you only sent me one PM three days ago. The original construct of that sentence referred to the fact that you presumably sent similar emails to others, hence the plural. When I edited the reference to others out of the sentence, I should have reduced the PMs to singular.

So how many other people did you send your "Goodbye" email to? It wasn't enough to make an exit announcement on the forum, you also had to email others with your self justification, and to try to persuade them to leave as well by singing the praises of another forum.

You really think that's leaving quietly?!