Why even bring me up regarding a PM YOU started, and in typical fashion couldn’t let go until I walked away and ignored your final messages. See, it is easy to walk away when the subject is exhausted.
9 Likes
Not all things in life are the fault of someone else.
15 Likes
I saw that thread. LaLa said KM was only posting one half of the conversation, which I interpreted as double dog daring KM to post the other half, so she did. Consent on both sides to post the messages? Seems so. I do not recall LaLa at any point clutching her pearls over that. The thread was gone the next day. Not locked, gone completely. I do not know how dirty it got after I went to bed and the next day it was gone.
8 Likes
Since you asked, I brought it up in asking the mods for clarification on the forum rules regarding disclosing the contents of PMs. It seems to me that disclosing the contents of a PM is a violation of another’s privacy. I was asking if @Knights_Mom posting a screen shot of a PM from LK to her was acceptable, while my (hypothetically) posting a PM response from you to me would not be. If there is a forum policy on the acceptability or non acceptability of posting messages sent privately to a limited number of users, I have not seen the issue addressed.
Why even use my name? Huh?
6 Likes
The issue to me is @Knights_Mom posting a message that the author, in this case LK, sent privately to @Knights_Mom. Did she have permission from LK for the initial screen shot? I doubt it.
@YankeeDuchess If she didn’t have LaLa’s permission, don’t you think LaLa would have said so and threatened to sue her? Come on. LaLa was daring KM to post the other half.
Did you even see the thread?
9 Likes
I think who posts what is an issue between those posters and the moderation staff so if you want to not post here you can leave and not worry about what others are posting.
Add that the thread you are complaining about does not even exist anymore so there really is no reason to keep harping about it unless the whole point is to keep this thread going.
9 Likes
As this issue is between you and the Mods shouldn’t you just be messaging them privately?
Since you’re flouncing anyway, what difference does it make? If I’m subject to censure in any way, I’m sure the Mods are capable of doing it.
Unless of course your now multiple public comments tagging me are intended to have another purpose, like to harass.
15 Likes
Hey guys? You’re trying to be rational with someone who isn’t. Better to just not engage, ykwim?
20 Likes
Yes, I did see the thread.
No, since you asked, I’m not assuming that @Knights_Mom had permission from LK to post the initial screen shot just because LK did not threaten to sue her (for that).
You must have posted after I went to bed. I can’t imagine that you could resist the temptation to insert yourself somewhere in it.
Do you recall seeing LaLa’s public post to KM that she was only showing only half of the conversation?
5 Likes
No, actually I don’t recall that. To me that’s not the issue, the issue is the posting of the initial half of the conversation without permission.
The initial half of the conversation was KM’s. Her choice to share.
What you seem to be saying in a roundabout way is that you would like messages to be deemed personal messages, since there is no specific forum rule saying that they are private between a couple of people or a group of people. Perhaps if you are considering hanging around, get the private email addresses of people you wish to private message and chat that way.
I assume, but do not know, that since they are named messages and not private messages, the moderator has access to them.
5 Likes
Didn’t the moderators post they were having a meeting to discuss the “situation”. Hopefully the meeting discussed making rules for messages and threats.
7 Likes
What I saw was a screen shot of a message from LK to KM.
I was not bringing up any issue of the mods having access to “messages” but instead was bringing up the acceptability or non acceptability, according to forum rules, of a user publicly posting a “message” which was sent privately by another user.
What I am saying directly is that whatever the rule on publicly disclosing the contents of a “message” are, the rule should be transparent and applied consistently.
Well then, you didn’t read all of LK’s public posts to KM.
Don’t you have some bigger fish to fry? Really.
9 Likes
I believe that, in polite society, one should keep messages only between the people included in the messages and not make them public.
The exception to that rule is messages that threaten, harass, or intimidate. Those should be reported and forwarded to the mods and, in certain circumstances, there is an arguable need to have them shared publicly.
If KM had not shared her messages publicly, we would not have public confirmation from the mods that the repeated reference to COTH being subpoenaed and COTH revealing users’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) was not true. That threat could then be continued to be used to threaten others via message out of sight of the mods and other users being threatened the same way. Now everyone has seen it - sunlight is the best disinfectant. Now all the other people who received the same threat but hadn’t come forward have the correct information. It was the most efficient and effective way to clear that up and make sure everyone could access the correct information - a public good.
Finding and sharing other users’ PII is against the rules [see, J_lu]. Sharing messages (NB: there is no “private” in the nomenclature on this platform, they are merely messages) is not. While it’s generally the polite thing not to share, one sends a message with the same caveat that one posts anywhere online: if you don’t want everyone to see it and have it forever preserved, do not post it. We regularly review this rule at my daughter’s school.
When you (herein you refers to the general (g)you) initiate messaging against the recipient’s will, wishes, or foreknowledge and do so with the express intent to harass, intimidate, and/or threaten, you would be foolish to harbour any expectation of privacy. You would also look naïve at best and calculated at worst to suggest that unilateral communications of a threatening nature deserve such protection of privacy. Finally, trying to browbeat someone who was threatened via message into keeping that quiet or handling it some way you personally think best based on some imagined duty of privacy to the person making the threat is as abhorrent as it is absurd.
36 Likes
The entire string of messages had been forwarded to the Mods on June 6 or 7 (I forget) and the public post was weeks later when it became reasonable to do so due to what was being said in public posts at that time.
The Mods thanked me.
17 Likes
