Delete [account]

[FitzE]

Which goes to show you tried to handle it within the messaging system first, as one generally would. Do not let anyone make you feel bad for ultimately sharing it. You owe absolutely no duty of protection of privacy to someone threatening you by unsolicited message. No one does.

[trubandloki]

@Knights_Mom I liked your posts because I am one of the people who wondered if I was the only one getting messages that COTH had been made to give LK all of our information with an undertone of lawsuit threat.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

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.

It was not clear to me that “sharing messages” was “not against the rules”, so thanks for providing a ruling. If the part of the thread in which the “message” was posted has since been deleted, that suggests otherwise.
I have “shared” zero messages, and don’t intend to, as I consider it a violation of privacy.

[FitzE]

If you cannot find it in the rules, then how do you believe it would be against them? If what you are saying is that you learn the rules by publicly demanding the mods make them clear to you, then maybe read the rules instead and avoid all this drama.

If people threatened you via message and you feel you owe them a duty of privacy, carry on for yourself in that vein and let others handle threats made against them as they see fit.

[Knights_Mom]

And let’s not forget, the threats included taking my home and my farm.

And I’m not even addressing all the negative comments about me.

Thankfully, my legal knowledge is such that I know better. I know my home and farm (farm could be a livelihood for many) are safe. Many others would not know their stuff is safe. So it’s rather naive to spew nonsensical threats and expect no reaction. And that’s the pesky thing with making threats: Every action causes a reaction. And one may not like the reaction.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

If you cannot find it in the rules, then how do you believe it would be against them? If what you are saying is that you learn the rules by publicly demanding the mods make them clear to you, then maybe read the rules instead and avoid all this drama.

If people threatened you via message and you feel you owe them a duty of privacy, carry on for yourself in that vein and let others handle threats made against them as they see fit.

Since you asked, I have read the rules and the rules do not address the issue of publicly posting a “message” one way or the other. KM was not censured for posting a screen shot of a message, which suggests it is acceptable, on the other hand, apparently that part of the thread was deleted, which suggests it is not acceptable. I’m surprised you were so bold as to state that it is “not against the rules”.

When numerous others “speculate” on my identity, if any of the 5 or 6 guesses had been correct, isn’t that revealing PII, as in my IRL name? So in what sense is revealing PII (i.e. an IRL name) against forum rules? I do understand at this point that speculating publicly on a posters IRL identity is apparently OK as long as your guesses are incorrect. But if it had turned out that I was LK’s mom, would the poster(s) doing the correct public speculation be banned for disclosing PII?

May I point out, again, that I made good on my flounce and posted nothing for three days until AK bumped the thread and you among others have been posting comments directed specifically to me?

Are you sure you want me to leave?

[Joanne]

@YankeeDuchess

KM was not censured for posting a screen shot of a message, which suggests it is acceptable, on the other hand, apparently that part of the thread was deleted, which suggests it is not acceptable.

What thread was that?

[FitzE]

100%

Please don’t misconstrue my defence of KM’s posting or response to your browbeating her as wishing you would stay. I was not going to respond here at all, just watch the train wreck, until you had a go at her several times over. You are very invested in supporting certain other users of this forum, so you will no doubt understand that impulse and that it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with the user it was meant to support.

I note you didn’t have anything to say to my post about how I successfully left a forum that was important to me with no carry on of any kind whatsoever. Please consider that option. If nothing else, it would at least be more dignified than this train wreck you have created here.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

100%

Please don’t misconstrue my defence of KM’s posting or response to your browbeating her as wishing you would stay. I was not going to respond here at all, just watch the train wreck, until you had a go at her several times over. You are very invested in supporting certain other users of this forum, so you will no doubt understand that impulse and that it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with the user it was meant to support.

I note you didn’t have anything to say to my post about how I successfully left a forum that was important to me with no carry on of any kind whatsoever. Please consider that option. If nothing else, it would at least be more dignified than this train wreck you have created here.

If you (g) want me to leave, please try “not engaging”.

[FitzE]

Do not presume tell me when, where, or how to post. Do not presume to tell me not to support a poster you are harassing both publicly and via message. Do not presume to tell me I cannot post on this public topic (i.e., posting threatening messages to public threads). Do not presume to control my behaviour in any way.

And, just to make it clear: if anyone threatens me (or, perhaps I should say, continues to threaten me) via message, be on notice that I do not owe you a duty of privacy and I will do what I wish with your unsolicited messages.

[Knights_Mom]

The thread was pulled because it contained a post by LK which attempted to assign a named identity to a user and because I had posted it so soon after the another thread was closed. Another user asked it to be removed. That’s what was communicated to me.

[Joanne]

@Knights_Mom

The thread was pulled because it contained a post by LK which attempted to assign a named identity to a user and because I had posted it so soon after the another thread was closed. Another user asked it to be removed. That’s what was communicated to me.

This was the second time @YankeeDuchess said “that part of the thread was deleted.” That is why I do not think she saw the thread that was deleted in its entirety.

Your thread was eye opening and I, for one, appreciate your starting it.

[FitzE]

Precisely. It was not pulled due to a ruling one way or another about you posting those messages. Jumping to that conclusion is not supported, except to the extent it allows one to push a certain agenda.

[BigMama1]

Even without being able to see the majority of the posts here, this thread is hilarious. I feel so sorry for the moderators having to wade though this manure pile. I guess “flouncing” means different things to different people

[FitzE]

Over/under on achieving a COTH first: getting a technical help thread shut down?

[BigMama1]

If anyone can do it she’s the one. Likely nobody has a better track record for flogging deceased equines to the point that the mods have to close a thread.

If she’s blathering about the Barisone case why not do it in the dressage forum instead of clogging up yet another useful discussion thread here? It’s still open, even though most of the conversation has moved to the CE thread where at least a reasonable discussion may still be had.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

Do not presume tell me when, where, or how to post. Do not presume to tell me not to support a poster you are harassing both publicly and via message. Do not presume to tell me I cannot post on this public topic (i.e., posting threatening messages to public threads). Do not presume to control my behaviour in any way.

And, just to make it clear: if anyone threatens me (or, perhaps I should say, continues to threaten me) via message, be on notice that I do not owe you a duty of privacy and I will do what I wish with your unsolicited messages.

It was just a suggestion that my leaving would be facilitated by you (g) not directing comments to me, which tends to draw me back in by responding. Same thing as Simkie suggested earlier. You are obviously entitled to post as you wish.

The last bit suggests, but does not actually say, that I have threatened you by “message”. I don’t remember sending you a single unsolicited message ever, and certainly not a threatening message. Did you mean to imply that I have been threatening you by message?

[FitzE]

Nope, it neither says that or means that. Not everything revolves around you. For the record: YD has never messaged me.

For someone who likes to parse messages for what they explicitly say vs. what they imply, you certainly have no qualms about pretending something says something about you which a plain reading of it does not support.

Stop putting your refusal to leave/inability to help yourself on other people’s replies. You can execute your planned and announce departure at any time regardless of who is posting, reading, responding, or ignoring.

You are in control of your actions. Own them and don’t keep telling others that we are the reason you are still here. Only you can keep you here and only you can flounce as announced. It’s all on you.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

Nope, it neither says that or means that. Not everything revolves around you. For the record: YD has never messaged me.

For someone who likes to parse messages for what they explicitly say vs. what they imply, you certainly have no qualms about pretending something says something about you which a plain reading of it does not support.

Stop putting your refusal to leave/inability to help yourself on other people’s replies. You can execute your planned and announce departure at any time regardless of who is posting, reading, responding, or ignoring.

You are in control of your actions. Own them and don’t keep telling others that we are the reason you are still here. Only you can keep you here and only you can flounce as announced. It’s all on you.

Thanks for clearing up the fact that I have sent you “unsolicited messages” never, and therefore have never “threatened” you. I thought the implication was clear, and appreciate you clearing it up.

There was the instance of your posting a rather harsh message about me to Eggbutt on a “visitor message board” (April ‘20) which you probably thought was private but was not. Remember? I did flag that one for the mods at the time.

[FitzE]

I was implying it about a different poster. It’s not the YD show anywhere but in your head, luv.