BS: PMs - private?

Subject: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 06:44 AM

Last night, I went over the top in reaction to a post in which part of the contents of a PM were posted on a thread.

I believe a PM is private and should not be discussed in forum. On reflection, and with the explation given, that being,

"If I receive a letter in the mail, or an email, I regard them as my property, at my discretion to make the contents public or not. My choosing to do so is not the same as anyone else trying to hack them. It had never even occurred to me that PMs were supposed to be governed by the same rules as the Secrets of the Confessional, as gnu appears to believe."

it appears that I may be technically wrong, simply "believing" that a PM should remain private.

The questions asked at that point boil down to... whaddya think? (correct me if I am wrong on that part)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 06:51 AM

I don't know what the rules are - if there are any - but I have never revealed the contents of a PM I've sent or received to the general forum, even if the contents are totally innocuous.

The reason: to me, "PM" implies total privacy between two people.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 07:04 AM

I talked about this one other time and was told, can't remember who it was, that PMs are for carrying on a private discussion over something that comes up in a thread which is not germain to the thread as a matter of courtesy to readers of the thread and nothing more.

BTW, the situation I observed last night is a tad more complicated and perhaps it can be discussed down the road in order to gather opinions and remarks which are more of a general and simple nature for the time being.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Megan L
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 07:06 AM

Will Fly says "PM" implies total privacy between two people. "

While in principle agreeing with that I would add a codicil.

Private unless someone was hiding behind them to be continually abusive or divisive or give me reason to believe their behaviour would provide a realistic threat to the life or health of another or myself.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 07:16 AM

You are both right.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 07:36 AM

Occasionally a PM may be misused to offend or insult the recipient in a manner that the perpetrator knows he could not have got away with in the thread. It's a lazy way of having it back, circumventing the need to couch a post in acceptably civil terms. In those circumstances I think it's fine to refer in the thread to the fact that the offender has been sending you inappropriate private messages. If the eejit persists, in extreme circumstances you might decide to disclose the precise contents of the messages. Everything on the internet is a risk and if you can't accept that don't post on forums. Everything including my using my real name all the time!

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 08:21 AM

PMs should be private, but no one can stop a person from being an asshole. In this case, learn and adapt.
You have some jerk who doesn't think twice about publishing private messages, don't send any to him!

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 08:35 AM

Pretty much agree with everything said here. I would not publish anything I received via a PM, and I would trust and expect any recipient to do the same, exactly as I would for correspondence in any other fashion. But in both cases there are things I would not write becuase I regarded them as too sensitive for some reason. If I were to receive a continuing stream of abuse from an individual I would raise it in general terms with the site admin and only get into specifics as a final resort. I still don't think I'd 'out' anyone publically though

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 08:38 AM

If someone abuses or threatens me in a Mudcat PM. I reserve the right to publish it in full on Mudcat. Seems only fair that other Mudcatters know what sort of person they are dealing with. At least there is a record of the PM, which is more than can be said about conversations in Mudchat, Another good reason to stay out of it. When I had a chatroom, persons logging in could see previous conversations.
Mudcat can be a nasty place sometimes

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:09 AM

PM = "personal" message...

Personal = personal...

Period...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:10 AM

I dunno gnu,reasonableness and common sense normally prevails in matters like this.

While keeping PMs private seems like a good general courtesy, I suspect folks should PM as if there is a possibility of the contents being made public on the site.Life's "common sense approach" to what you tell others privately would likely extend to this site.

Additionally, If general info on a PM is discussed openly in a thread, it seems that this could be seen as an opening to others to give more details (and possibly may be done as a courtesy to others, though many may not be interested in the sordid details). Folks always have the option to put a case forward, privately, to site managers.

It seems odd to me is that this situation would concern you so much (more, so it seems, than those directly involved). From my observation (correct me if I am wrong) you have seemed (IMO) to be a proponent of an "most everything goes" approach on mudcat, outside personal insults and a few other areas, that is.

BTW, would no one PM me on this issue. :)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:14 AM

BTW, gnu. Nothing wrong with opening this up as a topic, so folks can have a general "meeting of minds" (or not), to have a common understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: number 6
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:25 AM

I agree with you gnu ... a PM is a private/personal message (and yes Bobert, PERIOD) ... but unfortunately it is sometimes abused ... I echo what John Mackenzie stated, the madcat can be a nasty place sometimes.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:31 AM

If someone threatened me or someone else in what I thought was a serious manner I would report it to the mods after asking them for clarification. Otherwise I would ignore it and never deal with the person again.

What part of "Personal Message" isn't understood?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:32 AM

It come down to a matter of character, honor and integrity...

I would never share anything that was sent to me in a PM with anyone... The lone exception would be if someone made a violent threat and then I would turn that over to the proper law enforcement people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:35 AM

I agree. Personally.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:55 AM

Sorry Rap, but there's not a lot the mods can or will do about threats and insults. Just ask Foolestroupe, who for some reason (sic) don't visit with us no more!

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:09 AM

Mods can't do anything about making people behave.
Get in touch with Max if it's serious... IF it's serious.

If someone is just annoying you, you're better off dealing with it on your own. Just delete their messages, because I'm fairly sure most of us don't want to get involved in personal squabbles.

If you make somebody's message public just because they piss you off, don't expect sympathy. Expect mistrust.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:27 AM

If someone abuses or threatens me in a Mudcat PM I reserve the right to publish it in full on Mudcat. Seems only fair that other Mudcatters know what sort of person they are dealing with.

I fully agree, and for the reason John gives. There are one or two nuisances here who send me stupid PMs on occasion, but I wouldn't bother the moderators unless I felt threatened. I'm sure they have enough to do.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:49 AM

Good points all round. Including Ed's... >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:56 AM

Nobody likes a blabbermouth.
Blabbermouth

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:12 AM

I have rarely used PMs. When I do, it is for discussion that would most likely be boring to other mud-folks, to avoid wasting their time.

If I felt justified identifying someone an asshole,or a similar term, (which I don't recall doing so here), I would most likely choose to do it openly, rather than in a PM. I would respect that approach more than sending an "you are an asshole PM". But, I suspect,in that situation, getting another posters respect may not be a factor. :)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:14 AM

I've gotten hate PMs. I ignore them.
=(:-( D)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:17 AM

Off the record, it's strange celebrity news stuff you are into "HK".

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:25 AM

Anything weird is hip.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:35 AM

Weird, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 12:08 PM

Yeah. All the guy asked for was a glass of beer and a mop.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 12:13 PM

Ummm...when you became a member...you did read the MC privacy polcy disclaimer...Right?

Top authors during last week:

Name Posts

GUEST,999 227

Henry Krinkle 179

166



gnu



Bobert 138

GUEST 136

Steve Shaw 113

MtheGM 103

Greg F. 96

Keith A of Hertford 73

GUEST,Guest from Sanity 70

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

keep looking you'll find it.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 12:27 PM

Skeleton. Creepy.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 12:50 PM

Let me make this perfectly clear. What I said to MtheGM in PRIVATE was for his eyes only. It was not a physical threat, and I thought it would not be of interst to anyone but the two of us. He started with the insults, (another no no here) and he put it on the forum for all hands to see; like he needed backup.
So, from now on, if I think you are an asshole, I'll say so on the forum, ok?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 12:54 PM

Belay that last, Michael and I have called a truce.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 01:20 PM

As an exception, when I post a quiz here, I invite people to email me if they want their score (to prevent answers being posted before others see the questions).
I will often then post (in the quiz thread) saying that "so and so has scored 15/20". I think that is implicit in the instuctions I write for the quiz.
If I have offended anyone by doing so, then I apologise.
However, it does offer an example where PMs are, reasonably, not kept private.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 01:50 PM

Well, I think Gargoyle has FAR too much hands on his time and he creeps me out. Not an asshole per se, but creepy at best. He's done shit like that before. Creeped me out then, too.

I know that's not news but I repeat the sentiment of myself and others for those for whom it is news.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 02:20 PM

Shouldn't you keep personal remarks like that for a PM g? I mean it is the folk equivalent of the confessional!

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 02:41 PM

No, G. I believe I have performed a public service. Now, my post may be considered, technically, the ultimate no-no at Mudcat, that being a personal attack. And, yeah, "creepy posts" COULD be personal I don't like that creepy shit soooo... delete me. And Gargoyle can bite me. As far as I am concerned, his post is a personal attack because he insinuates that when I or anyone else posts a lot of posts it is creepy. I am not creepy... I don't creep... I call an asshole an asshole if I feel it fits. Not that I am implying ANYone is an asshole in this instance. Just very close.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 03:02 PM

Some folks are just chatty.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 03:02 PM

Nigel, I think people expect it. We don't talk about the quizzes in the thread,but you're running them, so you can post about results.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 06:24 PM

If people direct unsolicited messages to me I'll do whatever I feel like with them. They're my property. Don't send me one if you don't trust me with it.

There is one user of this forum who makes a practice of sending nastygrams to people who disagree with him in discussion forums. I only read the first one I ever got, and have deleted all the rest unread, but if he tries it again I'll feel free to quote it in full anywhere I want.

I use PMs for situations where either I or the recipient might need to give information that maybe shouldn't be put on a public forum (like email addresses) or which will bore most of the subscribers silly. What's the point in using them to insult people? It's much more effective to do that in front of an audience.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 06:29 PM

Gargoyle is an ok fellow Gnu, he just likes fucking around with people, Greg doesn't hurt anyone just likes to do that for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 06:39 PM

Sending Rap bad PM? Whooooo not smart,
when the boogie man goes to bed at night, he checks his closet for Rap he does!

my brother rap is a force to be reckoned with

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 06:59 PM

If people direct unsolicited messages to me I'll do whatever I feel like with them. They're my property. Don't send me one if you don't trust me with it.

Exactly. You send unsolicited stuff, it's your risk.

There is one user of this forum who makes a practice of sending nastygrams to people who disagree with him in discussion forums. I only read the first one I ever got, and have deleted all the rest unread, but if he tries it again I'll feel free to quote it in full anywhere I want.

Let me guess... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:11 PM

Why would someone want to send me a nasty bad PM? I'm a kid from the Great Midwest who wouldn't hurt a fly. Modest, humble, quiet, unassuming, peaceable, over-educated -- and I'll feed anyone who thinks otherwise their own guts for their last meal.

Seriously, if a threat of real violence was sent to me in a PM I'd turn it over to the proper authorities -- and I don't mean my friends Vinnie and Guido, but law enforcement. If it's just words I'll delete it; if it's repeated I'll inform the mods.

By the way, I got along okay with Martin Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:41 PM

There are always a few who think their opinion is more important than the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 09:55 PM

MG was scared a you, Rap. I would be too... if you were better shot.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:11 PM

US Army certified "Expert" with automatic rifle, rifle, and carbine. I don't know how to tell you my pistol expertise except that at the last "Cowboy Shoot" I placed first in my category ("Silver Duelist").

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:19 PM

He seems to know his way around explosives pretty good Gnu also ..

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:23 PM

Gnu the last time Rap and I were out, he was really good with the mini gun but sucks at flying the blackhawk

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:26 PM

Army certifications are a joke. No brag. Just fact.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 10:26 PM

should have seen those hogs scatter when Rap unloaded the min gun on em ... there was bacon all over the place .. shot and cooked at the same time. I can't wait till we try military fishin next

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Nov 12 - 11:27 PM

Hank -- these weren't current crap, but "back in the day." Some of the targets were at 300 meters, and I hit a couple at 350 meters. 300 meters is better than 328 yards. I hit them squarely, centered vertically and horizontally. The targets were 1.5 meters square; I used an M-16A1 rifle, 5.56mm, battled zeroed to 100 meters, no optical sights. I did the same thing with both the M-1 and the M-14. I fired the US Carbine, caliber .30, M-1, at out to 200 meters with the same result, the target was 1 meter square, same deal on the sights. Granted, the ranges for all of these varied from 25 meters out to "long"; nonetheless I hit everything I aimed at with the rifles except for four at 350 meters, where I shot right (wind) but was still on target.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:00 AM

A

long,

long

time

ago,

when the membership was a lot smaller, Joe Offer and I did not see eye to eye. He sent me a blunt, virulent, imo, PM, which I posted in a thread. All hell broke loose. I lost the friendship, briefly, of Rick Fielding and others whom I cared for very much.Eventually, Joe and I learned to get along and, in the past few years, have developed a good friendship with respect. I would love to meet him in person. I have never posted anything from a PM since then. A few members worked behind the scenes to facilitate our reconciliation. They said it was like "mom and dad" fighting and it was really upsetting members.

A cautionary tale?

As to garg/greg...it wouldn't be mudcat without him. I just wish he'd share more of his music knowledge and leave less "love notes" for me.*BG*

kat

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:18 AM

Marksmanship in the army is a joke. I did it in the cold Missouri dead of winter with frozen purple hands. M 16 A1.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:51 AM

Actually, if you want to fight, personal messages are the place to do it. No need for the rest of us to see your dirty undies.

In general, if I say something to somebody in private, it's because I didn't want it to be public. I expect people to respect that.

I do have a question about the song requests I get by e-mail. I often post them in threads, without asking the author's permission - but I generally do not identify the author. That's OK, isn't it?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 01:34 AM

It would mean more if everyone had the same weather conditions and identical firing ranges. You'll shoot better at 75° than you will at 20°
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:39 AM

US and UK laws on confidentiality differ. In the UK material that a reasonable recipient would consider confidential (or expressed to be confidential), not in the public domain, and disclosed in circumstances of confidentiality (in fairly general terms) will be protected as confidential.

In the UK it is settled law that while the property in a physical letter passes to the deliveree upon delivery, the copyright in the contents remains with the sender. Mick Jagger has used this to prevent publication of his love letters to Shrimpton (but it looks as if Marsha Hunt, the inspiration for "Brown Sugar", may have outflanked the notoriously mercenary Jagger by selling Jagger's love letters to her in the USA).

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:48 AM

Do you think Mackenzie Phillips has any love letters from Mick?
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:58 AM

I use PMs
1) to talk to someone about something that I don't think wouldn't interest anyone else and therefore avoids cluttering up the Forum with boring posts.
2)to say something that I don't want to be picked up from a post by someone doing a Google search. I got "burned" some years ago when someone in Greece took exception to my lighthearted comments on a particular place that they construed as being critical of their (unnamed) establishment, and tried to claim compensation for loss of business. Since then I have not named the particular place or any of the inhabitants in a thread but have in PMs or e-mails to interested members.
In the case of (1), if the recipient felt our discussion of wider interest I wouldn't object to it being aired more widely. In the case of (2)wider publicity would defeat the point of the PM.
I don't carry out arguments or disagreements with individual Mudcatters in public or by PM. Life's too short to niggle and whinge. We disagree? Tough, move on, get a life.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:03 AM

If someone sends me a PM that is deliberately intended to offend (it has happened), they are using the system inappropriately and, having breached the whole spirit of the thing, they can't then expect to be treated with the decorum they themselves have shunned. So, as I say, that's their risk. The vast majority of messages are civil and nearly always about matters that wouldn't interest the forum. They deserve the utmost respect for privacy. I don't think anyone's arguing with that.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:30 AM

""When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else.""
― David Brin

""Just a reminder, what other people think of you is none of your business."" ― Ze Frank

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 09:13 AM

I agree with RtS's implied point: there's too much personal bickering on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 09:20 AM

I absolutely agree with Jack & Steve, abusive and/or threatening messages received via the internet are not deserving of the *privilege* of privacy - no more than a poison pen letter received via the post or a harassing phone call is deserving of same. I've shared "private" messages before (albeit not in public) and would do again, if I believed it was warranted.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:25 PM

Viva gargoyle! Sometimes his post is the only one worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 03:26 PM

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Q - PM
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 12:25 PM
"
Viva gargoyle! Sometimes his post is the only one worth reading."
    nay no never, nay no,never no more, will i post the wld gargoyles, no never no more.
Ive been a wild gargoyle for manys the year and ive wasted my time posting rubbish on here, ill go home to my muumy confess what ive done and ask them to pardon their garrulous son

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 03:31 PM

Hank, I assume from your post that you were at Ft. Leonard Wood. That's where I took Basic Training -- the heat and humidity of summer and you don't shoot well with sweat in your eyes and oil thrown back on your glasses by the bolt.

No, I was talking about Ft. Carson, CO and Ft. (then Camp) Ripley, MN -- and yes, it was very cold in both places when I did my shooting. That, of course, was five long years after Basic Training.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: ollaimh
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 03:46 PM

once you send a message to another person it is legally their property. that it. you no longer have any rights over. courtesy might suggest you keep it to yourself but there is no obligation, especially if the message was threatening defamatory or otherwise illegal. to expect anything else is dumb like a post.

everything you post on the internet is savd somewhere, and can be used publiccly and if you don't like it, stop posting.

i usually save my serious insulkts for the open discussions, but that is because i am hostle to racism and i am disgusted by the amount of open or thinly vieled racism on mudcat.

that's why i don't post much anymore, the discussions are rarely worthwhile.

however all personal messages become the property of the recipient when they are recieved and to think otherwise is dumb

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:00 PM

There are several people posting on this thread who have published PMs to assist their side of debate.
These people are denying their actions....they are hypocrites.

Even if someone was being abusive by PM, I would inform admin.
I would never reprint a personal message, tho' I have received some corkers.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:05 PM

I don't consider anything on this forum private. I am confident that there are people who can read PMs so the privacy that exists it conditional.

So if you send something to me and want it to be just between us, say so, and let me decide if I want to continue the conversation on that basis.

I like the idea of using PMs to communicate with people when it would bore others. I like to use them to keep misunderstandings and such private. But as others have said in different words, you have to to keep my respect to earn my discretion.

Is there anything in the Mudcat Terms of use about keeping unsolicited private messages private? I don't think so. Nor should there be.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:18 PM

There are no rules about this, but a person would be a fool to trust those who've said on this thread, they wouldn't hesitate to use PMs publicly.

Don't trust them.

I agree with Ake.

Finking on somebody to a bunch of people in order to gather an indignant army is bratty-little-kid style. Even when somebody is abusive, because they finking won't do anything but invite vigilantism. Grab your torches and farm implements and go storm the castle.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:37 PM

Yes indeed the thing to do with PM harassment is to suffer it in silence, and above all respect the privacy of the Troll.

If it will somehow damage you to have something hurtful to someone "privately" repeated, maybe, just maybe, you ought to consider that before you send it.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 04:42 PM

"Finking on somebody to a bunch of people in order to gather an indignant army is bratty-little-kid style"

Amen to that. I had a lot of that shit some time ago, but I'm still here, she ain't.
That was when I found out how much of our postings are accessible to others. Not always a bad thing!

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 05:00 PM

Thank you, Ricky... that is what I was alluding to regarding "libel" in the other thread, even tho it does not apply herein technically or legally, apparently. Where I live, if you disclose such, you may be condsidered in violation of Brit law... just as the situation that brought my OP. It may be a long shot, but, I'll bet if you have enough money and time and friends in high places HERE you can severely mess over anyone who makes your comms public, no matter if they are "threatening" or not.

As far as... "Army certifications are a joke. No brag. Just fact.", that is a pretty shitty thing to say, Hank. Makes me wonder if you ever were on a range. I know three CAF Golden Bullets personally (one who had a box full of them) and they didn't get those uniform crests on a joke. And they didn't shoot JUST M16s to get those crests. Maybe it's different in the US military but I kinda doubt it. Rap?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 05:45 PM

Jeri, did I ever tell you that I love you?

As far as marksmanship goes, I don't feel the need to post it here. All I'll say here is, I found the US Treasury School of law enforcement and criminal investigation much tough than boot camp.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:01 PM

The military is full of wet behind the ears babies.
Children.
They do what they must to build self confidence.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:27 PM

True, Hank. But when my NG unit was activated back in 1968 the average age was 24, and most were married and some with children. Hardly "wet behind the ears" and believe me, the last thing they lacked was confidence in either themselves or the unit.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 06:33 PM

Kendall... yeah, that stuff is thread drift... the reason I started this thread was to stop my thread drift in the other thread. But when Hank says stupid shit, I gotta respond. Yo, Hank, start yer own thread about the fact you can't shoot worth shit, eh.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:01 PM

I can shoot worth shit. Always could, always will.



That was a joke fer krissake, lighten up!

However, I find I need glasses now. Open sights no longer agree with my eyes. Now, where's my glasses?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:02 PM

Actually I shoot pretty well. I used to practice daily.
I went in 10 years after you, Rap. Volunteer Army. A cake walk. Jimmy Carter, Commander in Chief.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:05 PM

Jack, I dont believe in trolls.....all are entitled to their point of view.

We regulate our behaviour in life and on this forum, by morality and conscience. I have never been guilty of betraying a confidence, even from someone who despises me.
I am my own judge.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:35 PM

US and UK laws on confidentiality differ.

If anybody wanted to get litigious, I suppose the laws of the state of Pennsylvania would decide the issue.


In the UK material that a reasonable recipient would consider confidential (or expressed to be confidential), not in the public domain, and disclosed in circumstances of confidentiality (in fairly general terms) will be protected as confidential.

I doubt whether an insulting or threatening PM would be regarded by a court as something "a reasonable recipient would consider confidential".

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 07:54 PM

We didn't just shoot M 16's. We fired M 60 machine guns too. Tossed hand grenades. I begged my platoon sargent to send me to Viet Nam. It was 1979. He refused.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:02 PM

I still agree with Ake, except I believe some people intend to troll. BUT, we are responsible for our own actions though, and "but ma, he MADE me do it!" just doesn't work.

As for suffering in silence, what good does it do to make the shit public? The people you're telling probably don't want to hear about it. The guy who pissed you off will possibly be happy to learn he succeeded, and you get to look like you "lost it" a little.

I've had nasty messages from people. If I know it's going to be nasty, I just delete it before reading. Sometimes I read it and then delete it (mainly so I won't reply). If you give those who wish to piss you off the desired reaction, they'll keep doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:05 PM

>>>There are no rules about this, but a person would be a fool to trust those who've said on this thread, they wouldn't hesitate to use PMs publicly.

Don't trust them.....<<<


That is purely the opinion of the person who posted those insulting words.

I trust John MacKenzie one helluva lot more than I trust the person from whom these words come.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:07 PM

Actually, there are a few excellent reasons for making private messages public. The first one that comes to mind is that you don't think quite enough people know what an utter dickhead you are. Just post the text of a PM someone sent you and, voila, the whole forum knows it as surely as if you'd hired an airplane to drag a "Look at Me! I'm a Dickhead!" banner overhead. And for a lot less money.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:25 PM

Let's not get carried away here. No-one is suggesting that even remotely thinking you'll go public with a PM would be anything other than an extremely rare event. Now I've done it just once (not here, I don't think) in ten years and y'all know what sweetness and light I am. ;-) As Jack implies, I think, there may be that rare occasion when you would be doing the rest of the list a favour in letting them know what a bloody eejit the offender is. But if you do it capriciously or over-frequently for no good reason, or if you're a known whinger or shit-stirrer yerself, of course you'll be seen as a dickhead. I'm racking me brain here and I can't think of a single example of a time when I've seen disclosure and regarded the discloser as anything other than a person driven to distraction by a knobhead hassling him with stupid PMs. Having said that, I've seen many an accidental disclosure resulting from someone hitting the wrong key. They are tons more frequent than the deliberate sort. To be honest, this is a bit of a storm in a teacup, innit.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:29 PM

""Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver""

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:37 PM

Henry
awww the old Ma deuce my favorite. Mr Browning made one hell of a heavy machine gun didn't he

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 08:44 PM

The M-60 wasn't so bad, except lugging it around the hills of Korea at night in a blizzard at -25F, with a 250 round pack of ammo on your chest, four grenades, a .45, two extra magazines for that, a couple of claymore mines, and six quarter-pound blocks of TNT does not make for a happy hiker. Especially when you're afraid that if you sneeze you'll explode.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 09:09 PM

Yeah, Rap, but was you a private at the time? A PMs private?

(I have my moments. That was a good'n.)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 09:11 PM

I'm John's a friend, Lizzie. I don't happen to agree with him on this, but I don't know what it would take for him to post a PM. Probably something more than simple disagreement.

And "trust" is a funny thing. I trust people to act as expected. There a few I trust no matter what. And there are a few who I believe will change what they believe is right based on who else is involved, what mood they're in, or how much they feel pushed. In short: I don't know what it will take for them to violate their own "rules of engagement" when I already don't understand how they can think a certain behavior is ever justified.

You gun guys: just give me a damned M-16. I'm pretty sure I could still take one apart and put it together in the dark, as long as nobody was shooting at me, an I shot expert almost every time I fired. Left-handed. (And you guys who've never had a hot casing get stuck in your bra just don't know what you're missin'!)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 09:39 PM

Jeri... I LOVE it when you talk sexy!

Uhhh... sorry. I just couldn't help himself.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 09:53 PM

I got a hot casing in my bra one night, BUT, it was a Friday!

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:09 PM

M60 is 30 cal Rap and slugging around that puppy ain't fun I bet no way, I want the jeep mounted 50 ma deuce ... now that gun makes a statement.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:12 PM

I was always surprised it didn't topple the Jeep!

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:13 PM

Jeri
a woman who can shoot and knows an M-16 .... I am in love !!!

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:14 PM

Dan, you I trust 100%. Is Justin Bieber a Canadian? I think I'm getting my chain yanked on another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:34 PM

No, I was a new-in-country Infantry sergeant. That's why the made me carry the $#$%@#!!ing thing on three different occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Janie
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:40 PM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

What BWL said.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:53 PM

Naw I think the beaver is US bruce ... can't say for sure however

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 10:55 PM

Thanks, Dan.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Nov 12 - 11:11 PM

Well his bio says Canadian so I guess he is Bruce. A US record company found him on youtube but he is from canada. Didn't know that myself

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 10:53 AM

Interesting how the forum seems divided down cultural lines over this question, most of the US posters with one or two exceptions, seem to feel that it's a big no-no to repeat an abusive communication from a virtual stranger over the internet while most of the UK commentators here feel no such compunction to keep it a secret that someone sends out abusive messages.

Don't hide behind "private" messages to talk shit to people and then expect THEM to keep it a secret for you is my attitude. Nasty and aggressive messages don't deserve to be treated with respect.

Perhaps if people didn't feel so safe and secure here about sending strangers personal nasty messages and those messages being kept a secret, it wouldn't happen as frequently as it would appear to do here?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 11:36 AM

and I agree with Jeri.....Tho' i've never met John, reading between the lines I would say he's "a pretty straight sort of guy".

Anybody who likes Cerys Matthews cant be all bad!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 11:48 AM

Yes, but...according to you and Jeri, ake, if John decided to put a PM on the main board, neither of you would then trust him.

????

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 12:51 PM

There are layers to this.
Does a person say they WOULD do it?
What sort of message would be bad enough to justify making it public?
If I think a person is hair-trigger enough to go off at any message I send, I wouldn't trust them.

Do I think John (sorry about getting personal) is thin-skinned or whiny enough to do that? No. I feel John would reason with me. I think he'd try to understand my point of view and try to help me understand his. If he became frustrated enough to give up, he might tell me to fuck off, after which I'd stop sending him PMs and he'd stop sending me PMs.

I think what John would reveal is different from what others would.
I've had some slightly nasty PMs from people, but haven't even considered inviting anyone else to share. I can't imagine any friend being grateful for me having included them in some private situation which they couldn't do anything about.

I don't think it's smart to, if someone's motive is to get under my skin, let the whole of Mudcat know they've succeeded.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 01:09 PM

I don't shoot at all. I am of the persuasion that doesn't believe that might is right, and I never yet heard the question to which killing is the answer.
I don't want to hear all the shit about sport, and/or target shooting, that's not what guns were designed for.
I could have put that post in a PM, but to whom would I send it? ;)

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 01:43 PM

The more I contemplated this thread the more I think that PMS should private. I realize (hell, I worked in a woman-dominated profession for better than 40 years!) that sometimes it can't be helped, but I do think most women who suffer from it know how to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Will Fly
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 02:04 PM

I stick to my principles - PMs are strictly private and not for publishing on a general form, no matter what the content.

So, suppose I get a really shitty, abusive, threatening PM? What good does it do to make it public? No matter what the truth of the matter, there will always be someone who suspects me of (a) provoking it (b) lying about it (c) stirring up shit...

Delete them unseen if you guess what they might contain. Ignore them if you deign to read them. If you get harrassed over and over again, copy them to the Mods and ask for intervention.

I'm a comparative newcomer to the 'Cat - since 2007 - but I've never sent a "really shitty, abusive, threatening PM", or anything approaching it, to anyone - and I've never received one. Good behaviour can be contagious.

Some rules I try to follow when posting:

1. I never denigrate anyone in my post - never use an uncomplimentary, half-joking, piss-taking nickname.

2. I never say that another person's statements are rubbish - without offering a logical alternative.

3. If I offer an opinion or an argument, I try and offer a basis for that argument - unless it's a purely personal opinion, in which case I say so.

4. I never - ever - not ever - send an abusive PM, and try to keep my posts reasonable and reasoned. It's just too easy to slag someone off thoughtlessly, and then the thread becomes just one series of insults after another.

I wasn't always so thoughtful in my early days on Mudcat - sort of responded to other peoples' styles - but now I now how I want to behave.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 02:05 PM

Y'all can trust me with a lot of things. Don't trust me to keep private messages private, unless you ask. I don't randomly take people's confidences. I am not a priest. I am not your doctor. I am not your lawyer. This is a public forum and the conversations here are meant to be public. The design and security (or lack of it) is set up that way. Max makes no promise to keep your PMs Private.

You can't just walk up to someone on the street and whisper to them and expect them to keep it confidential. You can't send an email to a celebrity or even someone on this form and expect it to be private unless you ask for confidentiality and they agree. That is the nature of communications. That is the nature of our society.

Why do you expect it to be different here? Especially since that is not in the user agreements and especially since confidentiality is not an official reason for using PMs.

Here is my advice to all of you. Two things.

Don't hold yourself to standards that others not only did not agree to, but that they are probably are not aware of.

And unless you have a greater relationship with the person than mutual membership on this forum, DON'T send anything in a PM you would not want the whole world to see. In fact if it is sensitive information at all, use a more secure medium.

The above is common knowledge and common sense in modern Social Networks. But I know that the Original Poster avoids them. Perhaps that is why the question was posed in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Megan L
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 02:13 PM

How many of the people on here have you ever met?

Now of those you have met how many do you know well?

If someone came to your door and claimed to know you would you give them your house keys?

If the answer to the last question is NO why the heck would you ever trust anybody from an internet forum?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 03:54 PM

""I have never been hurt by what I have not said"".

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 04:14 PM

Jts... "The above is common knowledge and common sense in modern Social Networks. But I know that the Original Poster avoids them. Perhaps that is why the question was posed in the first place?"

I don't quite understand JtS. Could you clarify that for me?

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 04:18 PM

People with experience on Social Networks quickly learn from experience and example that you just don't post anything that you wouldn't want the whole world to see.

The OP does not do social networks. I was speculating that that is why he asked the question. Because he did not learn it quickly from example and experience on social networks.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 04:28 PM

Thanks, JtS.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Beer
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:05 PM

I use to use p/m fairly often but I said something once to a friend and they intern wrote to the person I spoke of. Nothing serious but the person wrote to me and apologized. A red flag went up. I now only use p/m's if I would like someone's address, be it for snail mail or e-mail. Maybe a phone number. Something that I wouldn't expect someone to give me on a thread. I now use e-mail instead and rarely use p/m messaging
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:18 PM

One can message people privately on "social networks" too, but for some reason, I can see anyone deciding that making a message public would be a good idea. I've never seen it happen. I don't think most of my Facebook friends would give a shit what another one of them said to me, and I can just imagine what they'd think of me for doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Megan L
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:29 PM

When I was young we had friends and we had acquaintances, in worlds like facebook they have usurped the word to mean people you wouldn't know if they walked past you in the street and if you were introduced to them there is a good chance you wouldn't like them never mind call them friend.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 05:52 PM

Interesting thought, Megan L

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 06:17 PM

Sorry John
I will keep my ma deuce to myself ... sorry for the thread creep

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 12 - 06:21 PM

I was once accused of taking a PM, changing it and forwarding it to a third party. Never happened. Never received the "PM" in the first place and neither did the person I supposedly forwarded it to... confirmed by the person I supposedly forwarded it to. Don't ask how it all ended... I'll just say, *I* am still here.

That sounds bizzare but it only reinforces what has been said above... you might think you "know" a fellow Mudcatter, especially if they have been here for a while and they go to festivals in various countries and meet up with other Mudcatters and whatever. Unless they are well known and actively involved in the Mudcat community, watch yerself.

Back to the OP. I guess I was essentially wrong. Although I still believe I was, am, ethically right, barring extreme circumstances, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 02:10 PM

Gnu
if someone did that to me, they would be off my xmas list for sure. It is not right, PM should remain PM that is my humble opinion. Sorry it happened to you my dear friend

love ya
Dan

I hope what I sent ya arrives soon, Canada mail is slower than a wiener dog looking for the right place to take a dump

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: kendall
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 03:13 PM

I have never said anything that I didn't mean; but, I have said things that I wish I hadn't.When I told MtheGM that he would regret tangling with me, that was strictly a warning that I can get very nasty. It was not a threat of physical harm.

I blame the prednisone. GuestCS, it all boils down to opinions, and I'm sure you know what they say about opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 03:25 PM

Kendall
my dear friend, when I take prednisone which I have to quite often with chron's disease, I get so angry I want to chop down a tree or break something. No one can blame you for anything when you have to take that and besides we all have bad days (especially me) people need to understand that and just say forget it ...

I have gone in my basement and smashed three rung cinder block with my hand just to cool down from that shit ... I hate it when I have to take it ...

love ya captain .. not anything that is your fault ok

Subject: RE: BS: PMs - private?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Nov 12 - 03:26 PM

If you don't want PM trouble from me is don't send anything to me that you don't want repeated unless I agree to that condition before hand.

I don't consider the PM section of the Mudcat to be a confessional of some place where people can freely hurl insults without consequences. At least in a dunk tank they have to pay to throw.