|
1448. CalGal - 7/18/2001 5:20:55 AM Pelle,
I myself haven't asked anything at all from Indy. As for behaving as we do IRL, are you suggesting that the real world is copacetic about using someone's name without their permission? Things must be different in Sweden. 1449. mgleason - 7/18/2001 5:22:08 AM Pelle, I did my level best, as did Irv, to keep this quiet. What we asked for as a remedy, through a third party, was that the e-mail be amended to reflect the inclusion of only those individuals who had given their consent. That's it - no mea culpas, no public wearing of a hair shirt. We reacted in a temperate manner, even though both of us regard the use of our names without our consent as a serious matter.
That proposal was unacceptable, apparently, and a public notice was placed directing us to contact Indiana directly with our concerns. Believing, as we do, that this is a Mote matter, we took the matter public. This folderol is exactly what we tried to avoid from the beginning, and could have been accomplished very easily. I won't be chastised for having done the right thing. 1450. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2001 5:59:17 AM I'm not chastisingng you, Maria, nothing can be further from my mind. Indy has done wrong. Nobody has risen to his support. What I'm suggesting is that there comes a moment when enough is enough. 1451. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 6:11:28 AM CalGal,
Ordinarily email wouldn't be any different, But as I believe I have stated we're not talking about just any email. We're talking about an email for which the idea was publicly presented and discussed in the Mote and which claimed to have been "signed" by a number of Moties.
If you want to send a private email then send a private email. Don't send an email by committee.
As for an explicit statement in the RoE that "Anyone who wants to can use your name and identity outside the Mote forum for whatever reason he likes and suffer no consequences within the forum". Well, I suppose this is currently true, but that people are going to dislike it immensely.
I don't personally have a problem with changing Mote policy to make exceptions for certain privacy violations that happen outside the Mote. In the case of CharlieL, I would have had no problem changing our policy to ban members who reveal such private information in other public forums as he revealed about RosettaStone. I also have no problem suspending people for forging email identities. Do you recall what the outcome was of Squids' forgery escapades?
The reason that I see these as legitimate exceptions is because they cause turmoil here in the Mote and also because there is no reason to do any of these things EXCEPT to cause turmoil. I feel that it's an abuse of the Mote community and therefore an abuse of the Mote.
1452. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 6:40:18 AM Neither Irv nor mgleason contacted me directly. To accept Ms. No's intervention would have been to recognize the Mote's jurisdiction in this matter, which I don't.
I think doing one's "level best to keep this quiet" would have been to approach me directly. However, that was not done, but as mgleason and Irv have a grievance with me, I don't expect that they acted with my personal preference utmost in mind (nor do I hold that against them under the circumstances). My post in N&Q mentioned no one by name or described any other specifics, leaving to mgleason and Irv the decision whether they wished to respond there or by email.
Regarding any acceptance or rejection of a proposal by them to me, I suggest that they reread my post and my email, which I assume Ms. No forwarded to them without alteration:
I will be happy to correct to msgreer any mistaken impression my actual message gave of their views that they wish corrected, should they make their wishes known to me directly.
I am not "chastising" them for the course they took. It is perfectly within their right to involve the World Court if they like. But if someone wants anything from me--be it clarification, explanation, or even apology--they are more likely to get it by asking me, rather than contacting an extraneous third person.
Especially in the case of the last--i.e., apology--I would think that a brute force extraction would render such useless. And in this specific case, I see no such brute force to which I will respond.
1453. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 6:40:29 AM Finally, as arky has clearly posted above, there was no "forgery" of "signatures." My representation of other Motiers views, while perhaps displeasing to them as partly or entirely inaccurate, were "signed" only by me. There was no use of the "we" pronoun, only the "I," nor any other rhetorical device to indicate that the words contained within were other than my own. The idea that we must get permission from other Motiers to characterize their views under our own hand would mean dozens of community standards violations every day. And email I have received including from those involved in this discussion demonstrates that others do the same thing--though there is always the possibility that permission was "explicitly granted" in each and every case.
While CalGal may have not have seen the actual email, Ms. No has. Anyone who has seen it and characterizes it as a forgery is being dishonest. 1454. arkymalarky - 7/18/2001 6:41:39 AM In the case of CharlieL, I would have had no problem changing our policy to ban members who reveal such private information in other public forums as he revealed about RosettaStone.
I do think if that becomes the case that it should only be with a formal complaint and the act verified by at least one moderator, since we all know how certain embellishments of molehills have been known to occur in the past just to be an annoyance. 1455. mgleason - 7/18/2001 7:09:13 AM Indiana,
To Pelle's undoubted relief, this is my last post on this matter.
Your post in Notices and Queries was by way of being a thrown gauntlet, the principle of not 'recognizing the Mote's jurisdiction' apparently taking precedence over the principle of not mischaracterizing the positions of others, and not using them to buttress your own position without their consent.
The e-mail you received from Ms. No identified Irv and myself by name, quoted from our letters to her, and stated very clearly the remedy we sought. Yet because we did not approach you directly, you would not rectify a situation in which you were clearly in the wrong. Indeed, you continue to defend your untenable position because we did not ask you in the appropriate manner. I can only imagine that in your mind, this would involve much obsequiousness and tugging of forelocks, assuming we had the audacity to ask it at all.
A very strange code, that, which places your ego above honor. 1456. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 7:29:08 AM Indy,
No I have not seen the actual mail. My name wasn't on it and it wasn't addressed to me, therefore it was not copied to me. Nor did I forward a copy of your email to Maria or Irving as it was not addressed to them.
I informed them at your request that you desired for them to contact you directly and privately but you completely undermined any of that by posting a public notice about the incident in N&Q.
The truth is that you and you alone are responsible for violating privacy. You have only yourself to blame for having been unwise enough to add their names without their consent and then when approached about it in a private manner to have climbed upon your clay-footed high-horse and started issuing decrees about what is and isn't private and how people with legitimate complaints against you should or shouldn't behave.
Your actions in this matter have been reprehensible and you full well know it. 1457. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 7:30:48 AM Arky,
I do think if that becomes the case that it should only be with a formal complaint and the act verified by at least one moderator,
Absolutely. I don't know that this ever will be the case, but certainly it would require more than an hysterical accusation. 1458. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 7:57:13 AM No I have not seen the actual mail.
Well, you certainly are free with your characterizations of something you haven't seen. Moreover, you mean to say neither Irv nor Maria sent you a copy of what they were complaining about and you interjected yourself into this without such a copy?
My name wasn't on it and it wasn't addressed to me, therefore it was not copied to me.
Right. Something strange, though, the notion that you ought not read it for those reasons, but you still should be brought in as arbiter without having read it.
Nor did I forward a copy of your email to Maria or Irving as it was not addressed to them.
Strange, the Ms. No Post Office works only way.
I informed them at your request that you desired for them to contact you directly and privately but you completely undermined any of that by posting a public notice about the incident in N&Q.
I made you aware of my intent at the time.
Me: "I'll post a suitably vague Notice so as to relieve you of having to continue in the role of Henry Kissinger."
You: "I'll let Maria and Irv know about your post in N&Q, but I know that Irv's public email address is available from the Cafe Link if you don't wish to wait....Regards, Christin" 1459. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 7:58:46 AM works only way = works only one way 1460. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/18/2001 10:52:28 AM I certainly don't think Indy's ill-advised e-mail was a breach of the RoE, or anything which needs a new rule. As I said in my very first post on the topic, it was a breach of Mote Ettiquette.
Indy's e-mail didn't say anything more than (erroneously) claiming that the names listed had posted support. The idea of being "signatories" came from Indy's post in the Mote before he sent the e-mail (Message # 1422).
Personally, I had hoped that Indy would admit he was in error, and apologize to any people whose names he used without authorization. But that is obviously never going to happen, so, for my part, I will be posting no more on this topic. 1461. PsychProf - 7/23/2001 4:37:09 AM It is clear, at least to me, that Indy, right or wrong, was backed against the wall here. I despise this kind of counterproductive confrontation, now Mote familiar and Mote normal. I hope we have not lost another Mote Poster. 1462. Indiana Jones - 7/24/2001 4:52:17 AM PP: Thanks for your words.
I am actually travelling right now and only able to check in sporadically. Taking a vacation from just about any activity now and then is generally a good idea and perspective-enhancing. 1463. mgleason - 7/24/2001 1:40:35 PM That, Prof, was a cheap shot. I take it you don't despise those. 1464. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/24/2001 1:59:22 PM PP:
There was no intention of backing Indy against any wall... both Maria and I tried to handle the misrepresentation of our positions quietly, without posting anything here in the Mote. It was Indy's choice to bring it into the open. I don't think there is anything counterproductive about trying to clear up a situation in which one's name and views are misrepresented. And I don't think trying to handle it quietly is confrontational.
I also think the issue has been cleared up, to everyone's satisfaction, including Indy's, and that no one holds any grudges over it. 1465. PsychProf - 7/24/2001 11:24:32 PM Good. 1466. PsychProf - 7/25/2001 11:47:04 PM My frustration with the loss of valued posters continues, and it now looks as if I have irrationally displaced this disappointment on two of my best friends here, Maria and Irv. Sorry guys. Mea Culpa. 1467. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2001 3:29:06 AM PP: Without necessarily agreeing that your recent posts indicate you've lost your rationality, I think it's better to be a little irrational out of good motives than bad.
|
