Ladies, ever feel a little down about yourselves?

MysticMeg · Post by **MysticMeg** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:01 pm

spot;616514 wrote: It's quite the fashion these days. Ain't it refreshing, though? It's what Shakespeare described as heaven peeping through the blanket of the dark to cry "Hold, hold!".

As for the completely lost touch with reality bit, and the really that angry bit, you're painting what didn't happen. Nobody fought, Meg. There's no contest.

That's rather amazing that someone could post a "PRIVATE" effing "MESSAGE" and one of the mods pops up to chastise me.

Well done, Spot. You obviously have a firm grip on reality.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:06 pm

MysticMeg;616516 wrote: That's rather amazing that someone could post a "PRIVATE" effing "MESSAGE" and one of the mods pops up to chastise me.

Well done, Spot. You obviously have a firm grip on reality.

Too damn right I have. I've seen the corrosive effects privacy-protected PMs can have, on the health of this forum in particular, in the hands of malignant posters. It took far too long to cleanse that stable. I can't see anyone wanting to go back to that state again, can you?

MysticMeg · Post by **MysticMeg** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:13 pm

spot;616520 wrote: Too damn right I have. I've seen the corrosive effects privacy-protected PMs can have, on the health of this forum in particular, in the hands of malignant posters. It took far too long to cleanse that stable. I can't see anyone wanting to go back to that state again, can you?

Yes, I think I can since someone alerted me to the fact that SOMEONE POSTED MY PM.

Is everyone asleep in here? I doubt many would appreciate the fact that POSTING PRIVATE MESSAGES is now an allowed procedure in this forum.

Jesus wept. And I'm not particularly religious, but my god, people: A PRIVATE MESSAGE WAS POSTED AND A MOD THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD!.

MysticMeg · Post by **MysticMeg** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:20 pm

By the way, I've just been warned via PM that Guppy/Moderator thought I was harassing a member here. Who that member is is uncertain.

I beg to differ but I hope other members here are aware that whatever they say is apparently considered fractious.

It pisses me off that I'm put into this position, but whatever. I'd be outraged, but I'm really kind of tired of this crap.

MysticMeg · Post by **MysticMeg** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:22 pm

MysticMeg;616522 wrote: Yes, I think I can since someone alerted me to the fact that SOMEONE POSTED MY PM.

Is everyone asleep in here? I doubt many would appreciate the fact that POSTING PRIVATE MESSAGES is now an allowed procedure in this forum.

Jesus wept. And I'm not particularly religious, but my god, people: A PRIVATE MESSAGE WAS POSTED AND A MOD THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD!.

I got an infraction for THIS?:-3

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:49 am

MysticMeg, apparently you're not receiving private messages anymore? I just wanted to let you know that I tried to reply but couldn't. I'm not ignoring you!

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:57 am

laneybug;617996 wrote: MysticMeg, apparently you're not receiving private messages anymore? I just wanted to let you know that I tried to reply but couldn't. I'm not ignoring you!

It appears she got banned

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:28 pm

WonderWendy3;618004 wrote: It appears she got banned

Out of curiousity, how can you tell if someone is banned?

Post by **spot** » Tue May 22, 2007 1:55 pm

laneybug;619100 wrote: Out of curiousity, how can you tell if someone is banned?

The word "Banned" appears under their username on all the messages they've posted in the past, in place of (in this case) "Junior Member".

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Tue May 22, 2007 1:59 pm

spot;619211 wrote: The word "Banned" appears under their username on all the messages they've posted in the past, in place of (in this case) "Junior Member".

Thanks Spot, I never saw that question...Guess you could say "You were Johnny on the spot"???

I know, I know...back to my corner!!

Post by **spot** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:05 pm

WonderWendy3;619214 wrote: Thanks Spot, I never saw that question...Guess you could say "You were Johnny on the spot"???Since the ripple in here I've been keeping a watch on the thread, that's all. Strange stuff, forum dynamics.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:30 pm

spot;619211 wrote: The word "Banned" appears under their username on all the messages they've posted in the past, in place of (in this case) "Junior Member".

Oh, stupid me. :rolleyes: I completely missed the "banned" under her name.

spot, you were the one she was having the confrontation with, right? What the hell was that all about anyway??

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:33 pm

laneybug;619348 wrote: you were the one she was having the confrontation with

It is entirely possible that the poster is onewho has caused a good deal of

trouble in the garden before. "Mods" will be able to access certain information

to confirm this. Subsequent actions will then depend on FG's TOS, etc.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:40 pm

Oh the Pheasy is sooo slow - when did Mystic Meg get banned and why - did I miss something? :-3

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:50 pm

ThePheasant;619355 wrote: Oh the Pheasy is sooo slow - when did Mystic Meg get banned and why - did I miss something? :-3

She was banned before she joined. We have a few people who just can't seem to stay away from our happy place.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:57 pm

koan;619361 wrote: She was banned before she joined. We have a few people who just can't seem to stay away from our happy place.

After my posting - I did look at her posts, didn't exactly come across as overly friendly.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Wed May 23, 2007 4:56 pm

Bill Sikes;619350 wrote: It is entirely possible that the poster is onewho has caused a good deal of

trouble in the garden before. "Mods" will be able to access certain information

to confirm this. Subsequent actions will then depend on FG's TOS, etc.

I figured. I was just wondering what the little rift between spot and Mystic was all about. Eh, just being nosy. Always curious as to why people fight... perverted little fascination, I know.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 24, 2007 12:56 am

laneybug;620150 wrote: I figured. I was just wondering what the little rift between spot and Mystic was all about. Eh, just being nosy. Always curious as to why people fight... perverted little fascination, I know.

The rift is one which remains contentious and relates to the nature of Private Messages. If A sends a PM to B there is an underlying assumption that the content will remain private. Where it carries personal or confidential content nobody disputes this should be so. Where it instead carries an aggressive payload, should it fall into the same protected category or can B legitimately embarrass A by posting the content in public? Is the content of a PM sacrosanct regardless of why it was sent, merely by it being sent in a PM?

The Site Rules insist that we "do not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest". If that extends to PMs as well as visible posts, is displaying the insult a permissible response? Does going public to complain about a PMed insult, or any other form of invisible harassment, "disrupt the peace and harmony of this board"? The questions remain at best a grey area rarely entered. If going public were impossible there would be more invisible insults.

What has always been the case, though, is that both confidences and insults in PMs are regularly forwarded, shared and quoted in PMs and emails once they have been written and received. That's the seamy underbelly of forum life, and the reason why public posting of any insulting PM content can be so explosive.

None if this is an issue when it comes to any public posting of confidential content. That gets immediately deleted by the Moderators.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Thu May 24, 2007 4:38 pm

spot;620242 wrote: The rift is one which remains contentious and relates to the nature of Private Messages. If A sends a PM to B there is an underlying assumption that the content will remain private. Where it carries personal or confidential content nobody disputes this should be so. Where it instead carries an aggressive payload, should it fall into the same protected category or can B legitimately embarrass A by posting the content in public? Is the content of a PM sacrosanct regardless of why it was sent, merely by it being sent in a PM?

In that case, I completely agree with you. I don't think harassment should remain quiet simply because it's in a PM. Embarrass the offender all you want, for all I care.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 24, 2007 5:27 pm

laneybug;620887 wrote: In that case, I completely agree with you. I don't think harassment should remain quiet simply because it's in a PM. Embarrass the offender all you want, for all I care.There are no more scalps to be had. A mere two adorn my teepee and peace reigns. These days the only thing I hunt is buffalo. It would take unanticipated events of seismic proportions to get me out of retirement.