"Backstabbing SOB" - per 'shakespear' ?

[Admin]

shakespear,

I understand that you have written, among other things, the following:

Dan has been informed that you violated his confidentiality and publicly embarrassed him.  I'm guessing your days as a moderator on RWD, and probably even a member of that forum will be rather short-lived.  What goes around comes around.

we all know how Dan would deal with the issue if he ever discovered a "leak"

So I'll give you the opportunity to defend yourself.  Show me where the evidence or assumptions are faulty and suggest an alternate culprit.

shakespear, please confirm/deny that you wrote the above. I need no other context. Simple confirmation (or not) of your authorship.

- Dan

[shakespear]

shakespear, please confirm/deny that you wrote the above. I need no other context. Simple confirmation (or not) of your authorship. 

Yep I wrote it.

Doesn't RWD TOS prohibit the publishing of private e-mails on the forum without the permission of the writer? 

Anyway it was written before you issued your private denial to me.  I've exchanged further communication with the recipient of the original message and all misunderstanding in this regard have been cleared.  As far as I'm concerned the matter is concluded.

[Vaughn]

Not to beat a dead horse to death - but those lines quoted were never sent
via RWD Private Messages....

Let's set that record straight right now.

I've exchanged further communication with the recipient of the original message and all misunderstanding in this regard have been cleared.

Is that right? Next time you level accusations at me, even privately, and then realize later you were
dealing with misinformation (and I use that word out of kindness) how about sending the sudden
turnaround results to the formerly accused.

Really, Brad - you've got the tact of an elephant.

[Admin]

Yep I wrote it.

Doesn't RWD TOS prohibit the publishing of private e-mails on the forum without the permission of the writer? 

Anyway it was written before you issued your private denial to me.  I've exchanged further communication with the recipient of the original message and all misunderstanding in this regard have been cleared.  As far as I'm concerned the matter is concluded.

shakespear,

You threatened an RWD moderator based on your fallacious assumption. You mentioned me, by name, with assertions of what I would, or would not, do - also fallacious. I wrote you in private that it is exactly this sort of drama I find repugnant, and seems to follow you around the internet.

Not long ago RWD had an episode in which one member threatened another member. We took away from that a strict policy that threats of any sort are inappropriate.

You wrongly accused an RWD moderator of something he did not do - could not have done - because the material you claim was cited, was simply never posted here.

Someone is 'playing you' - but that is YOUR problem, and I will not allow it to play out at RWD.

Please insure this sort of drama is never again brought to RWD.

- Dan

[shakespear]

Not to beat a dead horse to death - but those lines quoted were never sent
via RWD Private Messages.... Let's set that record straight right now.

Yes, let's.  Review what I wrote.  I never said they were transmitted by RWD PM.  How could they be?  I don't have that privilege on RWD.  I clearly stated that they were sent in a private off list email.  I'll now share that that e-mail contained the following disclaimer on the first line:  

"Let's agree that further discussion on this topic will be between just you and me and be kept confidential, ok?"

Seems pretty clear to me that my intent was to keep the text of that message confidential between the two of us.  Yet, somehow Dan has access to them and decided to publish them on RWD.  That is a violation of the RWD TOS and I'm politely asking that any reference to that confidential message be removed from this thread.    

Let's set that record straight right now.  Is that right? Next time you level accusations at me, even privately, and then realize later you were dealing with misinformation (and I use that word out of kindness) how about sending the sudden
turnaround results to the formerly accused.  

So now you admit the message was sent to you privately.  It logically follows for Dan to publish sections of the message you had to have violated that privacy.

Really, Brad - you've got the tact of an elephant.

Maybe so.  How do your personal ethics look about now?

As I stated earlier, I consider the matter now closed.

[shakespear]

Please insure this sort of drama is never again brought to RWD.

With all due respect Dan, Y O U were the one that "brought" this to the public RWD, in violation of your own forum TOS I might add; not me.

But I get the intent of your message warning.  

[I/O]

Just for the attention of the prophets and high priests whilst they are outside the holy of holys, we mere common folk have no f*****g idea of what this is about and don't care either. Wouldn't it be better addressed within the inner sanctums?

[Admin]

With all due respect Dan, Y O U were the one that "brought" this to the public RWD, in violation of your own forum TOS I might add; not me.

But I get the intent of your message warning.  

Nope - no violation whatsoever.

Making absolutely certain there are NO misunderstandings or further subterfuge.

I *am* glad my intent is clear.

- Dan

[Admin]

Just for the attention of the prophets and high priests whilst they are outside the holy of holys, we mere common folk have no f*****g idea of what this is about and don't care either. Wouldn't it be better addressed within the inner sanctums?

Normally, yes.

In this case, I want it to be abundantly clear that RWD is not going to play host to the sorts of idiocy that has infested other sites in the past.

- Dan

[shakespear]

Nope - no violation whatsoever.

OK, I'll use your tactic Dan and demand a straight yes or no answer to the question below -

Posting portions of a private off list email message by a third party, when the message in question has been clearly labled as private between two parties, without the permission of the party writing the message does not constitute a violation of the RWD TOS?

Yes or no?

[Vaughn]

Posting portions of a private off list email message by a third party....

Shake, you are not a third party. The whole fiasco, which took only a matter of
a few days of your membership in brewing, began with you making misguided
accusations and threats based on hearsay. Quite laughable is the fact that you
chose to believe a man who for years has slandered you and your family, and
continues to fabricate news articles that demean you and your loved ones.

Now you opt to use semantics to deflect attention from your gross error, rather
than apologize and admit your culpability. It's a tougher world here, bud. My
ethics are in fine order. Welcome to the tough world of RWD.

BTW, you've made some fine posts in the Moscow Night Life thread tonight. That's
the kind of contribution of which I knew you are capable. 

[Admin]

OK, I'll use your tactic Dan and demand a straight yes or no answer to the question below -

Posting portions of a private off list email message by a third party, when the message in question has been clearly labled as private between two parties, without the permission of the party writing the message does not constitute a violation of the RWD TOS?

Yes or no?

Several things Brad:

One - I did NOT post your email. I posted specific text that referenced me or RWD and asked you to confirm your authorship.

Two - You were using 'issues' emanating (well, fabricated actually) from RWD as your foil to make baseless and untrue allegations toward one of the RWD moderators and making threats, ostensibly in my name, and issuing ultimatums. Clearly, there was a nexus to me and RWD, and clearly I have an interest in your behaviors owing to your citing me and RWD.

Third - You do not have the prerogative to unilaterally "label" a communication as private - particularly when you lead with a subject like "Backstabbing SOB."

Clear yet?

Oh - one last thing re: your demand for a Yes/No response. Noone at RWD is under any obligation to respond to your demands of any sort.

- Dan

[UTRO]

Oh I really, really, really do miss DUKEmaxwell now 

[Gator]

I can't follow the story.

What little do I know?  Evidently there is a dispute between Vaughn and Shakespear. 

Vaughn is someone I know and respect based on a history going back a few years.  He has always been a gentleman.

Shakespear (aka as Brad) supposedly has a long history on RW boards yet is a new member at RWD.  Upon joining RWD he has started and nurtured an interesting thread about Moscow nightlife.  His posts are well written and full of information and insights.   A good portion of the thread, however, deals with some elements of the dark side (prostitution), elements that do not belong in a forum that focuses on marriage.

Some RW complain about the contentious nature of some discussions and how this discourages them from posting.  I can not see them being encouraged by an expanded discussion of prostitution and RW sexual mores.


Why does a man who supposedly has been active on several RW suddenly decide to join RWD?  Why does he start off his membership by posting controversial material that would concern Dan?  Does he really want to contribute? 

There must be more to the story than meets the eye.
 

[Ade]

Why does a man who supposedly has been active on several RW suddenly decide ...

Hm... 


These sorts of things always happen on boards and always will. Nothing new there. You'd think a grown man would have better things to do though.

[shakespear]

Shake, you are not a third party.

{sigh}  Dan is the third party you twit.

[shakespear]

One - I did NOT post your email. I posted specific text that referenced me or RWD and asked you to confirm your authorship. 

Which text was part of an email marked confidential between the sender and receiver.  Did you think that the implicit understanding of confidentiality didn't apply to the parts you were interested in?  Clearly it applies to the whole message Dan.   

Two - You were using 'issues' emanating (well, fabricated actually) from RWD as your foil to make baseless and untrue allegations toward one of the RWD moderators and making threats, ostensibly in my name, and issuing ultimatums. Clearly, there was a nexus to me and RWD, and clearly I have an interest in your behaviors owing to your citing me and RWD.

Predicting your actions is not a threat.  Furthermore, I have only your word that the accusations are actually baseless or untrue.  You made your feelings on the matter quite clear in private messages to me.  In fact, the whole issue was being resolved away from the forum until you decided to make it public. 

Third - You do not have the prerogative to unilaterally "label" a communication as private - particularly when you lead with a subject like "Backstabbing SOB."

You are just absolutely wrong there.  Why would corporations pay attorneys to craft specifically worded tag messages that appear on every email sent that confirm the confidentiality of the message if it didn't offer some protection?  Mine wasn't so carefully drafted but it implied the same intent.

Further, its standard and accepted internet etiquette that one doesn't re-post a private message on a public forum without the permission of the writer of the original message.   Vaughn was wrong for sharing it and you were wrong for making it public. 

Oh - one last thing re: your demand for a Yes/No response. No one at RWD is under any obligation to respond to your demands of any sort. 

Of course you aren't.  I was just giving you a taste of your own abrasive and rude manner of asking questions of forum participants.  Nobody likes being addressed like they were standing before an inquisition.  Just something for you to think about.

However, one can predict how you'd react if the situation was reversed.  And no that's not any kind of a threat   

[BC]

.. and I thought gossip mongering was a woman thing, or adolescent bravado talk with men.

[GlobalEuphoria]

     As an "Admin" it should be a for gone conclusion that a thread containing such antics would be closed and locked. This subject and the contents within only go to further dampen the overall aura of all active members within this discussion board. Give every member the respect they deserve and get rid of this go as one should... privately.

[Admin]

Which text was part of an email marked confidential between the sender and receiver.  Did you think that the implicit understanding of confidentiality didn't apply to the parts you were interested in?  Clearly it applies to the whole message Dan.   

Predicting your actions is not a threat.  Furthermore, I have only your word that the accusations are actually baseless or untrue.  You made your feelings on the matter quite clear in private messages to me.  In fact, the whole issue was being resolved away from the forum until you decided to make it public. 

You are just absolutely wrong there.  Why would corporations pay attorneys to craft specifically worded tag messages that appear on every email sent that confirm the confidentiality of the message if it didn't offer some protection?  Mine wasn't so carefully drafted but it implied the same intent.

Further, its standard and accepted internet etiquette that one doesn't re-post a private message on a public forum without the permission of the writer of the original message.   Vaughn was wrong for sharing it and you were wrong for making it public. 

Of course you aren't.  I was just giving you a taste of your own abrasive and rude manner of asking questions of forum participants.  Nobody likes being addressed like they were standing before an inquisition.  Just something for you to think about.

However, one can predict how you'd react if the situation was reversed.  And no that's not any kind of a threat   

Brad,

I am not going to spar further with you over any of this. The simple facts are these:

* You made an assumption - a fallacious assumption - about something you thought was written here.
* You made a threat to an RWD Moderator, and issued an ultimatum - based entirely on your fallacious assumption.
* You repeatedly mentioned RWD and me in your threats and ultimatums, ascribing actions and decisions to me that were, again, fallacious.
* In the post quoted above, you imply that I am lying.

So it comes down to this:

As I told you in the email I sent initially, the drama that follows you everywhere you go is NOT going to take root here at RWD.

Any further drama of this sort (or other, for that matter) will result in your immediate permanent separation from RWD.

- Dan