Matters of Netiquette, Ethiics, and Legality
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
newsgroups sometimes do, and want to hear your opinion about them,
with respect to (a) Netiquette, (b) ethics, and (c) legality.
Here are the ACTIONS in question, usually at some time during
an extended PUBLIC debate/flamewar between two discussants on
some topic or some sub-topic within a thread:
Q1. Discussant A chooses to terminate the public debate (for
whatever reason), and replies to Discussant B via PRIVATE
EMAIL instead, and publicly or privately invites Discussant
Discussant B to do the same, if for no other reason than
"saving bandwidth" on an exchange that was going nowhere.
Q2. During the course of (Q1), Discussant B chooses to PHONE
Discussant A at home (without asking or receiving prior
permission to do so), instead of using email as requested,
to continue his adverse role in the debate.
Q3. Discussant B threatens (via phone or email) Discussant
A that he would bring (or had already brought, or both)
the matter up to the EMPLOYER of Discussant A (a
disruptive threat) even though Discussant A's PROFESSION
or HIS EMPLOYER has nothing to do with the topic in
question in the SCUBA discussion forum or whatever
Discussant A does in recreation outside of his profession.
For brevity, you may rate each ACTION above using these codes:
a1: acceptable within Netiquette
a2: questionable in Netiquette
a3: clearly unacceptable in Netiquette
b1: no breach of ethics
b2: questionable ethics
b3: clearly unethical
c1: legal
c2: questionable in legality
c3: clearly illegal and prosecutable
Freely comment on each choice you made.
Here are MY votes and reasons (opinion/comment):
Q1. a1. As Netiquette is generally understood. Discussant
B can ignore, or filter, such a reply if desired.
b1. Discussant A's chosen action is an option provided
by most newsreaders.
c1. Barring repeated or excessive use for harassement
purposes.
Q2. a3. Unwarranted invasion of privacy by Discussant B.
b2. No sure if "ethics" is applicable to Q2.
c2. c3 if repeated after warning.
Q3. a3. Clear violation of Netiquette.
b3. Clearly unethical on the part of Discussant B.
c2. c3 if coupled with harassement and slanderous
content by Discussant B.
What are yours?
-----------------------------------------------------------
For the next few days, I shall not discuss any OPINION on
anyone's part except to reply to questions of CLARIFICATION
about any of the items in this posting.
Look forward to your input and discussion. Private email
to me (RF...@clemson.edu) on this or related issues is
WELCOME, if you choose not to discuss your opinion publicly.
-- Bob.
CMccar31
<RF...@clemson.edu> writes:
>What are yours?
You would not be the first person to have the real world invade their
cyberspace. It's a rude awakening to find out the hard way that you shouldn't
post anything you wouldn't say to a persons face.
I'm saying this in general terms and its not aimed at you or any specific
situation that may have inspired your post.
Charlie
Dan Bracuk
it was made up.
This happens occasionally to the Reef Fish. Sounds like he really annoyed
somebody - again.
Dan Bracuk
Toronto, Canada
The geek shall inherit the earth.
rec.scuba faq http://scifi.squawk.com/scuba.html
Anthony
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) wrote in message
<37AD68...@clemson.edu>...
>
>Q1. Discussant A chooses to terminate the public debate (for
> whatever reason), and replies to Discussant B via PRIVATE
> EMAIL instead, and publicly or privately invites Discussant
> Discussant B to do the same, if for no other reason than
> "saving bandwidth" on an exchange that was going nowhere.
I rate this a 1 for a, b and c. Sometimes wish this would happen more often
:-)
>
>Q2. During the course of (Q1), Discussant B chooses to PHONE
> Discussant A at home (without asking or receiving prior
> permission to do so), instead of using email as requested,
> to continue his adverse role in the debate.
>
I rate this (a) 3 - it's rude and invasive. (b) 1. I don't think rude is
necessary immoral. (c) 2. I'm not a lawyer, but unless the calls are
repeated in a manner which amounts to harrassment I doubt that there's a
legal issue.
>Q3. Discussant B threatens (via phone or email) Discussant
> A that he would bring (or had already brought, or both)
> the matter up to the EMPLOYER of Discussant A (a
> disruptive threat) even though Discussant A's PROFESSION
> or HIS EMPLOYER has nothing to do with the topic in
> question in the SCUBA discussion forum or whatever
> Discussant A does in recreation outside of his profession.
>
I rate this 3 for a, b and c. It's clearly rude, immoral and, altho' not a
lawyer, I'd bet illegal. I'd guess you could get an injunction to have it
stopped. Coincidentally one of my employees recently informed me that his
wife had threatened to call me and badmouth him, but I assured him that his
employment wasn't threatened by marital discord.
Cheesehead
No one deserves harrassing phone calls.
Short fuses on both sides of the posting was evident.
The discord that resulted is unfortunately typical and non-productive.
You have shown evidence of a great deal of diving knowledge which you
share. Hopefully in the future, sharing that knowledge will be easier.
Tim
Was your Palau trip was a success?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
jammer six
<RF...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>€ What are yours?
Anything they do is fine, as long as they don't raise their VOICES.
Get a grip, bobby.
Then tighten it.
--
"C'mon, you sons of bitches, you want to live forever?"
-First Sergeant Dan Daly
Jason O'Rourke
or the employer is out of line, and generally lame. I had someone try the
employer routine...we laughed it away. I'm sure Clemson did the same.
Those who can't stand having their feelings hurt should probably lurk.
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
'96 BMW r850R
last dive: July 31st, Partington Canyon (big sur), 30some mins at 142' max.
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
For clarification, I suppose. I need clarification too.
>
> Bob, you are still getting over old incident or had a new one?
> Just curious...
What old incident? Most probably NOT what you think. It's
actually a composite, based on some incidents I have encountered
myself as well as many encountered by others, told to me. The
questions were posed for an expression of public opinion by
readers of this forem, for FUTURE REFERENCE, by everyone.
> P.S. No, I do not consider phoning at work (or at home) neither ethical nor
> legal.
You reply requires some clarification.
"do not consider" ... "neither ethical" "nor legal" is a
double negative reply to only ONE of the three posed questions,
Q2.
Do you mean to vote the question stated in Q2
Q2. a? omitting the question of Netiquette
b3 not ethical
c3 not legal
or the opposite
Q2. b1 ethical
c1 legal
-- Bob.
Stevie Imlach
>Q1. Discussant A chooses to terminate the public debate (for
> whatever reason), and replies to Discussant B via PRIVATE
> EMAIL instead, and publicly or privately invites Discussant
> Discussant B to do the same, if for no other reason than
> "saving bandwidth" on an exchange that was going nowhere.
>
I would say this is acceptable but it kinda defeats the purpose of the NG
because it's supposed to be a public forum.
I think I've probably done this a few times by clicking on reply to author
instead of reply to group (not intentionally though - should probably stay
of the beer!!!!)
>Q2. During the course of (Q1), Discussant B chooses to PHONE
> Discussant A at home (without asking or receiving prior
> permission to do so), instead of using email as requested,
> to continue his adverse role in the debate.
What a waste of time!!!! If somebody phoned me (even though you'd struggle
to get the number) I'd just hang up on you!!!(dependant on reason
obviously!!) Besides surely you wouldn't want to waste your hard earned
cash making transatlantic calls to me!!!
>Q3. Discussant B threatens (via phone or email) Discussant
> A that he would bring (or had already brought, or both)
> the matter up to the EMPLOYER of Discussant A (a
> disruptive threat) even though Discussant A's PROFESSION
> or HIS EMPLOYER has nothing to do with the topic in
> question in the SCUBA discussion forum or whatever
> Discussant A does in recreation outside of his profession.
Threats I can cope with, calling my employers!! I don't really care.
Besides, they pay me to sit and surf the web and play with newsgroups all
day anyway!!!!
Just my thoughts!!!!
Stevie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my homepage for loads of stuff about diving
drinking and some of the other niceties in life!!
Kuty
>Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) wrote in message <37AD68...@clemson.edu>...
>>Q1. Discussant A chooses to terminate the public debate (for
>> whatever reason), and replies to Discussant B via PRIVATE
>> EMAIL
(CUT)
> I rate this a 1 for a, b and c.
I agree.
(CUT)
>>Q2. During the course of (Q1), Discussant B chooses to PHONE
>>Discussant A at home (without asking or receiving prior permission to do so)
(CUT)
>I rate this (a) 3 - it's rude and invasive. (b) 1. I don't think rude is
>necessary immoral. (c) 2. I'm not a lawyer, but unless the calls are
>repeated in a manner which amounts to harrassment I doubt that there's
>a legal issue.
I'll go along with (a)3 and (c)2 but I would give a (b)2. There is
no justification to call someone you met on the internet at home,
unless you got explicit permission to do so.
>>Q3. Discussant B threatens (via phone or email) Discussant
>> A that he would bring (or had already brought, or both)
>> the matter up to the EMPLOYER of Discussant A
(CUT)
>I rate this 3 for a, b and c. It's clearly rude, immoral and, altho' not a
>lawyer, I'd bet illegal.
I agree. That's all of the above and I wonder what kind of low life
would threaten someone in calling the employer.
Of course, I would not appreciate any employer who even listened to
such allegations but that is beside the point.
Regards,
Kuty
ky...@ibm.net
"Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" <RF...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> I have some GENERAL questions pertaining to what discussants in
> newsgroups sometimes do, and want to hear your opinion about them,
> with respect to (a) Netiquette, (b) ethics, and (c) legality.
>
> Here are the ACTIONS in question, usually at some time during
> an extended PUBLIC debate/flamewar between two discussants on
> some topic or some sub-topic within a thread:
>
> whatever reason), and replies to Discussant B via PRIVATE
> Discussant B to do the same, if for no other reason than
> "saving bandwidth" on an exchange that was going nowhere.
A1. as seems to be the consensus in here so far, why would one feel
compeled to "go email" if the exchange were going nowhere; simply do not
respond. as to bandwidth, perhaps there are some which pay extra to
their ISP for say oh a 30mb allocation for email, these people, perhaps
may need this allocation in order to send and recieve very large .dwg
/.dxf files in the order of 15 to 18mb(each) as part of their
profession. from such people you perhaps may reasonably expect a very
polite email requesting to keep a mindnumbing flame war in a NG as the
numerious, unwelcomed email could legally constitute interference with
ones ability to sustain a livlihood.("legally" one can postulate almost
anything) when such a polite email request is ignored oh say "two"(as an
example) times with the transmission of even more ugly harassing email
perhaps these same people may telephone the perpetrator and request the
cessation of said email harassment. perhaps the phone call was recorded.
Perhaps, in such a case, of course, all email in question is date/time
stamped as would be the phone call.
> Q2. During the course of (Q1), Discussant B chooses to PHONE
> Discussant A at home (without asking or receiving prior
> permission to do so), instead of using email as requested,
> to continue his adverse role in the debate.
see A1 (the pren. in q2 part is soo good)
>
> Q3. Discussant B threatens (via phone or email) Discussant
> A that he would bring (or had already brought, or both)
> the matter up to the EMPLOYER of Discussant A (a
> disruptive threat) even though Discussant A's PROFESSION
> or HIS EMPLOYER has nothing to do with the topic in
> question in the SCUBA discussion forum or whatever
> Discussant A does in recreation outside of his profession.
a2 to q3, perhaps in this "hypothetical" question(Q3) lets say that
one of the harassing emails recieved by "B" was a threat of a lawsuit.
which would be of course good for a ball busting laugh, let us further
assume that B recieves unsolicited email from others indicating their
opinion of A is he/she/it might not be wrapped too tightly. Let us
further assume "B" may be nationally known within his profession and
perhaps may inquire to an associate or two as to the mental state of
"a", perhaps alarmed but not concerned with this data, "b" may therefore
be compled (on advice of counsel) to inform "A" if the email harassment
does not stop, all email in question would be posted in the original
public forum(in order to expose the unstable). in addition let us
further assume the email harassment originated from an "institution"
where (again on advice of counsel[between histerical laughter]) a notice
of a formal complaint to the institution would be made if the email
harrassment did not stop.
"B" then perhaps went out with "C"(counsel) for the weekend and had four
very nice dives and is perhaps now again laughing his ass off dealing
with the "hypothetical".
Just my thoughts OZ, hope you UNDERSTAND.
Dave Scott
> <snip some really wild funny analyses from bob>(to save precious
bandwidth)
NE333RO
>Besides, they pay me to sit and surf the web and play with newsgroups all
>day anyway!!!!
Geeeeze, how do I get YOUR job. I'm doing this for fun. It is fun isn't
it???????
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
>
> Here is a copy of my email reply to Reef Fish. I did not realize he posted
> here as well.
I posted my earlier reply only because it was for CLARIFICATION
purposes, as I said in my original post that I would not comment
on any reply for a few days, EXCEPT for clarification.
-- Bob.
ky...@ibm.net
"Dan Bracuk" <bra...@pathcom.com> wrote:
> Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) wrote a scenario that does not sound
like
> it was made up.
"IT" was not, they are: "another palau question" and "$1400 ATL to
Palau??" in .locations. for those which have time to wade through some
mindnumbing senseless crap, half of which I am ashamed to say can be
attributed to me but it speaks volumes.
>
> This happens occasionally to the Reef Fish. Sounds like he really
annoyed
> somebody - again.
oh not really annoyed, the man just can't backup an outrageous claim.
the kind of things which dilute the value of what little good
information exists in these NGs.
>
> Dan Bracuk
> Toronto, Canada
> The geek shall inherit the earth.
> rec.scuba faq http://scifi.squawk.com/scuba.html
>
Dave Scott
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
<SNIP>
I had replied publicly to "Stranger" <stra...@geocities.com>
about the "Netiquette, ethics, and legality" poll,
>What old incident? Most probably NOT what you think. It's
>actually a composite, based on some incidents I have encountered
>myself as well as many encountered by others, told to me. The
>questions were posed for an expression of public opinion by
>readers of this forem, for FUTURE REFERENCE, by everyone.
and to him PRIVATELY, Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 12:21:37 -0400
that his "old incident" was not what I had in mind nor the
trigger event:
> (good! That means I've not pointed finger
> at anyone in particular).
Who should appear only 7 minutes later, Mon, 09 Aug 1999
17:28:59 GMT, but one of the figures in the "composite" sketch,
to present a portrait of himself in his actions that fit Q2
and Q3, but with some self-serving LIES as to why he did them.
Since David C. Scott (ky...@ibm.net) has just reiterated his
private threat to me publicly, that eliminated my dilemma of
how to respond to his PRIVATE threat (in which he threaten to
disrupt me in my profession and work if I email him)!
I'll just expose his self-serving lies in his present post,
which is PUBLIC (thanks to his own confession).
>> Q1. Discussant A chooses to terminate the public debate (for
>> whatever reason), and replies to Discussant B via PRIVATE
>> EMAIL instead, and publicly or privately invites Discussant
>> Discussant B to do the same, if for no other reason than
>> "saving bandwidth" on an exchange that was going nowhere.
>
> A1. as seems to be the consensus in here so far,
The reason I even put this question in, was Dave Scott claimed it
was harassment of him on my part. Let's examine some FACTS.
Here is the log of the relevant events and emails, the latter
directly from my Eudora mailer archives.
> Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) 07:20 PM 8/5/99 -0400
> Re: filet o sea bass(another clemson nerd eats dirt)
email reply to his post with a derogatory "subject" after I
had said I terminated my public dialog with him even on the
regular thread.
---------------------------------------------------
> David C. Scott 09:09 AM 8/6/99 -0400
> Re: filet o sea bass(another clemson nerd eats dirt)
David Scott email reply. He DID ask me to keep it PUBLIC.
Not time and date.
---------------------------------------------------
> Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) 09:37 AM 8/6/99 -0400
> Re: another filet
My email reply to his public post with a 2nd derogatory
"subject". I simply made an email REPLY. He called this
Harassment #1, discounting his own PUBLIC harassment of me
and that this was my ONLY reply to him.
---------------------------------------------------
>Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) 10:11 AM 8/6/99 -0400
>Re: filet o sea bass(another clemson nerd eats dirt)
My ONE-PARAGRAPH email reply to his EMAIL of 9:09 AM 8/6/99
>I took offense at the way you went about it. If you had simply
>asked after my first reply, that would've the end of it. I had
>told you that publicly. You don't seem to read too well.
Hardly a harassment email. This is what Dave Scott called
"even more ugly" Harassment #2
----------------------------------------------------
Dave Scott's LIES in this new subject "just hypothetical":
>anything) when such a polite email request is ignored oh say "two"(as an
>example) times with the transmission of even more ugly harassing email
>perhaps these same people may telephone the perpetrator and request the
>cessation of said email harassment.
Note the time stamps. He asked me not to email him at 9:09 AM 8/6.
He called my emails at 9:37 AM and 10:11 AM "more ugly harassing
email".
I RECORDED the time he phoned too! 11:45 AM, 8/6.
Poor Dave Scott. My TWO short emails REPLYING to him are
such "ugly harassing email" to him that he had to phone me
AT HOME to harass me!
--------------------------------------------------------
This was the ONLY EMAIL I sent him AFTER his phone call:
>Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) 05:28 PM 8/6/99 -0400
>Your PUBLIC SLANDER of me (was Re: $1400 ATL To Palau??)
pointing out to him WHY his public post (which I did NOT reply
publicly) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 19:40:10 GMT
contained SLANDEROUS remark by him about me and my profession,
without cause. I simply told him WHY those were slanders and
asked him only for a PRIVATE apology, and suggested that if he
didn't take it seriously or continue making slanderous remarks
about me in my profession, he may be the subject of a lawsuit.
This is the log of Dave Scott's final email with his threats.
> David C. Scott 11:36 PM 8/6/99 -0400
> oh please no
This was Dave Scott's VERSION (now) of what transpired and
self-incriminating admission of how he disrupted and slandered
me ALREADY in my profession and my place of employment:
> a2 to q3, perhaps in this "hypothetical" question(Q3) lets say that
>one of the harassing emails recieved by "B" was a threat of a lawsuit.
>which would be of course good for a ball busting laugh, let us further
>assume that B recieves unsolicited email from others indicating their
>opinion of A is he/she/it might not be wrapped too tightly. Let us
>further assume "B" may be nationally known within his profession and
>perhaps may inquire to an associate or two as to the mental state of
>"a", perhaps alarmed but not concerned with this data, "b" may therefore
>be compled (on advice of counsel) to inform "A" if the email harassment
>does not stop, all email in question would be posted in the original
>public forum(in order to expose the unstable). in addition let us
>further assume the email harassment originated from an "institution"
>where (again on advice of counsel[between histerical laughter]) a notice
>of a formal complaint to the institution would be made if the email
>harrassment did not stop.
Dear readers, I presented documented FACTS contradicting Dave
Scott's lies or extreme distortion/exaggeration.
>Perhaps, in such a case, of course, all email in question is date/time
>stamped as would be the phone call.
Indeed. I provided them above. They are strictly AGAINST your
fabricated allegation of my email harassment of you! You
described your own acts of harassment very well, and I need to
say nothing more about your character because I don't need to!
>"B" then perhaps went out with "C"(counsel) for the weekend and had four
>very nice dives and is perhaps now again laughing his ass off dealing
>with the "hypothetical".
You claim that your wife works at the office of the General
Counsel of the Attorney General in Florida, even if true, would
only amaze me that your behavior is condoned, or even tolerated.
The General Counsel of the AG in Florida condone THIS?
Ethnic slur:
Dave Scott>stick to the black sambo of the math world: statistics
Vulgar threat about your act described in Q3:
Dave Scott>last warning.email me again will start the shit rolling.
>Just my thoughts OZ, hope you UNDERSTAND.
Perfectly. I think so do other readers of rec.scuba.
You saved me the trouble of figuring out how I could reply to
the allegations and threats in your email, while honoring
your threat (last warning) of not emailing you again!
>Dave Scott
>> <snip some really wild funny analyses from bob>(to save precious
>bandwidth)
Dave, I had already told an attorney friend of mine (two days
ago) that I would just conduct the POLL I posted and let you
learn your lesson from it and let YOU off the hook without
naming you as one of the "composites".
Too bad, Dave, that you came out with your voluntary confession
and exposed yourself for what you really are. Thanks for doing
it for me, and doing uch a great job too.
NOW the case is closed, as far as *I* am concerned. As I told
my attorney friend, what you've already done cannot be undone.
I have not emailed you since your threat, and will not EVER
email you. I don't want to ever deal with you or the LIKES
of you.
The POLL shall continue "for a few more days" as I originally
intended. You only gave others an actual example of ONE of
those "discussants" in my "composite" sketch for the GENERAL
case. I hope the poll will help rec.scuba self-regulate the
behavior of its participants.
I hope this will be our last public or private encounter, Dave!
-- Bob.
Stranger
news:37AF5E...@clemson.edu...
<snip the fascinating story about Bob's verbal and electronic warfare with
Dave Scott>
Wow, Bob. So you did get yourself into another situation afterall.
Okay, whatever happened between you and Dave Scott, I hope it works out well
to the satisfaction of both sides. (you will never send another email to
him, he will never receive another email from you). Everybody wins.
Now, would you be kind enough as to stop sending emails to me as well? :-)
(I asked privately, now asking publicly. Is it okay with you? According to
your standards?)
When you initially sent a message to me, I thought "well, okay, why not
exchange some ideas". Apparently after a couple of emails you roll down to
statements like "It is beyond you", which may be insultive to some (small)
degree and makes your messages less pleasant to receive and to read.
Thanks for your kind consideration. It was nice talking to you (for a very
short while).
See you on the NG and not in the mailbox.
Take care.
Stevie Imlach
Fun?
Erm, I'll get back to you on that one!!!!!
Stevie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my homepage for loads of stuff about diving
drinking and some of the other niceties in life!!
http://www.fastted.demon.co.uk
NE333RO wrote in message <19990809133340...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
Stevie Imlach
Surely you guys have got better things to do than to phone each other
because of an argument in here!!!!
Maybe we should all adopt that tact!! It would mean that Jammers phone line
would be tied up permanently so he wouldn't be accessing the net!!!!
Talk about taking things too far!!!!!
Stevie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ky...@ibm.net
"Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" <RF...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>
> I hope this will be our last public or private encounter, Dave!
>
> -- Bob.
>
We agree OZ, on this one point. And "dear readers" I hope the full
"feesh" retreat is obvious to all.
Good safe diving to you bob.
your pal,
David C. Scott aka Dave Scott
Scott J. McFadden
<snip some really weird stuff>
Hey professor, why don't you tell Dave the name of the god damn travel agent
or, shut the Hell up?
Maybe some of the rest of us "OCN's"
would like to know.
This is Rec.scuba not Peyton Place.
--
SJM
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
>
> In article <37AF5E...@clemson.edu>,
> "Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" <RF...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I hope this will be our last public or private encounter, Dave!
> >
> > -- Bob.
> >
>
If "We agree" on "this one point", then why are you posting
your reply?? A bit faulty in your LOGIC perhaps, Dave?
> And "dear readers" I hope the full "feesh" retreat is
> obvious to all.
NOT if they read the post to which you replied, in which I
exposed your sleezy character, by citing YOUR OWN WORDS. ROTFL!
The readers in rec.scuba is not as DUMB as you THINK. I had
told you that before.
I repeat,
> > I hope this will be our last public or private encounter, Dave!
That means, if YOU agree, then just DON'T REPLY. And don't
reply, publicly or privately, to anything I post, thereafter.
> your pal,
>
> David C. Scott aka Dave Scott
Don't flatter yourself, Dave. ;-) Just be gone.
Goodbye, Dave!
-- Bob.
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
This one is a living proof of it, with a happy ending for ME,
because it's quickly resolved here and it is a small case study
of the mentality and STRANGE ways of some rec.scuba posters.
"Stranger" <stra...@geocities.com> wrote, in
Message-ID: <7oohoe$hq0$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>
>Now, would you be kind enough as to stop sending emails to me as well? :-)
>(I asked privately, now asking publicly. Is it okay with you? According to
>your standards?)
With PLEASURE.
Now let me insert some REALITY to go with Stranger's FICTION.
It all happened between 11:58 AM and 7:14 PM yesterday.
Stranger, quit WHINING. See the REALITY of YOU below.
>When you initially sent a message to me, I thought "well, okay, why not
>exchange some ideas".
That was my REPLY to Stranger's EMAIL below.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stranger 11:58 AM 8/9/99 -0400
Re: Matters of Netiquette, Ethiics, and Legality
>I just remember that a while ago you had a heated discussion
>with some member of this NG and that asshole went over the
>edge by tracing you down and making a few harassing phone
>calls to your home.
---------------------------------------------------------
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) 12:21 PM 8/9/99 -0400
Re: Matters of Netiquette, Ethiics, and Legality
My EMAIL reply to Stranger's EMAIL above.
---------------------------------------------------------
Stranger 03:26 PM 8/9/99 -0400
Re: Matters of Netiquette, Ethiics, and Legality
EMAIL reply from Stranger to me on a simple prompt to him:
>> You never rated Q1 or Q3. You may take a look and consider
>> if you wish. But you don't need to.
See Stranger's reply and my reply to him below (7:14 PM)
***********************************************************
This is what Stranger post NOW:
>Apparently after a couple of emails you roll down to
>statements like "It is beyond you", which may be insultive
>to some (small) degree and makes your messages less pleasant
>to receive and to read.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This was in my reply to the email above from which the
"It is beyond you" quote came:
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) 07:14 PM 8/9/99 -0400
Re: Matters of Netiquette, Ethiics, and Legality
>At 03:26 PM 8/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>> You never rated Q1 or Q3. You may take a look and consider
>>> if you wish. But you don't need to.
>>
>>I'll pass.
>
>That suffices without a response.
>>You see, I do have more important stuff to do in my life
>>(I do not mean to say that you do not), so I choose not to
>>waste my time on the subject I have no interest in whatsoever.
I thought his additional comment was rather uncalled for,
especially because he didn't have to reply and I had already
said "You many take a look ... But you don't need to."
That was why I replied to him:
>Just don't READ my postings, Stranger. YOu can read poster
>names, can't you? Use your filter. Killfile it.
Earlier Stranger had said this:
S>I did not remember Q2 (or Q whatever) exact context and was
S>too lazy to go back and reread it. So, I choose not to answer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That was why I said to him, PRIVATELY, in response to HIS email,
>You can't follow it. It's beyond you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now Stranger is crying to the PUBLIC, out of context of course,
Stranger> Apparently after a couple of emails you roll down
Stranger> to statements like "It is beyond you", which may
Stranger> be insultive
************************************************************
Stranger's feeling is easily hurt, forgetting what HE did
to invoked it. He now issued his ULTIMATUM, in EMAIL to me:
Stranger 01:47 AM 8/10/99 -0400
Re: Matters of Netiquette, Ethiics, and Legality
>Well, be gone from my maibox, you obnoxious prick.
>Consider it a formal warning NOT TO send me any personal email
>anylonger.Otherwise your mail will be considered unethical,
>illegal and a violation of the netiquette.
and ended it with
>Disclaimer:
> the above is a reply to rude email sent to me by Reef Fish,
> who initially invaded my mailbox uninvited.
Stranger, YOU sent me the email FIRST. I replied to it.
See the record above! Remember what you said about yourself
being "too lazy to go back and read it"?
------------------------------------------------------------
Not content with his private ULTIMATUM above, Stranger now
feels he had to play it to the PUBLIC, for his gratuitous
piece of nonsense and impertinence in the first place!
>Now, would you be kind enough as to stop sending emails to me as well? :-)
>(I asked privately, now asking publicly. Is it okay with you? According to
>your standards?)
with GREAT PLEASURE, Stranger.
REALITY is Stranger than FICTION. No question about it!
-- Bob.
ky...@ibm.net
"Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" <RF...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> The readers in rec.scuba is not as DUMB as you THINK. I had
> told you that before.
actually OZ, you expressed your contempt of divers, and said they were
dumb, in one of the many emails to me.
> I repeat,
>
> > > I hope this will be our last public or private encounter, Dave!
>
> That means, if YOU agree, then just DON'T REPLY. And don't
> reply, publicly or privately, to anything I post, thereafter.
or ah what, you will sue me?
The great and powerful OZ has spoken once again. don't you think you
have made a big enough ass out of yourself OZ.
>
> > your pal,
> >
> > David C. Scott aka Dave Scott
>
> Don't flatter yourself, Dave. ;-) Just be gone.
>
> Goodbye, Dave!
>
> -- Bob.
>
goodbye OZ, better get some more fuel oil for the smoke generators, and
OZ, your curtain is open just a crack for all to see the little
unstable man at the controls.(standing on a soapbox)
have a happy and productive life, good safe diving and somewhere over
the rainbow perhaps we shall meet in person. and this will be my last
response to you. as I think all expect, have your parting shot.
david c. scott "aka" dave scott
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
>
> Large Nassau Grouper wrote:
>
> <snip some really weird stuff>
>
> Hey professor, why don't you tell Dave the name of the god damn travel agent
> or, shut the Hell up?
Like yielding to a Black Mailer, Scott? No thanks.
You sound like one of Dave's OCN pals in Florida, eh?
Do you always ask for something as nicely as you do here?
I wrote in the Palau thread in question that if he had simply
ASKED after my first reply, I would have told him, and that
would have been the end of it.
Now go read the ENTIRE thread, and see why I didn't. I DON'T
answer anyone simply because if he demanded an answer for
HIS benefit after making three very rude and derogatory replies,
and THEN resorted to BLACK MAIL of disruption of my work and
profession.
Understand?
Forget about the name of the travel agency where he or you can
get the price I got! I'll give the answer ONLY to those who
I KNOW personally, or whomever I choose to tell, certainly NOT
to anybody as RUDE as you are in asking your question. I am not
anybody's travel consultant! I gladly share information with
decent readers and friends in ANY scuba forum, and I have shared
PLENTY; but not to rude creeps or OCNs, on demand by them.
> Maybe some of the rest of us "OCN's"
> would like to know.
You should have outgrown your OCN status. Jeez, you've been
oosting in rec.scuba for a little over a year now.
> This is Rec.scuba not Peyton Place.
I only visit rec.scuba, an only occasionally at that, for
precisely the reason that there are too many OCNs here,
like Dave Scott, Stranger, and now you, just within a week.
Is the latter where you dwell? ;-)
-- Bob.
Jack Sloan
"Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" wrote:
>
> ky...@ibm.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <37AF5E...@clemson.edu>,
> > "Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" <RF...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> > >
Scott J. McFadden
<snip>
>I wrote in the Palau thread in question that if he had simply
>ASKED after my first reply, I would have told him, and that
>would have been the end of it.
>
>Now go read the ENTIRE thread, and see why I didn't.
<snip>
Here's a helpful tip for you. If you don't want to tell someone, something, it
is best to remain silent.
--
SJM <out of this nutty thread/threads>
jammer six
<RF...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>€ REALITY is Stranger than FICTION. No question about it!
Hey, bob!
Shut UP, OKAY?
Lee Bell
> Here are the ACTIONS in question, usually at some time during
> an extended PUBLIC debate/flamewar between two discussants on
> some topic or some sub-topic within a thread:
>
> Q1. Discussant A chooses to terminate the public debate (for
> whatever reason), and replies to Discussant B via PRIVATE
> EMAIL instead, and publicly or privately invites Discussant
> Discussant B to do the same, if for no other reason than
> "saving bandwidth" on an exchange that was going nowhere.
a (1) polite
b (1) ethical
c (1) legal
> Q2. During the course of (Q1), Discussant B chooses to PHONE
> Discussant A at home (without asking or receiving prior
> permission to do so), instead of using email as requested,
> to continue his adverse role in the debate.
a (2-3) impolite to highly offensive depending on tone and content of call
b (2-3) unethical to highly unethical depending on tone and content of call
c (2-3) may not be illegal, but if sufficiently offensive, warrants attempt
at legal remedy.
> Q3. Discussant B threatens (via phone or email) Discussant
> A that he would bring (or had already brought, or both)
> the matter up to the EMPLOYER of Discussant A (a
> disruptive threat) even though Discussant A's PROFESSION
> or HIS EMPLOYER has nothing to do with the topic in
> question in the SCUBA discussion forum or whatever
> Discussant A does in recreation outside of his profession.
a (3) goes beyond impolite - surrenders all right to polite response -
invites consequences including public
ridicule and group censure
b (3) extremely unethical
c (3) almost certainly actionable to preclude repetition - potential
liability for actual and punative damages.
specifically prohibited in financial transactions and, if not
illegal in all respects, should be.
In response to Bob's conclusions:
> Q3
> c2. c3 if coupled with harassement and slanderous content
This is, of course a legal question, many of which apply only to specific
situations. There are situations, such as debt collection, where a call to
an employer is specifically prohibited and automatically actionable. In
such cases, the threat of such a call would most likely be considered
harassment and would also be actionable. While my opinions do not carry the
weight of law (in this situation), it is my firm opinion that anyone who
threatens to take an unrelated disagreement to a participant's employer or,
worse yet, actually does so deserves prompt and appropriate legal
punishment. Flogging sounds good to me.
Lee
lone ranger
>> A that he would bring (or had already brought, or both)
>> the matter up to the EMPLOYER of Discussant A (a
>> disruptive threat) even though Discussant A's PROFESSION
>> or HIS EMPLOYER has nothing to do with the topic in
>> question in the SCUBA discussion forum or whatever
>> Discussant A does in recreation outside of his profession.
Right around then would be a good time to call your local police department,
file a complaint and start the process of getting a restraining order.
There are some whacky people out there...
- L.R.
Steve Eley
>
> newsgroups sometimes do, and want to hear your opinion about them,
> with respect to (a) Netiquette, (b) ethics, and (c) legality.
For legality one would consult a lawyer. For ethics one would consult
oneself. Why the opinions of a random sample of newsgroup participants would
be considered to have any ethical or legal relevance whatsoever is beyond me.
For that matter, so is the implied supposition that this thread is anything
more than a pretense for publicizing and grandstanding on a relatively inane
private feud, which really has no bearing on nor general interest to
rec.scuba.
That's my opinion with respect to Netiquette. >8->
(BTW, I think you're misusing "discussant," since my dictionary says it refers
to one who takes part in a FORMAL discussion or symposium. This group could
be called many things, but "formal" isn't one.)
Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfe...@sff.net
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
>
> "Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" wrote:
> >
> > I have some GENERAL questions pertaining to what discussants in
> > newsgroups sometimes do, and want to hear your opinion about them,
> > with respect to (a) Netiquette, (b) ethics, and (c) legality.
>
> For legality one would consult a lawyer. For ethics one would consult
> oneself. Why the opinions of a random sample of newsgroup participants would
> be considered to have any ethical or legal relevance whatsoever is beyond me.
Your reply calls for CLARIFICATION of the nature of this poll.
You don't ask a mugger if his act of mugging is ethical. How would
an unethical (according to everyone else) person's opinion about
ethics (after consulting himself) help ANYBODY?
This is definitely NOT a "random sample". It is an UNSCIENTIFIC
OPINION POLL to solicit the opinion of those few (or many) who
may feel strongly about some of the issues involved, or may
simply wish to express their opinions or contribute to the poll.
It is a type of poll, as those conducted by reputable national
TV stations, as well as not so reputable TV talk shows. The main
difference is that this one allows a voter to make VERBAL
comments on his selection rather than making a toll call to
register just a "yes" or "no" vote. Also, voters cannot stuff
the ballot as easily. <g>
>For that matter, so is the implied supposition that this thread is anything
>more than a pretense for publicizing and grandstanding on a relatively inane
>private feud, which really has no bearing on nor general interest to
>rec.scuba.
You are absolutely WRONG about this. While the "trigger event"
was an actual case in which the issues were involved, the items
in the GENERAL case are ACTS that are used VERY often in newsgroups,
especially Question 1 about replying by email rather than posting
publicly. Questions 2 and 3 are COMPOSITES of many such actual
events, in which there are many actual cases where "Discussant A"
is someone else other than myself, and "Discussant B" are many
different people I have encountered in newsgroups.
I explained this in another follow-up posting for CLARIFICATION of
precisely this point -- to "Stanger" who wrongly thought I was
targeting some particular individual in the past.
>That's my opinion with respect to Netiquette. >8->
No, that's your opinion about many issues that have nothing
to do with Netiquette (for example, the notion of an opinion
poll, to mention just one).
>(BTW, I think you're misusing "discussant," since my dictionary says it refers
>to one who takes part in a FORMAL discussion or symposium. This group could
>be called many things, but "formal" isn't one.)
Nobody ever said this group enages in FORMAL discussions.
If your dictionary says the usage of the term "discussant" is limited
ONLY to a FORMAL discussion or syposium, then you should BURN IT.
What do you call a person who engages in an INFORMAL discussion?
The World Book Dictionary gives this one-liner definiton under
the word "discussant": "a person participating in a discussion."
Nothing about whether the discussion needs to be formal, as
commonsense dictates. Other dictionaries should ADMIT the same,
even if more comprehensive usages are included.
As I said before, until this poll closes, I'll post ONLY my
comments of CLARIFICATION about the "poll" itself, and not
comment on the actual votes/tally (or comments therein).
I'll leave this "toll booth" open for a few more days since it
has not been overwhelmed by voters, perhaps partly because
some have similar mistaken notions as you do.
>Have Fun,
> - Steve Eley
> sfe...@sff.net
-- Bob.
CMccar31
<RF...@clemson.edu> writes:
>It is a type of poll, as those conducted by reputable national
>TV stations,
A bit off topic, but which are the "Reputable" TV stations?
Charlie
Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)
Thanks for noticing my typo. I meant to say National TV NETWORKS.
ABC, CBS, NBC.
-- Bob.
CMccar31
<RF...@clemson.edu> writes:
> I meant to say National TV NETWORKS.
>ABC, CBS, NBC.
>
I was affraid you would name those. They lost their credibility with me when
they dropped and continue to ignore the CIA/cocaine investigation coverage (
See Cal.rep.Maxine Waters findings) for the Lewinski debacle.
Charlie
Gordon/Carol/Annie Gunn
----------
In article <37B030...@clemson.edu>, "Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)"
<RF...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>The readers in rec.scuba is not as DUMB as you THINK.
The readers in rec.scuba is DUM. ;^)
Gordon in Austin
I need a miracle every day