I didn't want to post this in the other thread for reasons which I'm sure you will understand.
I've never walked the exact same path as you or worn those shoes, but I've been down and am still going down a similar path and our shoes are at least the same color.
You are a wonderful human being and have a good soul. Don't believe anyone who may ever tell you any differently or take to heart any criticism of your post.
Those of us who know whereof you speak can and do understand - others never will until and unless they have to travel that same road.
posted on July 31, 2000 05:24:34 PM
Well said, jada...
Calamity spoke intemperately...so? She thought no one would know of whom she spoke. I've done the same. BFD. It was the moralistic posturing of Sgt.Mike that alerted the multitudes of the identity of her poor departed friend.
To blame Calamity for the revelation of the identity of her beloved friend is beyond the pale. She did her utmost not to. Sgt. Mike, of course, has no limits in his need to garner attention...or his desire simply to be noticed. His willingness to trumpet the identity (if indeed accurate) of those poor people...to prove some amorphous point...merely makes me sick.
posted on July 31, 2000 05:43:18 PM
Thank you Jada.
Thank you, all of the people who gave me support and some peace in the other thread. I did not intend to hurt anyone. Only to share my feelings with my online friends.
Unfortunately, it got locked before I could get back to it and I'm here early tonight.
I thought of this lady as a grandmother and was intensely loyal to her. If that offends someone then I'm sorry.
Pastorleon,
Thank you so much for your words. You will never know how much they helped me. Yes, I do consider myself a Christian but she was so much more of a Christian than I can ever hope to be. I keep going through the "Beatitudes" trying to figure out which one fits her the best. I think she has seen God.
Again, thank you one and all and especially you Jada for starting this thread.
posted on July 31, 2000 05:49:10 PM
That's bull. As Mike said repeatedly, the information about the involved people was and is widely known in the area. He revealed no news. He did show the posted material to others who have an interest to know of it.
When people talk about you, you may hope that your friends will tell you about it.
posted on July 31, 2000 06:01:30 PM
You're attack on Mike, Toke. You come a diddiboppin' in from time to time, usually after the fact, waving your finger of scorn in the face of all as if you're some high authority on all that's right. You just ain't the toke I once knew. That toke made smoke. Didn't wait for it to clear to dig at the wounded and eat of the dead.
Hope you are fully recovered from all the dental work. My wife just went through a bit of that too; I've been lucky so far, but vicariously I know it's rough.
calamity,
Sounds like you've been through hell for a while with friend's unhappy situation. It's perfectly normal to feel relief, just sorry that your recounting of the experience became so political. Hopefully, your days will continue to brighten.
posted on July 31, 2000 07:38:40 PMCalamity I'm sorry to see that your other thread was derailed and locked. It's a shame that Sgtmike chose to reveal the names. IMO, it would have been much kinder to you and to his friends if he had simply emailed you quietly with his concerns. Your motive for your post was clear to me, his was not.
I wish you peace and I consider you a wonderful cyberfriend - one of the best!
posted on July 31, 2000 08:09:52 PM
Oh, the really challenging part is trying to stay awake. LOL
Maybe I should just create a fictional version; I've noticed that's a popular pastime on the boards.
posted on July 31, 2000 09:36:46 PM
I completely understand calamity wanting to talk about her experience. It sounds like she is really a good person.
At the same time, it is NOT a good idea to give specifics about other people's lives. You just never know who you might hurt.
Living in a small town, I have learned never to say anything about anyone..I usually find out later that I'm talking to one of their relatives!
Calamity told what she believed to be the truth, but so often, we believe the version that we want to, because of loyalty. Until we actually have hard proof, it's better not to make any statements in public that are not verifiable facts.
Calamity, my condolences on your loss. Your friend was lucky to have had you around.
posted on July 31, 2000 09:51:10 PM
I will make this statement as brief as possible, but must avoid having brevity diminish my retort. Additionally, subsequent to the recent ruling, which appears to have come out of nowhere, AW personnel will be burning the midnight oil excising the AW archives of previous posts and dialogue now considered a TOS violation.
Allow me to seek information regarding what I believe are discrepancies, but feel free to reveal evidence that contradicts what I believe. If AW's rule governing such matters, as now in question, is clear and understood by all AW officials and employees, and all moderators have consistently, correspondingly, and impartially enforced the rule, let them (AW) say so.
Is it not true, that AW's Message Center rule(s) regarding the revealing of names, user ID, and locations is primarily intended to prohibit revealing the specific identity and location, and other personal information, of those registered with AW and d/b/a on online auction sites without the presence or express permission of the party to be revealed and/or discussed?
Is anyone ready to say at this moment, that here at AW there has never been an incident or repeated incidents where individuals or organizations not fitting the above user profile were discussed in a negative but covert manner, and another AW user or users the named the person(s) and/or general location, sometimes for the same defensive purpose?
Can anyone say there has never been an incident or repeated incidents, where persons and/or organizations not falling within the aforesaid guidelines, were fully named and specific locale(s) were given? If it has occurred, can you say that moderators have moderated all incidents and in the same manner as they have today?
Can anyone say that at no time have the first names of persons been posted without moderation, or if the use of first names did occur, moderators did not consider the act to not be revealing of a person's identity?
Can anyone say that at no time have the suspected or known locales of a person or organization being discussed ever been posted without moderation? Or if it did occur, moderators did not consider the act to not be revealing of a person's identity and/or location?
Since first names are not considered full and proper identification, unless a person has just one name, explain to me how first names specifically identified anyone? Especially when the first name are not the specific parties.
Explain to me how the naming of a city and state specifically identified anyone or any person's address?
What number of people does AW require to deem that "calam's release was revealing of identity and location; 1, 2, 3……? If more than X amount is required, the number should be listed in the TOS.
I assume since Pattaylor and others did not know who calam was demeaning, or the location of whom she was demeaning, or the church she was demeaning, neither did anyone else. Wrong! How did (we) know, if her story was not specifically revealing to (us)?
Apparently, it is considered TOS approved to name (full) names, specific locations, and other identifiers if the content of the post appears to be favorable of the identified person(s), or approved even though the content of the post is demeaning if the matter has been public record or justified in the court or in society, such as the OJ Simpson thread.
It appears that calam's defaming post was going to be acceptable until it was made apparent to her that there were people reading her post who knew who and where she was talking about. I suppose I need to submit the number of people who knew to AW to determine if the number qualifies for the censure to be applied to the right person.
Regardless of Pat's ruling, first name and the naming of general locations did not specifically identify anyone to those who did not already know, but it was enough to alert calam that there were people from the very area reading her post and knew who she was talking about, such as she did about the police officer from her area.
We see AW left (her) posts for all to read, including new readers, but removed any rebuttal that was meant to salvage and restore the reputation of those who calam is talking about.
You can lock the thread and you can suspend me, it won't reverse anything. I was not the only person who read the posts and knew the people and area she was talking about.
As for those who cannot identify with the matter due to distance or lack of informative information, your negative opinion is so noted but worthless to those who are quite pissed off. Do you think the area calam lives in is so remote there is only one telephone line available for Internet access and she has it?
I suppose it is alright to wrongfully defame a (good) family across the Internet (world) as long as (some) of you are not made aware the people and places are real.
calam, are you willing to state here, that everything you posted about your involvement, the family, the preacher, the church, the hospital, nurses, doctors, and the friends, is factual and that you know any respective information you received and restated, to be factual?
posted on July 31, 2000 10:17:38 PM
Mike, You were suggesting a public apology earlier. Wouldnt such an apology be considered an act of admission?
I know nothing about law, I only know they tell people not to admit to anything, be it car accident or murder accusations without benefit of counsel. Yet you ask Calamity, and you almost certainly do not have her interest in mind.
Same for asking her to state that what she said was absolute truth.
Know what? It looks like you are trying to try her here, all by yourself.
Kelly
[ edited by kitsch1 on Jul 31, 2000 10:19 PM ]
posted on July 31, 2000 10:27:57 PM
I have told Calamity how I felt and she has read the message. That was my only purpose in beginning this thread.
As far as I'm concerned, the Moderator on duty can lock this thread at their convenience. I fully realize that others may feel differently, but I can only speak for myself.
Thank you.
[ edited by jada on Jul 31, 2000 10:31 PM ]
No one has or is asking for an apology (yet). If calam can say that everything she has said in her posts regarding the matter is the truth and factual, and she knows she can prove the truth and the facts, in entirety, then she has nothing to apologize about.
Regardless some may be offended by the truth and facts, it (is) a person's right to reveal it as long as what is said is the truth and is factual.
If you know you spoke the truth and facts, then you should be able to stand behind everything you said with no hesitation.
posted on July 31, 2000 10:45:53 PMSgtmike Except that your post sounds like you're trying to back her into a corner. Her perception and yours may be two different things. I don't know how well you knew this family, but I do know that you chose to put their names out there for everyone who didn't know them to see. I'm still trying to figure out why you would do that?
Regardless of what you think, Calamity was obviously just expressing her pain and loss and her perception of it. Your reaction to her grief is to ask for proof - although you surely know that that is most likely unattainable - at least in a way that you could accept.
I'm trying to understand your point of view, but why did you list their names?
posted on July 31, 2000 11:03:24 PM
Mike, it wasn't a good idea to post the first names, town and state. It compounded the violation of the family's privacy created by the launching post in that thread. It's a very sorry business.
I hope the son and grandson of the deceased have good legal representation and an honorable individual looking after their considerable interests.
posted on July 31, 2000 11:14:03 PM
Allow me to clarify my position in this matter. It goes deeper then any of you know. Be assured my actions were not esteem or braggart based, and definitely not intended to be hateful.
Someone asked why I did not (just) email calam and discuss her post. That would have been foolish and a waste of time; an offline discussion would not have erased or publicly rebutted what had already been said. The damage had been done. What I had to say would have been too long for email and she could have deemed the message as threatening. Need I say more about that idea?
During the thread calam created regarding the accidental shooting by a police officer in her city, I learned that she, IMO, is reckless with information about people, and doesn't know when to cease. Therefore, I knew my mentioning of names and locales known to her would alert her that I do know what I am talking about and had the best chance of shutting her down before the thread went as far as her previous disclosures of a person and an incident she barely knew anything about, factually.
Two of the individuals from the area, one being from the family, are "under fire" compadres of mine. During many years together, we watched each other's back and saved each other's butt many times. That kind of protective relationship can never fade. Such interaction tends to bring about an adoption of each other's family, friends, city, etc, even though you may never meet any or all of the family or visit their hometown, or like them or the place.
Recently, one individual lost his mother, who lived in one of the cities, and three of her/his friends, also from the city, in a head-on vehicle accident coming back from an after church breakfast. The other friend has several near-death heart attacks and a major bypass. He gets very emotional.
Both friends are on service connected disabilities. They were not here at the moment, I was. I did not hesitate to protect their back. Krs and some others here can probably identify with what I have briefly described.
So, right or wrong, I choose to back my own in any manner I believe is expeditiously necessary, and damn the adverse opinions of some, and of AW.
