read this pm i just recieved

King Kuranes · #41 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 04:08 PM

I think I can refine this down to the phrase

Mad as a box of wasps

This sort of language breaches any possible justification. Its not even very witty.

nathanbforrest45 · #42 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

Is it the Liberals or Conservatives that want to stop what goes on in ones bedrooms, I forget? To hear you speak, nat, you'd think it was the Libs, but last I checked it was the Cons.

Also who was up in arms over the wire tapping, an invasion of privacy, it wasn't the Cons.

When it comes to issues of privacy, I'm thinking the STARR report here, I don't think the Cons can claim it.

The Cons don't know what privacy is, not the Libs. Get it right nat.

I can't believe this, I agree that the original PM was horrible and there was absolutely no excuse to send something like that and you take me to task for stating that liberals don't believe in keeping things quiet as thought that has any importance in this context what so ever. You are as bad as Sam for attacking me because of my post regarding Oregons making traditional trout streams off limits to fisherman. She never addressed the issue she just called me every thing but a white boy for using Oregon as the focus!!

oceanbreeze · #43 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 04:35 PM

where are fen and karen?

King Kuranes · #44 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyofmts

where are fen and karen?

fen and karen where are thee?

K
I
S
S
I
N
G

Eternal Footman · #45 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

That's beyond the pale. I underline the last sentence and that's pretty horrific. I've checked some of the posts from Karen and none rate that type of response. So her posting it was fine by me because what it said was not just an insult but the message of a sick individual.

Should that sort of message be private, no I don't think it does. In fact that type of message should be made public because it shows the type of person that fen is. I'd also point out that a PM may stand for Private Message, but there's no way of making it so.

EF, if you and I are friends and we PM and you "leak" my message the bond of trust in our friendship suffers and we may not call each other friend again. Fen and Karen weren't friends. In fact, in a more lawyerly circle, his PM could be construed as a threat. I mean closing with "I hope you get raped and die." isn't the type of thing I'd want to keep private if it was sent to me.

To finally answer your question, yes, I believe PM's can, but not should, be posted for all to see. Should implies an imperitive to do so, can means that either you or I can decide to post it.

But now it's time for your question, quid pro quo please, Do you think fen really expected something like that not to be confronted or posted for all to see even though he PM'd it?

Yes, I think fen expected confrontation, but not the actual material posted for all to see. If he/she wanted it posted he/she would have done so.

If you look at the posts leading up to the PM, fen's language did not in any way model that of the PM. When people go off with evil crap, like fen did, it discredits the poster. Karen knew this as well as fen. It is for this reason PM's are sent, to let the two can go at it, albeit electronically, without others seeing the less diplomatic side of a person, and thereby maintaining the respect needed for others to listen.

Personally I don't care for Karen nor do I fen, now that he/she has thrown down the rape card. Toxic vaginas are one thing, but a rape is no joking matter. Ending point, if you quote PM's, don't include sources.