ratty
I'm not special I'm limited edition
Wouldn't want you making any rash decisions on an empty stomach
Right. I'll be back in a bit. I have to go and 'contemplate' a minute.
Right. I'll be back in a bit. I have to go and 'contemplate' a minute.
I have read the rules from end to end.
It is all pretty much standard stuff, and there is no mention anywhere, directly or otherwise, that it is contrary to the letter or the spirit of the rules to publish part or all of a PM one has received, uninvited or otherwise.
The expression PM simply suggests that the SENDER chose to communicate with the RECEIVER in that way. Essentially, the sender has GIVEN the message to the receiver. From that moment the message is no longer in the sender's control. He gave it away, just like sending someone a letter in the post, or an email.
The sender MUST appreciate that once he has sent a message even as a PM, that PM is the property of the receiver, who may do what he pleases with it.
No member of any forum such as LZ, should ever be allowed to think he can send any message he likes, uninvited, to another member, with impunity. If that were to be the situation, then people could send strings of grossly abusive PMs, and no-one could do a thing about it.
Now then, as far as I am concerned, there is NO RULE to say one can't post part or all of a received PM into a post. In this case I was sent an uninvited PM that I found offensive, and I decided the best way to deal with it was NOT to engage in a PM battle, but rather to let everyone see what someone had sent me under the cowardly cover of a PM, instead of on the open forum where everyone could see it.
Moral:
If you don't want other people to read what you write, don't send it to the LZ forum at all, whether in a thread or as a "PM". The moment you send it, you have LOST CONTROL OF IT, and should not be surprised at what might happen next.
That's an end of the matter as far as I am concerned.
If anyone else cares to keep it going, don't blame me.
It is all pretty much standard stuff, and there is no mention anywhere, directly or otherwise, that it is contrary to the letter or the spirit of the rules to publish part or all of a PM one has received, uninvited or otherwise.
The expression PM simply suggests that the SENDER chose to communicate with the RECEIVER in that way. Essentially, the sender has GIVEN the message to the receiver. From that moment the message is no longer in the sender's control. He gave it away, just like sending someone a letter in the post, or an email.
The sender MUST appreciate that once he has sent a message even as a PM, that PM is the property of the receiver, who may do what he pleases with it.
No member of any forum such as LZ, should ever be allowed to think he can send any message he likes, uninvited, to another member, with impunity. If that were to be the situation, then people could send strings of grossly abusive PMs, and no-one could do a thing about it.
Now then, as far as I am concerned, there is NO RULE to say one can't post part or all of a received PM into a post. In this case I was sent an uninvited PM that I found offensive, and I decided the best way to deal with it was NOT to engage in a PM battle, but rather to let everyone see what someone had sent me under the cowardly cover of a PM, instead of on the open forum where everyone could see it.
Moral:
If you don't want other people to read what you write, don't send it to the LZ forum at all, whether in a thread or as a "PM". The moment you send it, you have LOST CONTROL OF IT, and should not be surprised at what might happen next.
That's an end of the matter as far as I am concerned.
If anyone else cares to keep it going, don't blame me.
Last edited:
Charlesy
I cant believe how obtuse you are being....
You have been here since 2006, you were here when we had all the "upset"! I cannot believe that you didnt know about the PM thing and anyway the above post by Ratty quite clearly states that the rule about PM's was introduced by Accy. Irrespective of your feelings on the matter, that is a directive by one of the owners. Ignore it at your peril.
I repeat, you are either completely stoopid (which I dont believe), are suffering from EOD or are spoiling to be banned.
Although I have no input on decisions on this forum (well - no more than anyone else...) I am sure you will be banned if you dont stop this futile argument.
BACK OFF! You are too knowledgable to chuck it away.
I cant believe how obtuse you are being....
You have been here since 2006, you were here when we had all the "upset"! I cannot believe that you didnt know about the PM thing and anyway the above post by Ratty quite clearly states that the rule about PM's was introduced by Accy. Irrespective of your feelings on the matter, that is a directive by one of the owners. Ignore it at your peril.
I repeat, you are either completely stoopid (which I dont believe), are suffering from EOD or are spoiling to be banned.
Although I have no input on decisions on this forum (well - no more than anyone else...) I am sure you will be banned if you dont stop this futile argument.
BACK OFF! You are too knowledgable to chuck it away.
I have not been here long, but can see there are some contentions as to what advice is pertinent.
Seeing as my post appears to have become a battle ground for some, I would like to clarify my own thoughts.
I have been grateful for ALL the advice given and taken that advice as it is, at face value.
I am grateful and comprehend the position from which the advice is given even when on the face of it it conflicts with that of others.
I get the feeling much is lost in words especially what is written and what is intended or meant doesn't come accross, I hope you can work that out for yourselves.
Re Rules I couldn't resist…having a personal interest in Law and legality.
For a rule to be cogent and fair it must be openly and prominantly listed (in a list of rules), if not it cannot be expected that it be abided by.
Should you find you need a new rule then it must be added to the afore mentioned list else it fails to be a rule. More importantly it ought to have the consent of the people who are expected to abide by it... if not you can expect them to move on, this may or may not be desirable.
For the most part I believe Charles is correct in his post No 102 this thread.
I have no Bias or affiliation.
Anything posted/sent/imparted by whatever media or means that is not contractually protected between the proposed sender and the proposed receiver PRIOR to transmission must be considered public domain.
This is not that same as discretion or considerations of the moral or ethical as they are subjective and personal, one may or may not object but that is personal opinion.
Rules based on these positions are on unsound ground to begin with.
Again I am grateful for all the advice; my truck is for the moment working and the pointers I have taken from here I believe have been instrumental in that.
Regards to ALL
DJB
Seeing as my post appears to have become a battle ground for some, I would like to clarify my own thoughts.
I have been grateful for ALL the advice given and taken that advice as it is, at face value.
I am grateful and comprehend the position from which the advice is given even when on the face of it it conflicts with that of others.
I get the feeling much is lost in words especially what is written and what is intended or meant doesn't come accross, I hope you can work that out for yourselves.
Re Rules I couldn't resist…having a personal interest in Law and legality.
For a rule to be cogent and fair it must be openly and prominantly listed (in a list of rules), if not it cannot be expected that it be abided by.
Should you find you need a new rule then it must be added to the afore mentioned list else it fails to be a rule. More importantly it ought to have the consent of the people who are expected to abide by it... if not you can expect them to move on, this may or may not be desirable.
For the most part I believe Charles is correct in his post No 102 this thread.
I have no Bias or affiliation.
Anything posted/sent/imparted by whatever media or means that is not contractually protected between the proposed sender and the proposed receiver PRIOR to transmission must be considered public domain.
This is not that same as discretion or considerations of the moral or ethical as they are subjective and personal, one may or may not object but that is personal opinion.
Rules based on these positions are on unsound ground to begin with.
Again I am grateful for all the advice; my truck is for the moment working and the pointers I have taken from here I believe have been instrumental in that.
Regards to ALL
DJB
I think yu might have overlooked one minor, but significant point. We are all here at the discretion of the owners. There is no "contract" as such, and he whos hand hovers over the big red button, weilds the power. If Accy or Roy sez "do not publish PMs" then yu either dont, or risk being banned.
Respectfully I didn't overlook anything, you are correct it’s there site and they can do what they wish with it.
And for the record there is absolutely a "contract" big red button or not. If you agree not to disclose something that is passed to you and then you subsequently disclose it you have breached the contract and are then liable to make reparation or forfeit certain rights.
If you have not agreed to, in this case a non-disclosure agreement/contract, then you by default lose control of the subject matter and content by default. And no matter how affronted you are, you just have to man up, grow a pair and suck it up and learn the life lesson.
All I am saying is the owners who so kindly provide this forum have a duty to all the forum users to keep things clear open and simple and the most important thing is the rules by which they expect all to abide by...
Posting in mid thread that XYZ is no longer permitted is not acceptable and is now a forum rule is in itself not acceptable, fair or open and is wholly disingenuous as anyone who comes reads the forum rules and agrees to them, cannot then be expected to know about this new additional rule if it is not contained in the body of the forum rules.
I for instance would not have known the new rule existed if I had not read the thread.
QED
You don’t have to agree with or like the observation, it just stands as a fact as is. This is what I meant when I said about, discretion or considerations of the moral or ethical as they are subjective and personal, one may or may not object.
Anyhow I digress at the risk of hijacking my own thread... so I shan’t discuss this further as it will be highly emotional/emotive for some and extremely subjective...so discretion being the better part of valour I have had my tuppence and shall say no more.
Regards
D
And for the record there is absolutely a "contract" big red button or not. If you agree not to disclose something that is passed to you and then you subsequently disclose it you have breached the contract and are then liable to make reparation or forfeit certain rights.
If you have not agreed to, in this case a non-disclosure agreement/contract, then you by default lose control of the subject matter and content by default. And no matter how affronted you are, you just have to man up, grow a pair and suck it up and learn the life lesson.
All I am saying is the owners who so kindly provide this forum have a duty to all the forum users to keep things clear open and simple and the most important thing is the rules by which they expect all to abide by...
Posting in mid thread that XYZ is no longer permitted is not acceptable and is now a forum rule is in itself not acceptable, fair or open and is wholly disingenuous as anyone who comes reads the forum rules and agrees to them, cannot then be expected to know about this new additional rule if it is not contained in the body of the forum rules.
I for instance would not have known the new rule existed if I had not read the thread.
QED
You don’t have to agree with or like the observation, it just stands as a fact as is. This is what I meant when I said about, discretion or considerations of the moral or ethical as they are subjective and personal, one may or may not object.
Anyhow I digress at the risk of hijacking my own thread... so I shan’t discuss this further as it will be highly emotional/emotive for some and extremely subjective...so discretion being the better part of valour I have had my tuppence and shall say no more.
Regards
D
Last edited:
jamesmartin
Well-Known Member
when it comes to cowardly ,i think charlsey you need to look to your self ,you were the one that during several threads started to have a go at me you chose to pick that time and one of the worst threads against me to attempt to stir the **** and have a go yourself it seemed you wernt brave enough on your own ,perhaps you thought i was weak enough ,that smacks to me as a weak, small minded and pathetic ,something best left at primary school
I regret to say I have no handbags.
However, I do happen to have a fair collection of fancy hats.
I will be happy to lend one to the loser.
jamesmartin
Well-Known Member
well at least it will fit you , be far too big for me to wear
ooooooooo
did someone mention hats?
did someone mention hats?
well at least it will fit you , be far too big for me to wear
Brain size is in direct proportion to head size James.
50 pence
New Member
What I see hear Charlsey, is that you cannot leave a thread without having the LAST word.
If you,re on fire, dont throw petrol over yourself,,,,,IT,LL MAKE IT WORSE !!!.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh with the, " head, arse, prick " thing yesterday and could have chosen more suitable words.
Right or wrong, cant you just take it on the chin, and go back to spreading the love ?!.
Del.
If you,re on fire, dont throw petrol over yourself,,,,,IT,LL MAKE IT WORSE !!!.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh with the, " head, arse, prick " thing yesterday and could have chosen more suitable words.
Right or wrong, cant you just take it on the chin, and go back to spreading the love ?!.
Del.
Mention that to James.
He's the boy who likes to make the smart comments!
He sent
well at least it will fit you , be far too big for me to wear
after I had made it clear it was done and dusted as far as I was concerned.
All I did was to note correctly that . . ..
"Brain size is in direct proportion to head size James."
What James infers from that is up to him, but I imply nothing.
However, as the whole thing doesn't matter a toss, and from start to finish LZ is only a bit of helpful fun, what's the problem?
Anyway, I have been called a lot worse than the, " head, arse, prick " thing, and you might even have been right. I have no problem with that, but reserve the right to fire some suitable words back!
Clearly you and I retain our senses of proportion.
Others don't seem to be able to grasp the reality of it all.
Mad ones?
