PDA

View Full Version : Threats



Hiraghm
04-15-2003, 05:27 PM
I received the following email message a few minutes ago...


Quoted private email removed



It's difficult for me to follow just what kind of "name calling" I've allegedly committed, since there's no reference to specific statements I've made.
His assertions regarding the threat Iraq represents are wrong, of course, as evidenced by the huge caches of weapons, rockets and suicide bombs discovered hidden in such military bastions as schools and hospitals. Also note that missing among his list of despots, real and presumed, is Stalin.

The final comment of his message reveals that, regardless of whether or not I am capable of understanding anything other than bullying and brute force, he certainly understands the communicative value of bullying and brute force.

I've posted this here so that other members of the forum might have the opportunity to educate this person as to why such email communications are unacceptable.

Beamtracer
04-15-2003, 05:43 PM
Hiraghm, what was the point of posting this message publicly? Just to bring your flame war into a wider domain?

If someone starts sending you private messages you don't like, the best thing to do is to block that person from your private message box. You can do that in your preferences. You both hate each other, so dedicating this thread to that disagreement is not going to get anywhere.

So, Hiraghm, the appropriate thing to do is ignore that private message, and block any further private messages from that person. Don't throw fuel on it by posting it here for everyone to see.

I suggest that nobody should reply to the inflammatory personal insults in this thread. In fact this thread should be deleted.

Hiraghm
04-15-2003, 05:51 PM
What flame war, Beamtracer? I received this email, unsolicited. I do not communicate with people in this message board via email regarding anything other than Lightwave. This is a threatening letter, one which I take seriously. It's one thing to call me names; it's another to state that one wishes to cause me physical harm.

Let's just say I've chosen the more civilized way of dealing with this situation.

kenmac
04-15-2003, 06:42 PM
Ah Hiraghm,
Don't worry about it. It was probably from Susan Sarandon.
Ken Mac

Paul Lara
04-15-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Hiraghm
I've posted this here so that other members of the forum might have the opportunity to educate this person as to why such email communications are unacceptable.

...and I'm posting here to let you know that someone's private e-mail to you should remain private between the two of you. Please do not repeat this breach of etiquette on our forums.

Hiraghm
04-16-2003, 01:38 AM
Fine, then I'll remove my email address from my profile.
Newtek doesn't need to send me any more unsolicited advertisements, either.

Let's see.. it's proper etiquette to express a desire to assault someone via an UNSOLICITED email, but improper etiquette to violate a non-existant expectation of privacy? When an email message comes into my mailbox it's mine to do with as I choose.
You don't want to be made aware of the emails you have empowered the less stable members of your fora to send (again, unsolicited,) that's fine. Delete the thread, then.

But I notice you haven't done that.

Why do you suppose he sent it via email rather than spewing his hatred in the message board? Perhaps because he didn't want it known that he was expressing himself in such a ridiculous fashion? If posting his garbage makes him and others aware that they can't privately threaten me, then it's served its purpose, whether you approve or not.

Then again, perhaps you're chastizing me rather than him not because of etiquette, but because of politics...

Regardless, I knew better than to get involved in these discussions and yet I indulged myself, therefore the result is my own fault. That you choose to chastize me rather than the culprit is your shame, however.

Meaty
04-16-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Hiraghm
If posting his garbage makes him and others aware that they can't privately threaten me, then it's served its purpose, whether you approve or not.

Makes sense. Maybe Paul is dealing with that person just the same. Still, gotta love the keyboard tough guys... "why, if I was there, I sure show you a thing or two...." yeah... sure you would. LOL.

I would have thought that once someone made a threat of physical violence, forum and email etiquette would take a back seat. I was unaware that etiquette takes precedent over personal safety.

mattclary
04-16-2003, 07:53 AM
I'm with you Hiraghm.

mastermesh
04-16-2003, 08:10 AM
but I bet that this has something to do with some of the posts in the war thread...

mastermesh
04-16-2003, 08:15 AM
I don't know who this was from, or if the email address that you posted is right or not, but I can tell you that it is extrememly easy to falsify who an email is from. All that you need is an email program that allows you to send messages from your own computer, making your own computer into the mail server, bypassing your isp or normal mail server... then all you have to do is set up outlook express or similar mail agent to have a from line of whoever the heck that you want. I tested one or two programs like this before sending email to myself, and quickly found that I could email myself with a from line like [email protected], etc. I'm sure that spammers use this sort of technique all the time to make themselves look like somebody else, thus resulting in more spam since those getting spammed retaliate by doing similar type things to the email addresses that is in the from lines.

mattclary
04-16-2003, 08:30 AM
Rivercenter.org is in Columbus, Georgia; coincidentally the same location that Wyoming22 lists as his location.

Chuck
04-16-2003, 09:51 AM
Hi, Jim!

The reason that the forum allows the user the option of showing or hiding their email address is to allow them to choose complete privacy or to choose the expectation of contact from others on the forum. If you leave your email address public, then you are choosing to let others have the option to contact you privately. This is your choice, and if the result of your choice to leave your address available to the public has resulted in unhappiness for you, then by all means set the option to hide your address.

NewTek uses only opt-in lists to email our newsletters, and if you are on such a list but have changed your mind, by all means let us know and we'll certainly remove you from any such lists we may have you on. If you have not joined a list but have received email regarding your NewTek products because your email address is in our customer database, into which we do mailings from time to time, then you may certainly notify our customer services department to remove your email address from the database or to annotate regarding what communications you are willing or unwilling to receive.

The sanction against publicly posting private email is indeed long-standing netiquette, and we expect participants here to observe those rules. That said, the message you received is certainly inappropriate, and there are a variety of actions that you can consider with regard to it - but posting it publicly here is not one of them, nor posting publicly here any other private message you receive.

Matt
04-16-2003, 10:35 AM
this is why I haven't opened the war thread for years!

Hiraghm
04-16-2003, 01:27 PM
Chuck, thank you for your response.

When I registered with the new message board, I had thought that I had selected to block my email address. As I said in my email to Paul Lara, I don't talk to the people in this forum via email (there is one exception; about 6 or 8 months ago I did discuss forming a local user group with someone who's also from my area.)

Upon reflection, I did make an error by including the email address in the message; I grabbed the entire message without reviewing it, rather than cutting just the pertinent parts out. A small error, since it was the email address associated with his registered message board account. Upon further reflection, it seems I should have forwarded it to Paul Lara or Proton.

As for "netiquette", I've been on BBSes, message boards and chat rooms for 20 years. I had a magazine article relating to the subject published in 1989. I have never encountered a global standard of "netiquette". This may be a rule specific to this message board, I didn't read the rules when signing up, having already belonged to the old board and having joined so many over the years, each with similar but reasonable rule sets. Certainly this admonition against publishing threats is news to me. But I have encountered local prohibitions against threatening members of message boards via the message board, email, or even instant messenger.

In the future, should I receive advertisements from 'wares sites offering LW and related commercial plug-ins, or emails stating the intent to hack the Newtek site, or other information relating to potentially criminal or costly behavior against Newtek, I'll keep this netiquette rule in mind, and keep the email to myself. Sarcasm aside, does that seem reasonable to you?

I could have taken this email threat to the proper authorities; by posting it, I thought I had.

To the membership at large...

Back to the real issue. It is not proper in any venue to issue threats of physical or financial harm against other participants. The proper way... no forget proper, the most effective way to deal with someone whose views on a given subject anger or insult you to the point of physical violence is to study the subject and their comments and demonstrate why the arguments are false or worthy of derision. Two things to keep in mind; people are not 1 dimensional. While you may violentely disagree on one subject, even a fundamental one, there will be other subjects and arenas in which you agree, or at least would wish a civil dialog. And the other thing is, it's just an argument. This isn't the U.N., no one I've encountered here is a U.N. ambassador, a head of state, or an elected representative, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, arguing the more sensitive topics of religion or politics is not going to fix the world, or destroy it. The most influence you can hope to have is to get people to think differently than they currently do. And you're not going to do that by beating them up, either physically or verbally.

Mastermesh;
You're absolutely right, I could have made the email up. I didn't, but there's no way anyone can know that, which is probably the underlying reason behind rules against posting private messages.
As I said before, upon reflection I should have forwarded it to the moderators rather than posting it. If for no other reason than to avoid diverting attention from the real issue.

And thanks to everyone else who commented.

Rei
04-16-2003, 01:48 PM
I have read the board rules.

They are not consice when dealing with the content of the forum. It would be advisable to update them, and include points made so far, such as this, and reasons for banning people.

Rei

Beamtracer
04-16-2003, 05:22 PM
I agree with Chuck. The original private message was silly and stupid, but at the same time it shouldn't have been repeated here. Not simply because of rules, but because it was inflammatory.

Hiraghm, with respect, I don't believe that you really thought that the message poster would turn up on your doorstep and bash you up. If you did, then the police is where you should have gone.

No, I think the original private message, in the way it was worded, was an exercise in chest puffing.

Reposting that private message was only going to bring the flame into a wider audience, and I don't see the point of that.

Hiraghm, have you changed your forum preferences to block future private messages from this guy? If not I suggest you do. This is the best thing to do, then you don't have to hear from him ever again.

However, posting it on this forum is an invitation for him to counter your response, and then you'll get more of the same.

Matt
04-17-2003, 02:03 AM
I wanna know what it said now!!!

Chuck
04-17-2003, 09:11 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hiraghm

Upon further reflection, it seems I should have forwarded it to Paul Lara or Proton

Yes, forwarding the message to the moderators would have been appropriate.

As for "netiquette", I've been on BBSes, message boards and chat rooms for 20 years. I had a magazine article relating to the subject published in 1989. I have never encountered a global standard of "netiquette". This may be a rule specific to this message board, I didn't read the rules when signing up, having already belonged to the old board and having joined so many over the years, each with similar but reasonable rule sets.
Certainly this admonition against publishing threats is news to me.

As I very clearly stated the admonition is a general admonition against posting private messages to a public venue - your interpretation of of this as applying only to threats is not present in either my message or Paul's. This is certainly well known in the BBSes, forums, newsgroups, mailing lists I've frequented during the past 18 years, and I've written a netiquette article or two myself.


But I have encountered local prohibitions against threatening members of message boards via the message board, email, or even instant messenger.

Wyoming22's account has been removed and he has been advised that he is banned from this board.

In the future, should I receive advertisements from 'wares sites offering LW and related commercial plug-ins, or emails stating the intent to hack the Newtek site, or other information relating to potentially criminal or costly behavior against Newtek, I'll keep this netiquette rule in mind, and keep the email to myself. Sarcasm aside, does that seem reasonable to you?

There certainly are types of private messages that should be brought to the attention of appropriate authorities. I stated very clearly in my previous response: "...the message you received is certainly inappropriate, and there are a variety of actions that you can consider with regard to it - but posting it publicly here is not one of them, nor posting publicly here any other private message you receive."

I felt that was very clear about the limit of the issue being that only posting publicly was inappropriate, and that there were other appropriate options. And you've indicated in this response that you understand what those options are. I can only conclude that your purpose is punitive and sarcastic in this comment.

I could have taken this email threat to the proper authorities; by posting it, I thought I had.

Posting publicly was not appropriate, bringing it to the attention of the moderators privately is.

To the membership at large...

Back to the real issue. It is not proper in any venue to issue threats of physical or financial harm against other participants. The proper way... no forget proper, the most effective way to deal with someone whose views on a given subject anger or insult you to the point of physical violence is to study the subject and their comments and demonstrate why the arguments are false or worthy of derision. Two things to keep in mind; people are not 1 dimensional. While you may violentely disagree on one subject, even a fundamental one, there will be other subjects and arenas in which you agree, or at least would wish a civil dialog. And the other thing is, it's just an argument. This isn't the U.N., no one I've encountered here is a U.N. ambassador, a head of state, or an elected representative, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, arguing the more sensitive topics of religion or politics is not going to fix the world, or destroy it. The most influence you can hope to have is to get people to think differently than they currently do. And you're not going to do that by beating them up, either physically or verbally.

Jim, this is perhaps one of the most sensible paragraphs I've ever seen on any forum. The one point at which I would take issue is that I think derision needs to be removed from the equation - I think treating the persons or the ideas of others with contempt and derision is exactly what leads to excessive emotional reactions, and in the end violence. It is not part of civil discourse, and all discourse here on this forum should be civil.

Hiraghm
04-17-2003, 02:33 PM
Then let me rephrase it as "Certainly applying this admonition against publishing threats..."

I admit to having been out of the loop in recent years, could you please direct me to the authoritative body which establishes these rules of "netiquette"? I'm still unclear on whether you consider my action rude, or whether there is a specific statute I violated? Custom vs law, I suppose is the clarification I'm looking for. If you say it's a rule for this board, then it's not a "global standard", but a standard local to this board. Global standards of discourse can lead to a control of just what can be discussed anywhere, so it's a very dangerous precident, in my opinion.

I hope the ban isn't a permanent one. A stern letter explaining to wyoming22 why he shouldn't have emailed his final comment might have been sufficient, in my opinion. But I won't second-guess your judgement on the matter; I presented the email, what you did about it should be left to you. Should you decide to limit or lift the ban, I won't voice complaint.

In my sarcastic remark (which I concluded by saying, "sarcasm aside",) I hoped to explain how the situation looked to me. I saw nothing other than the final threat in the letter that couldn't appear on the message board. Thinking about whom might have been hurt or offended by his email being made public to the general membership, I came up with two people; he and I. It was easy enough to conclude that I wouldn't be hurt of offended by posting it, and as he expressed his desire for assault, I didn't feel a particular compulsion to worry about his feelings in the matter.


I think treating the persons or the ideas of others with contempt and derision is exactly what leads to excessive emotional reactions, and in the end violence

I agree, but that's not what I said...

...demonstrate why the arguments are false or worthy of derision.

Don't treat the arguments or the author with derision, but point out what about the arguments is worthy of derision. Don't say, "That's a stupid idea!", instead, reveal the flaws in the idea, and let him and those around him realise it's a stupid idea. I used to take a feckless pride in asserting, "I'm never wrong, because when I find out that I'm not right, I change my mind." By letting those with whom you argue discover their mistake on their own, you allow them to salvage their pride.

And yes, I know I often violate this myself. I try not to, but like everyone I get emotionally caught-up in the debate at times. And I don't take credit for this technique. About 13 years ago, Larry Phillips, Vic Wagner, Steve Ahlstrom were arguing with me in the Amigaforum of Compuserve about, of all things, the invasion of Japanese autos during the '70s. I was ranting on, condemning the Japanese, etc etc, and Larry let me go on, merely pointing out the inaccuracies and flaws in my conclusions, then asked one question, "So really you're mad at the Americans who bought the cars, not the Japanese who sold them?"... it made me pause and think about what I'd been arguing, and I realised he was right. My pride was salvaged, I no longer embraced a foolish, emotional argument. But I also learned what I've been going on about. Sun Tsu said that the acme of generalship was to subdue the enemy without fighting. I would paraphrase that for online discussions as "convince your opponent without arguing."

Knowing the path and walking the path are two different things, however. ;)

Anyway, I won't be posting any more emails without the email's author's permission.

Chuck
04-17-2003, 03:35 PM
By it's very nature, "netiquette" is custom and therefore defines "mannerly vs rude", though some venues have certainly codified the aspects of netiquette that they want to observe and in those places I guess they amount to statutes.

Apparently you haven't encountered something that I've encountered a lot of times over the years, and so has Paul - but that happens in human experience.

The way I've most commonly seen this expressed is in precisely this situation - someone took a private message public, without consulting the other participant in the private exchange, and the other folks in the venue then stated that taking a private discussion public without the express consent of both parties in the private discussion was a violation of net ethics. Primarily those discussions, as I recall, were in newsgroups, including in the admin hierarchy newsgroups, but I also remember some BBS sysops landing on folks with both feet for doing something like this, and other venues have been aware of it as well.

At any rate, it is something that will be observed on this board. I've no idea when, but I suppose it would be useful if I could get time to write something about our Forum rules and and etiquette more comprehensive than we've got, but on the other hand I also hate to get too detailed and restrictive, and sometimes it just leads to folks lawyering anyway - often better just to actively moderate and have folks know that if the moderator says don't, then don't.

If you don't mind Wyoming22 returning at some point, that's commendably forgiving. We'll think about it, particularly if he apologizes to you.