(April 5, 2012 at 5:06 am)Tiberius Wrote:(April 5, 2012 at 4:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Shell posting a pm and using it against a person is pretty objective evidence to me.
a. She had no business using a private correspondance to fuel a historic argument of her own
b. She was out of order posting it without permission
a. She did have business using it. Aleialoura was being a hypocrite, and the PM was the proof of that. You can't claim someone is being mean and "unbecoming" when you yourself have sent a horrible PM complaining about that same person. It's hypocritical, hence Shell felt the need to post it. Aleialoura has a history of doing this; either misrepresenting Shell's views or outright lying about them. I've said this to the staff, and I'll said it here publicly: what Shell did was admirable; she stood up to a lying, attention-seeking internet bully.
Alei said she wouldn't, not that she was. Shell quoted a recent PM as far as I know, not one since that statement, as it had only just been made.
Shell deliberately used a private correspondance between Alei and what Alei thought was an independant ally in LMA who was suffering similar attacks to herself that Shell had been inflicting on her. More reserved than the outright slagging off that Shell issued after this new information granted (and I believe Shell apologised for that outburst), but obvious attacks to me.
Alei has stated her opinion and kudos to her, chooses to step back from it.
So the 'proof' isn't proof.
Sure Alei was/is hurting. Alei was reigning it in publically, but not privately. Surely you don't demand control of our thoughts?
No... what is private is not also public, which is where common decency steps in. Shell showed disregard for private space and violated Alei's by posting her private thoughts.
There was nothing admirable about what Shell did. It was shameful. Shell is the one with the slight power in this situation. The oness is upon her here to show more responsibility. At the moment the ball is on the other foot.
(April 5, 2012 at 5:06 am)Tiberius Wrote:Quote:Still I'm fascinated by your public free speech idealism and your opposing private views. I'd love for you to go into that further sometime.
It's really quite simple. You are entitled to free speech in any public space. You are entitled to free speech in any private space too. However, the owner of said private space also has the right to kick you out for any reason he/she deems appropriate, and that includes not liking the things you are saying. It's not that different to what we currently have. I can call you a "bastard" in the street and nothing will happen. If I call you a "bastard" in your own home, you can demand that I leave, and I would legally be required to.
That's our law as it stands yes. But that doesn't explain your own reasoning... unless you're saying you're position is completely law based. (Forgive me if I got that wrong)
