When you post personal information on this board you are opening yourself up to a variety of situations. I have been amazed and apalled at some of the stuff that people post about their personal lives. There’s no way I could attend a dopefest and face people if I had posted some of the things I’ve seen. But then this board is a place for sharing and hopefully bringing insight to others. I am also amazed at the memory of some of the dopers on personal issues posted by others. I’m very careful about what I post on my personal life. Knowing that what I post is open for any kind of remarks once that submit button is hit, I also try to determine how the post will be perceived by others.
I have often warned other posters to beware of how much personal information they post.
Let’s accept it, if it’s posted on the board it’s open game and people should realize that. But a person should also be able to determine how much he/she wants to share and cut it off after that point with no qualms.
My pet peeve, and what truly upsets me, is when posters come on the board and post personal information about someone else’s life. That to me is totally uncalled for and would royally piss me off if I thought someone I knew had done that to me. A real friend would never do that to anyone.
In light of this principle, what do you think of the complaints of this guy?
From the point of view of common sense, someone who is in position (B) but is hugely publically critical of people in position (B) - should be expected to explain the circumstances about themself being in position (B) and why they have the right to cast stones at others.
So if you have a kid because you were raped, but are extremely vocally against single mothers, then it’s on your head to defend yourself by being honest about your background.
So if you are divorced but openly abhor divorce, either shut the fuck up or let people know that you were forcibly divorced by your former spouse, or were wife-beaten within an inch of your life, or whatever.
Otherwise expect to get ripped to shit.
I think he’s perfectly justified in complaining about a vicious, unwarranted assumption made in the absence of the facts.
Like I said, Izzy…
Fair game! 
Fair game, until he asks you to back off, which you did.
If that’s the rule, what’s your take on the OP’s linked thread?
Ace, you didn’t ask me, but IMHO it’s a fair question asked unfairly – given that three posters have taken stances calling for others to live their lives in strict adherence to Bible strictures taken literally, how do they justify their own apparent violation of other Bible strictures read literally?
You have no obligation to give your views on spinach, but if you insist that I eat my spinach and have said you don’t like green vegetables and won’t eat them, am I not justified in considering spinach a green vegetable and asking why you think the nutrition rule applies to me and not to you?
That said, the tone, content, and context of the thread you refer to make it an attack on those three people, not a legitimate request for clarification on how they resolve that apparent contradiction.
Does that make sense?
Sure – except for the part where J_C and J_D were made to answer for His4ever, the part where J_C and J_D never condemned individuals in order to change their lives, the part where posters attempted to root through thier lives, the part where assumptive attacks were made, and the part where it was in general as you put it a “necktie party.”
Except for those little items, I agree that it was competely kosher, much like I might inquire “so, do you like spinach?”
I do not like spinach . At all.:mad:
NOT that its any of your business…
Ace, did you even read Poly’s post? Try the first paragraph.
And Izzy, I’m not sure if I should thank you or not for providing an excellent example of what I’m talking about - going back into the records and pulling personal information to use against someone. FTR, that entire situation was one of the experiences where I learned exactly how much personal information I’m willing to give - and it was a painful lesson at that, especially considering the way some people wielded it against me (as in the example you provided, by your own hand at that).
This is part of what I’m asking here - sharing personal information is one thing; using it against people is one thing; and posting contradictory information is one thing. Where do they meet?
I will also reiterate that I feel the tone of the linked thread in my OP is over the line, but that the spirit is valid when someone is being called out on their evident hypocrisy.
Esprix
Read this very carefully, Ace; there’ll be a test later.
I think the attack on Joe, Jersey, and His was over the top.
Nonetheless, they each have, at different times, volunteered the information that “God hates homosexuality” with the apposite Biblical quote(s). At least two out of the three, and I believe all three, have indicated that their view is that they must stand by what the Bible says, because their faith demands it, regardless of whether it may cause pain to others.
His4Ever happened to post with regard to her three marriages, and why she left the first two. Jersey has more than once mentioned her child and I believe has also mentioned a previous marriage (the last fact I’m not sure of, and am merely stating a foggy memory and making it clear that that is all it is).
The OP of the linked thread cites a prohibition on most divorces, and implies one on remarriage after divorce, in the words of the person that all three of them and I myself take as Lord of our lives.
All three of them are married, His4Ever to a husband who is AFAIK not a member here, and Joe and Jersey to each other (engaged when the question came up, very recently married).
That being the case, it would have been a legitimate question to ask each of them how they reconcile the apparent discrepancy between (a) the dichotomy between Jesus’s command quoted and what they’ve chosen for their own lives, and (b) their stance that others need to either follow God’s commands regardless of the situation in their own lives, or expect to face His Wrath.
It’s a fair question: why is sauce for the goose not legitimate sauce for the gander?
It was asked in an attack mode. Joe has made it clear that whatever the answer may be, he’s not prepared to post it on open board, especially with the degree of hostility that their statements have raised.
They have the right not to post personal information if they so choose.
Others have the right to question the apparent contradiction between their evident expectations of others and their own decisions, and to suspect them of hypocrisy in failing to follow the rules they expect others to follow – this was the sin for which Jesus condemned many of the Pharisees, in the selfsame Book that those two commandments come from.
I agree that it was a necktie party. What I’m saying is that it need not have been, and that, tone to one side, the question was a legitimate one to ask. I’m hoping one of the three of them will describe how they would see it as resolvable, in abstract terms, without violating Jersey’s privacy.
Now, just precisely what point did you have, here, anyway?
Not sure what you mean - are you calling the quoting of an old post “pulling personal information”?
Which is fine. Live and learn. But the position you are advocating here seems to be that if someone does NOT shield this information, it is fair game. This was not your position when the shoe was on the other foot.
Well you’ve asked, but you’ve also taken a position, as per your quote above.
And as I said, that was the situation where I learned my own lesson, and I’ve said it before - If you post it, they will respond. I’m trying to impart that on others wherever I can.
And, also as I’ve said, using personal information as a weapon is one thing; using personal information already volunteered to back up a position in an argument is another thing. In the example you linked to, you managed to do both (albeit unintentionally) - you were using something I had already mentioned to prove your point, but at the same time managed to pour about three pounds of salt into an open wound (and yes, I grant that it was information I shared, and you referencing that information was, in the abstract, perfectly valid - it just came off as just plain hurtful).
Esprix
It’s important to be aware that certain skilled individuals have a way of extracting personal info from other posters by cornering them, as well as deducing a whole lot about someone’s life by things they have posted.
One favorite troll tactic I have observed is to repeatedly tell a poster that his stance has no validity unless he backs it up with some “facts”: One message board on which I posted had a poster who slammed 12-step programs (which I can’t blame him for, but that’s another topic). Certain trolls came along, hammering him and ridiculing him, repeatedly saying things like, “Well, if you could back your assertions up with some personal experience, your posts might gain some credibility. Otherwise they are just rants.” They were obviously trying to get this person to “confess” to some drug (or whatever) problem, so that they could use it against them later.
Sometimes people get so impassioned about making a point, they trot out personal info in order to “prove” that they know what they are talking about. And then, much later, in another topic, out of context, it will be barfed up at them by those who seek to discredit them.
Everyone should take a deep breath before they post and think about what can possibly be deduced from the post. Especially if you know you might have “enemies” on the boards.
I am aware of this. But again, what we are discussing here - unless I’ve misunderstood the thrust of your OP - is not what people will do (in the absence of such discretion), but what they should do.
Exactly. As it might to other people in similar circumstances. But you seem to think in other cases such referencing is fine.
Izzy, my take on that point would be that it’s morally incumbent on the decent poster to avoid creating situations of hurtfulness to other posters, regardless of what disagreements they might be currently involved in – but that it’s also incumbent on the poster whose past indiscretions have been dredged up not to take offense at what he voluntarily made public, regardless of where the chickens have ended up roosting.
What would your opinion be on this point?
I would add to Poly’s post that if a person posts information that directly contradicts what they post elsewhere, particularly if one of those posts is to degrade, defame or otherwise malign or hurt others, then it seems most appropriate to bring up the contradiction. In the link in the OP, it’s a question of touting Biblical literalism as an argument against homosexuality, and then go against that same literalism by committing adultery. In the link you provided, it was using your knowledge of a personal situation of mine to prove your point. In both cases, the personal nature of the reference caused hurt; at the same time, both were used to make a point relevant to the topic at hand.
Esprix
I agree with the first point, though I’d note that it can be hard to know what exactly people will be sensitive about. As for the second, I would say it depends on what the context was. If a legitimate point was being made, I’d agree with you. (Whether “so-and-so is a hypocrite” is a legitimate point is a judgement call, I guess).
My previous post was directed to Polycarp.
More to illustrate than prove, actually. I could have made the same point without it, and should have. (nitpick)
At any rate, we agree then, that the fact that someone has posted personal information on a public message board does not make them fair game.