BS: Serious Ethical Question

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: GUEST,khandu
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 08:37 PM

Okay, dammit, that's enough! EVERYBODY OUTTA DA CAR!

khandu

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 01:16 AM

Just one more, please. I've come somewhat late to this thread.

I admit to finding some of the points of this discussion somewhat confusing. On two occassions, I stated in the forum that I was going to print, or had printed something out and was going to share it with people outside of the forum.

The first time, when I had only been a member for a week or two, I told Spaw that I had printed out some Paw and Cletus humor and was annoying my friends with it. The second time, I said that I was going to print out the "snog of the decade" thread I started and give it to my friend, Don, in whose honor I had launched it.

I have to admit that it never occured to me to ask first. On the other hand, no one said anything to me about it being not considered appropriate after I had done it either.

I do have a problem with people publishing things that are said in the forum without the permission of the poster, however. And when I started a thread to gather information for a research paper, I made it clear that I would only use information that was given freely and with the full knowlege that the information would be used for that purpose.

This sounds like an issue with a lot of grey, and not much black and white. I can't speak to the prayer circle part of it. I'm pretty careful about what personal information I post. If I care about how personal information might be used, I don't post it.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 02:40 AM

The issue raised and being discussed is an alteration of the issue that happened in the first place. If I posted that I had a puppy that needed a good home, please help, and said that all offers of help would be welcome, I would be mad to complain that you found me a taker from outside the Mudcat.

What the dialog going on is about is a practice that didn't occur. However, I guess I wouldn't mind getting involved in a long thread based on hypotheticals...IF only those with correctly qualified imaginations were allowed to contribute their hypothetical views...otherwise, well who knows what kind of bad vibes they might be bringing in -- bad imagination! It could discolor the whole conversation! Brrrrrrr.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 02:57 AM

Actually, Amos, the part of my post that addresses the subject of people publishing, or wanting to publish my postings without my permission did occur.

However, not with any of the people who are hypothetically being referred to in Micca's original post as far as I can tell.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 10:07 AM

It was my desire and MIcca's hope that this would stay out of the personal realm. But, as I have been named and implicated, I've decided to come forward.

Praise added me to her prayer circle email without any mention of it to me until I started to receive them. Curiously she did this after telling me her trust in me had been destroyed.

In each of those messages she very nicely asked people to let her know if they'd rather not receive them. Also, without ever contacting Spaw or me to ask, she copied and pasted almost my entire initial message on KarenSpaw to what I read to be a Christian-centric list, which also included a definitey Christian prayer asking that her group pray for the Mudcat to "fulfill God's purpose and glorify His name."

Here is what I wrote to her, by email:

"Susan, Please remove me from your list and, in future, please do NOT quote me in any of your requests. My requests are written for the Mudcat community, only. Thank you, kat"

I received back a very nasty reply. I would include it here because I don't think email is considered private like PM's but it really isn't worth it.

I was offended that my words and name were going out to people of whom I'd never heard. I was offended that what I read of prayer requests on her list were very and only Christian, and that she apparently was either portraying the Mudcat as a Christian site or trying to turn it into one.

I was offended at her reply to me. I contacted Micca because I did not want to get into a personal mudslinging match. Praise has been angry at me since last March when I made remarks on the FUG-A-Thon thread which she took personally and because I refuse to get into a debate with her about it or anything else.

Thanks, Micca for sticking you neck out and thanks to the rest of you for the interesting discussion.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 10:28 AM

kat, I too recieved the Prayer Circle email list in error but put that down to her trying to re-organise - just a simple mistake asfar asI am concerned.

This email does quote a post made by you in Mudcat and I have checked on its accuracy wich is fine. In this post, you say:

"Please join me, in your own way, in sending good thoughts, etc. to Karen and Pat for her swift and complete recovery. Thank you."

Praise was doing no more than what YOU asked for i.e. going about it in her way.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:14 AM

think about it folks......what would this look like as a news story on CNN?

"Woman has bike accident in Ohio, and dispute over how to send her good wishes for speedy recovery triggers acrimonious debate throughout the world"

over stated? Perhaps. It can be debated which act truly 'went over the line' as an appropriate way to deal with it all, but I AM sure that if EVERYONE had limited their public (that is, EVERYTHING but private PMs or email) remarks to personal, non-sectarian, non-'colored' good wishes, this would not be where it is.

ain't this about the umpty-eighth time we have gotten into this sort of tussle?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:25 AM

Carol. Kat:

You have both brought up parts of the story I wasn't aware of. Which says something about the thread here -- that it is the tip of an iceberg more implied that explicate.

I don't believe this whole flap was handled well from either end. Those of us who have convictions that lie well beyond the Christian model, whether Buddhist, pagan, or Muslim, would be better served by demonstrating the tranquility of our convictions.

Nasty emails are equally immature. and I am not trying to fault anyone, especially since the whole tale will never be known. Yeah, about the umpty-eighth time, Bill, if memory serves.

An' I thought raisin' teeens was a hassle! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:46 AM

"Those of us who have convictions that lie well beyond the Christian model, whether Buddhist, pagan, or Muslim, would be better served by demonstrating the tranquility of our convictions."

What is that supposed to mean Amos and why single out Christianity?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:50 AM

Just got caught up on this since my (supposed to be) joke post......and......

This has all been about PURLOINED PRAYERS??!!

Give me strength!

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:01 PM

Hi Group......."Eye of the Storm" just checking in here........................

So as not to beat a dead horse (PLEASE BILL...Don't run that picture again, I can't take it(:<))....Read my other two serious posts on this thread. The whole thing started long ago when I was sick and I don't think anyone meant to escalate to a war over messages of support, no matter what the source.

I will tell you that I found it hard to express my deep appreciation to everyone back then. No matter what the "religion" I knew that everyone cared and that was enough for me.....more than enough actually......and that's what these things are about....letting people know we care. Karen could not be more appreciative of the wonderful messages she (and I) have received in the past week. I would suggest that we change the "titles" to "Good Thoughts" or "Support" or something along those lines which I think is something the entire community can agree on..........In our own ways, we want to let friends in trouble know that we care and are supporting them.

AND, although we all know the net and blah, blah, yada, yada.........It seems obvious to me that most around here are interested in maintaining a common ethical courtesy with one another and the regulars might do well to at least contact and ask permission of the parties involved before going outside. I know that any outsider can do as they please, but I value the friendships and would not want to put anyone in a position of having to say, "Geez, Spaw/Pat, I wish you'd have talked to me before you did that." If that means there is a stricter set of guidelines for regulars/members than anyone else than so be it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Morticia
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:15 PM

It seems to me that the point, if I have a grasp on it, is an ethical one and simply stated goes something like..... if someone wants to use your words and your name in a forum outside the Mudcat, for whatever purpose, is it considered polite to ask first?. Not necessary, not legal, just polite. Seems to me Micca was not saying there are right or wrong answers here, just trawling for opinions.....and if I have read the thread properly, people seem divided on whether it's necessary or legal but only a few have addressed whether it's 'good manners'. Courtesy,IMHO, costs nothing,and what is what, by and large, this community is built on..... what can it hurt to ask?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:37 PM

Mr. Spaw - you have a very short memory. I refer to the thread you inflicted on me knowing I would be mortified. You didn't talk to me before that because you knew I would say "Don't you dare!" It's a good thing I love you.

This is one of those times when everyone is right and everyone is hurt. Praise believes she is being criticised for praying for Karen. Others think she should not have taken public information and made it more public even with the best of intentions. Plus there appears to be a real concern about "converting the 'Cat".

There also appears, to me at least, to be a sensitive underlying "Christian vs. whatever" theme. Be very careful. You are on dangerous ground. The issue Micca legitimitely brought up was the copying and use of quotes from the threads without express permission from the the author. It was triggered by Praise's use of Kat's quote for a prayer group BUT prayer/religion is not the issue. I am afraid that, in an attempt to defuse the "spat", people's beliefs are unintentionally being trivialized. And if I am wrong, tell me to shut up and go away. I'll leave the thread but not the Cafe.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:38 PM

Oh, Morticia, yore so incisive. You wrapped it up.

Jon, dinna fasch yourself. It was supposed to mean that if you have spiritual convictions and represent yourself as an embodiment of them, then you should act accordingly. And if I may say so you're bristling more than needed; the context regarding Christianity came from Kat's remarks about what happened.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:49 PM

Shall we go for two hundred?

The beliefs were -- it is clear from Kat's information -- a key element in the scrap; Micca's post left that part out altogether, but it was part of the real iceberg under the surface. As for trivializing beliefs, my apologies if anything I said created the notion that I meant to do so.

What I thought I was doing was trivializing immature conduct.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:56 PM

Naw Sins.....I was thinking of that myself, but I love you too......and I hope everyone else does.(:<))Say, aren't you supposed to be in Manchester?

Morty, you hit it nicely and that is what I was trying to say, but you nailed it far better and more succinctly.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:58 PM

I really like Catspaw's suggestion about the "Good Thoughts" or "Support" thread titles. It feels more universally inviting.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Matt_R
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 05:46 PM

I think Praise got it right. Mudcat IS become a black hole of negativity. I'd never thought I'd hear myself do it, but I miss MY old days of the Mudcat, where we had music and GOOD B.S. threads. Not it's all politics and garbage. I mean, we've already got THREE threads on the stupid English Reclamation of America thing. And the forum is loaded with threads about "What XXX do you hate?" and threads with everyone heartily agreeing about how stupid something is. Total Mudslide is what I call it. I'm hardly ever hear anymore. Time was, I used to read almost every thread. Now, I'm lucky if I read 2 or 3 a day. I guess I too will drift off into the realm of lurking former members who long for the Golden days.

May the Goddess of Mudcrap bless your asses.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Morticia
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 05:57 PM

Haven't seen you start a thread in some while Matt.....if you don't like what's here, add something you do like. And since when has honest debate been negative?Surely a putting forward of views in a reasonably good tempered and respectful manner is positive?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 06:01 PM

Wow, Mbo! You sure have cut yourself a new suit! Never thought i'd see the day when you saidf something like that! Well done, man!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 06:10 PM

Matt, I do believe those who talk about earlier days and that things were different but I have not noticed any significant changes in the time that I have been here.

Mudcat seems to me to follow a circular pattern and threads such as this are part of that pattern although I hadn't seen the ethical question brought up. It is a shame that this thread became more personal than it first appeared to be but that is just another part of Mudcat life and it will happen again and I will not stay silent where I feel someone is (indirectly at least) unfairly accused of being unethical - that matter should never have reached the forum or when posts can be interpereted as Christinas vs the rest which is another direction this thread appeared to be heading in.

As for thread content, I am not sure whether my own interest in MC varies or whether this is another part of a MC cycle but I go through weeks where I may read 75% of the threads and others where I may read 10% but I don't see that as being a problem and overall, I love Mudcat and I know that with a little give and take on all sides, all quarrels can blow over and be forgotten about.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Matt_R
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 06:16 PM

Oh yes, I forgot. Mudcat's decline in quality is MY problem. Just like my Philadelphia Phillies. In '93 they were an awesome team. Now they are basement rats. I suppose THAT's my problem as well. And believe me, I've tried to post about what I like here. But others neither like or care about it, so why bother anymore? Enjoy your flatulence limericks and songs about genitalia. I will seek out a friendlier sky.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Morticia
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 07:34 PM

So what did you do to the baseball/football team, then Matt?

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 08:09 PM

What -- YOU did that? Dang, Matt...you sure have grown some awesome powers since I last saw you!!! It musta been that post about "Phillies RULE" that did it. Sheesh, I am impressed!

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:35 PM

Jon:

"I would suggest part of your respect should include those within your own faith that may see matters differently to you and understand why."

Okay, say I do. What do I do differently, then? Should I tell people from religions different than my own not to pray for me, since there are people in my religion -- whom I disagree with strongly -- who think it's wrong for me to *let* people from another religion pray for me? I don't understand what exactly you want me to DO about this.

You asked a question ("where do you draw the line?") and I answered it, and all of a sudden I'm not respectful. Please clarify.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Matt_R
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:44 PM

I should have known I would be met with dumb humor and not seriousness.

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Amos
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM

Aw, Matt, it'll be okay. Things are missing compared to nine months ago, but you will recall there were many peoople nine months ago who were whining about the good old days of the Mudcat. It's kinda like a sandbox -- the traffic ebbs and flows and the fun level rises and falls, but they don't necessarily do so in phase. Cheer up, pal. And congratulations on your new hormones!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question
From: Noreen
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 01:50 PM

Please continue on BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2