| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > > I sincerely believed I did you a service by removing you from a list you
> > > stated you did not wish to be on which was sending you material you stated
> > > you did not wish to get. Or were those statements of yours lies? If so,
> > > again, I apologise.
> >
> > What's this? Relative morality? Judgement by intent? Your intentions were
> > good so you're AOK? (sorry, couldn't resist)
>
> No, judge the outcome. He said it was junk. He said he didn't subscribe to
> it. He said he didn't want it. I acted based on that. I acted to ensure he
> wouldn't get something he said he didn't want.
Yes you did. You acted because you *thought* that he didn't want it. And now
you apologized. Which is *supposed* to mean that you agree that in
retrospect, your action was incorrect in some way. Assumedly because you
understand in hindsight that either:
- Scott didn't want you to unsubscribe him
- Scott just plain didn't want to be unsubscribed
Either way, how should we judge your action? Were you moral and/or justified
to do it? Why or why not? Let's say I think *you* want to be/should be
unsubscribed to the same list. Am I moral and/or justified in doing so? Even
if I find out later that I was wrong? What if I never find out I was wrong,
but was anyway?
> Maybe in his case it's OK to lie? I dunno.
Why does it matter? What gave you the authority to unsubscribe him? I'd hope
the only thing that *would* matter is if he lied and specifically told you
he wanted you to do so. And he didn't to the best of my knowledge.
> I'm prepared to be ToSsed over it as what I did was against the spirit of
> the ToS. But *that* won't prevent me from unsubbing him if he lies again.
Who are you to determine "lie" versus "alternate definition"? Again, I have
to ask, why did you apologize if you're just gonna do it again next time?
Isn't that not an apology? What does your apology count for if not that you
won't do it again?
> What *will* prevent me is if the LP implements a confirmation email
> system... which I mailed them about today, strongly suggesting that they do.
Was MM similarly justified in making use of the fact that Lugnet didn't
authenticate? Just because the system is vulnerable, does that give you the
right to abuse it?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) No. Because he SAID he didn't want it. (...) Actually, I apologised for neither of these reasons. I apologised because in hindsight it was a violation of his privacy to unsubscribe him, even if he *wanted* it done, which he said he did, just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) No, judge the outcome. He said it was junk. He said he didn't subscribe to it. He said he didn't want it. I acted based on that. I acted to ensure he wouldn't get something he said he didn't want. The *outcome* is he's not getting it any more, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
