| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
No. Because he SAID 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
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 as
it is a violation of his privacy when anyone uses his email address for
*anything* he didn't explicitly authorise. Even if he did want to be
unsubscribed (which he said he did) doing so was wrong. And that's what I
apologised for. That was the incorrectness.
> 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.
Have I said I did? Do you have reason to believe I do? Your whim or feeling
carries much less weight than what I say about my desire. Here, let me be
clear... I explicitly state that I don't consider it junk mail and that I
subscribed on purpose. Those two statements make it clear that my desire is
to receive it. NO amount of your reasoning can refute that.
Scott explicitly stated he considers it junk email and that he did not
subscribe on purpose. Those two statements (if they are true) make it clear
that his desire is not to receive it. No amount of your reasoning can refute
that either.
So either he lied or he didn't want to get it.
> Am I moral and/or justified in doing so?
Maybe. To do so is to violate my privacy, certainly.
> > 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?
Do you apologise to your children before you punish them? I do. I'm
sincerely sorry for the inconvenience my punishment causes them. Yet I still
punish them.
This is nothing like that.... except in the nature of sorrow and of the
distinction. I am sincerely sorry for violating Scott's privacy, but not for
the larger outcome that resulted, to wit, he's unsubbed from something he
previously said he does not want and did not subscribe to.
> Isn't that not an apology? What does your apology count for if not that you
> won't do it again?
There is a difference between expressing remorse and admitting fault and
averring not to do something again. I have expressed remorse, I have
admitted fault, but I have not vowed not to do it again.
To draw another example which, again, is nothing like this except in the
nature of the distinction here.... when the chicom MiG pilot harassed a
surveillance plane in international waters, causing a collision, his own
death, and the controlled emergency landing of the US plane, the US
expressed regret. The US was sincerely sorry that the incident happened. But
the US admitted no fault and did not promise that it would not happen again.
Yet an "apology" was given by the US and accepted by the Chinese.
I gave one. Scott hasn't accepted it. Rather he has escalated it, and he has
a point. What I did violates the spirit of the ToS and to deny it would be
intellectually dishonest.
No matter how big a liar he may be every day, it still doesn't give me a
pass.... I freely admit that it was a violation in spirit of the ToS.
Summing, I am completely satisfied that I in fact did give an apology, and
admitted fault. That is not the same as saying I won't do it again(1). That
is also completely independent of whether you agree or not. If you still
aren't getting the distinction you may want to review the definition of apology.
> > 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?
No. Not the right, merely the ability. Which is why I apologised for
violating his right of privacy, and would apologise again if I did it again.
1 - As I have said before, I admit "fault" such as it were, wrt customs forms.
I mark them gift when my customers ask me to (I got a Canadian order today,
in fact... a customer asked me to mark it gift after I explicitly asked...
"...[do] you want it marked as a gift on the customs form because you oppose
imposition of import duties or GST by your government, or [would] you'd
rather it were marked as merchandise?"
Note the explicitness of the reasons offered for the choices. Thanks, by the
way, for the discussion that caused me to crisp up the wording on that.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) And that's what made you think he didn't want it. (...) Sure it can. But only if my reasoning is faulty. Point being that people aren't necessarily rational. If I'm mentally retarted perhaps I'll come to that conclusion. And perhaps as such (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say that? Where? (...) Where did I say I wanted to unsubscribe? All junk mail is this “Unsolicited commercial mail”. Unsolicited means not asked for - it does (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Apology.
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
