| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
Where did I say that? Where?
>
> > 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,
Where did I say that? Where?
> 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)
Where did I say that? Where?
> 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.
Where did I say I wanted to unsubscribe? All junk mail is this “Unsolicited
commercial mail”. Unsolicited means not asked for - it does not mean not wanted.
>
> So either he lied or he didn't want to get it.
Where is that "lie"?
>
> > 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.
Where did I say that? Where?
>
> > 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.
I escalated nothing. This situation is entirely your making, and is
systematic of you blustering arrogance.
>
> No matter how big a liar he may be every day,
You really are beneath contempt.
Scott A
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
