Recompense

[ehowton]

She banned him. He admitted to me later, he was just trying to have some fun, but she took it wrong.

He banned her. She admitted to me later, she was just trying to have some fun, but he took it wrong.

*sadface*

Its time for a change. She's unbanned him! Can he find it in his heart to unban her? Its so easy to point out other's faults. The greater challenge, is to finds traits we admire in others, and perhaps work on mutual interests first. Do they have anything in common?

melancthe's strengths as I see them:

• She's very witty.


• And polite.


• She likes filmscores!


• She's smart.

schpydurx's strengths as I see them:

• He's loyal.


• And longsuffering.


• He likes filmscores!


• He's passionate.

I see a win.

Recently, schpydurx intoned lament for neutral ground in which to foster discussion. Please, allow this post to be that discussion place. Let's work on building up, rather than tearing down.

And I am not without blood on my hands. I enjoy the thrill of the hunt. I say and do things, terrible things sometimes, in hopes of righting wrongs. I've done a lot, God knows I've tried; To find the truth, I've even lied. So if there are bad feelings, blame me. I'm the foo. Fight me.

Can't we just all get along?

Comments

[melancthe.livejournal.com]

What's it to you? If I'm not doing those things that you hate to you, why should you care? It's between me and that other person.

Because you chose to conduct your business in a place where I could see it. You're always quick to tell the other person that she shouldn't make personally revealing comments on public posts; the same applies to you. And the reason why I'd care: well, it's the reason that makes us so different. I don't like to see people bullied, and bullying was precisely what you did. Which is why I'll stand up for the victim regardless of my thoughts on her personally.

My reaction was based on the concept that my privacy had been invaded because she had used my password. This was reinforced by the fact that in both ehowton and I's previous experience with frozen comments, once frozen they couldn't be delete except by the blog owner.

Then your research was poor. LJ has NEVER not allowed comments to be deleted, even from frozen threads. LJ's position on comment ownership is extremely clear, and has been for a very long time: that the person who made the original comment or post is the owner of those words, rather than the ownership being transferred to the owner of the journal or community in which they were made, and thus should never be prevented from deleting them. You claim that your mistake was made because this was changed. I disagree - this has never been the case, and your "mistake" was made because of an incorrect assumption in the first place.

If you wish to argue this particular point, I'd strongly suggest you find proof (from an official LJ source) to support your claim of it being changed. I can find absolutely no records to suggest it has ever been otherwise.

I therefore wanted to make a statement on my blog about my view of invasion of privacy.

Making a statement about an invasion of privacy is one thing, but accusing someone of the crime of hacking into your journal, and posting chat transcripts with someone's real name attached are not the same thing. Can you not see the difference?

In my little circle of blogging friends, it is considered censorship, disrespectful and on par with high treason to delete a comment in the middle of a thread to erase the hateful words.

I agree completely here. However, in the circles in which I move, it is also considered disrespectful ... nay, vile! ... to re-post conversations and discussions that were held privately, especially with the other person's name attached. I'd consider that infinitely worse than deleting comments, as awful as that may be; your mileage may, of course, vary. Does everyone on your f-list need to worry about you re-posting f-locked material and/or AIM transcripts? Judging from your behaviour towards this former friend of yours (behaviour which was triggered by a likely-incorrect assumption in the first place), I'd say that they should well be worried.

I hope that these words which I have uttered shed some light on the subject. I have relegated the objectionable material to a list of select few eyes, which, at the time of this writing, excludes you.

From your attitude towards your former friends and the confidentiality you had shared with them, I would hope it would exclude me for a long, long time.