NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I just deleted an email that Lee B posted sent to him by the Dorskind Group. The rule on this board is that no private emails are to be posted. Exceptions can be made when both parties are ok with it and it is non-confrontational in nature. Generally it is totally unacceptable. The reason is that emails can be manipulated or there can be things left out ...which makes the private email posted be out of context. Also, I have always asked that disputes be taken to private emails. If I allow private emails to then be posted then that would be hypocritical in my view. If not hypocritical then at least self defeating of sending said disputes to emails. For the record I have had this "contorting" out of context done to me recently as emails were left out of the string that was posted about me on another board. I know it happens with first hand knowledge. Those are the reasons private emails will not be allowed on this board. I hope everyone understands it protects everyone....regards


edited out "and not open for debate though."...as this IS open for debate...

and edited spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Nice to see that the truth gets edited.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Like I said....I have no doubt it was the truth....I have gotten emails from the Dorskind Group like that too. I hope you understand it's not personal. It's a forum rule for reasons stated above.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Leon,

This is the stuff you allow. The follow up:

Yet another defeat for the hopeless "Behrens"...
Behrens, a good word, indeed to describe and empty mind
and an empty wallet.

This man is truly pathetic and if you condone this you are no where close to the person I met at the Nationals.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

With all due respect what are you talking about? Where did I say I condone hateful emails? I just said you can't post private emails per the board rules. It's been a rule from day one of me moderating, over 2 years ago. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Hi Lee,

I agree with Leon's policy of not posting actual private emails. There is simply no positive outcome.

However, as far as I understand the rules it is still okay to post with a summary or characterization of a private email - a summary in your own words.

If the emailer objects to the presentation he can offer and you can agree to post the entire text. If anyone else inquires you can forward the email to that person privately.

I don't see it as editing the truth. I see it as preventing private conversations from becoming public, and eventually the truth getting out if both parties dispute the way the communication is presented by the other.

So ... characterize away on the Dorskind email! lol. I missed it the first time around, and am very curious to see what I missed. If you can't or don't want to summarize it, then just answer this one question ... WAS THERE ROTTING IN A LITTLE SHACK INVOLVED?????



Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

When I posted the original email I stated that I would let the people decide for themselves on the content. I had no intention of any follow up at all I think Dorskin is a waste of time. You have brought this to the forefront by deleting the email and telling me if I reword it I can post it. I copied the email as is, the truth, and you tell me that is wrong but it is all right to post it in my own words?

It's your board, to me by deleting such posts you are condoning such behavour. I hope this is not the case.

Jericho

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: bcornell

I completely agree with the forum policy not to allow posting of emails, which are private by nature. Many have tried this and every single time, they were trying to forward their own argument. Make your own point here and don't aim so low.

That said, if you're sending obnoxious emails, you probably have a habit of doing so. Tsk tsk.


Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Joann, I always respect your opinion on this board. But this was not intended to be a conversation, it was an unintended email. There are many that wonder why there are so many lurkers, it is the likes of Dorskin and his BS that keep good people away.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Are they private when they are unsolicited?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

You said:

"It's your board, to me by deleting such posts you are condoning such behavour."


If you think deleting personal emails, per the board rules, is "condoning" then we will just agree to disagree on this matter. No one is allowed to post them. Same rules for everyone....... Again, nothing personal. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Lee,

Leon did not tell you to post it in your own words. That was my suggestion so you could convey something you clearly think needs to be conveyed, but without posting an actual email

The reason I agree with Leon's policy is exactly for the reasons he states - it is too easy to edit an email and present it as the sender's words. I would hate to think that someone could take my private communication, modify it to make me look stupid, and post it on this board.

I know it may seem unfair to those that would post emails honestly and accurately with no edits, but in this case it seems to me that erring on the side of conservatism is the best move. I would rather have to put a received email into my own words, giving up the ability to post it directly, than risk that anyone else could completely corrupt my words and post them here.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

If it was sent to you personally then it was private, imo. .....

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Yes, Johann, Leon did tell to reword and it could be posted.

Now about unsolicited emails?

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

So we just let these people to as they please so they can continue do run more people from the board or posting?

Edited to correct my spelling so I don't get more emails from Dorskin

[Archive]

Posted By: bcornell

Are they private when they are unsolicited?

Lee -

Doesn't matter. If we were sending you stupid comments like the one you quoted, we would block them. And now I've lost track of who "we" is.

I have never once seen a single angry post here that got the poster what he wanted. Yet, people keep trying.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Lee,

Now that I've read what you posted while I was writing my last, I will say that I completely agree with you that Dorskind is a complete ass (asses?) and keeps good people away. And bad people. And tired people. And happy people. And short people. And wise people. And fun people. Oh to hell with it - he keeps all kinds of people away!!

OK. So now I'm dying to know what he sent you. I remember that in the past Jay has posted some summaries of emails Bruces Dorskinds sent him, and they were truly appalling. I imagine that yours is in the same vein.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I support Leon's rule.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Leon,

What if the senders email address was omitted and only partial content was used? Is that ok? I would guess that this usually pertains to emails that might be controversial.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Ooooohhhhh HELL no! hahaha. OMG. I take it back. I take it all back. We should be allowed to post private emails - freely and frequently.

Leon - can you suspend the policy for five minutes, long enough for Lee to repost his email from Wharton (Magna) 73?? I'm sorry. Did I say "Wharton (Magna) 73"? Of course I meant the Dorskinds. For a minute there I thought of him in the way he signed his email to Lee, which Lee just sent me privately. hahaha. DANG was that funny.

I'm sorry Lee - you have every reason to be offended by that elitist crap. But it was so over-the-top that I just had to laugh.

OK. No more Dorskind references for me. No more Bruces or any other name. From here on out he will always be "Wharton (Magna) 73" to me.

J

PS: Leon, I know you can't suspend the policy. But it would have been so funny for all to see Mr. Wharton (Magna) 73 refer to his two (count-em, two!) Ivy League degrees while chiding Lee for spelling/grammar errors IN THE SAME TWO SENTENCES IN WHICH HE MAKES FIVE VERY OBVIOUS GRAMMATICAL/PUNCTUATION ERRORS! hahaha. Oh the comedy the group is missing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I did get to read Dorskindsssssss's email to Lee before it was edited, since it was posted on one of my current threads.
It was very mean-spirited and smelled like the rantings of a pathetic person. I, like others, have recently received an
email from the same "snob"; however, in my case it was about an attempt to correct some mundane grammatical error
that I supposedly committed.

Why do we have to tolerate this kind of "hate email" from such "elitists" on this forum ? It's unacceptible and should be
exposed.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As devils advocate.....what would stop someone from changing the email and then posting it? I am not saying it would happen but it could. I think it's a slippery slope and I think making the rule steadfast is better.

Joann- I saw the email he posted before I deleted it. I pretty much skimmed over it but do remember a mistake or three. But no, I don't think it would be right to allow it to be posted publicly. Now, if ya'll want to send it to everyone and their brother privately...then there is nothing I can, or would want to do, about that. ..regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

So Leon, what do you do on your end when you are aware of such emails?

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

lol. I know Leon - and I do agree with the policy.

But I think I will try do something to get one of Wharton (Magna) 73's emails of my own. Who doesn't dream of being called a commoner? Or having family members invited to move to Cuba?

If I got one of my very own, then I could characterize away to my heart's content. Wharton (Magna) 73, my email address is jmkline@juno.com,

But to Ted's comment, on a more serious note, the private emails are truly deplorable if the one that Lee got is any indication. At some point it may be a valid question to ask whether someone can use the contact information that is available because people participate on this board to send those people unsolicited, harassing and insulting emails.

I'm just asking.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I have gotten many emails from Bruce and for the most part they have always been pleasant. I don't know why he chooses to post here with such arrogance....I've also seen the little short video of Bruce showing off some of his collection and I didn't notice any use of "We" or "Whilst"...nor any mention of Sir Edward Wharton-Tiger. It's sad that he can't figure out how to win friends and influence people because not only would he have a lot to gain personally, but I bet his collection would too.

And Joann have you gotten that photo you won off of ebay yet?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am not trying to be argumentative but I am not sure I understand your question. What do I do when I know about these emails, or what do I do when I get them myself?

If I know about them then so be it. I won't, and can't, police anything outside the board, nor do I want to. I don't condone hateful emails and would hope no one sends them to anyone.

If one gets sent to me personally then I react appropriately...and honestly, sometimes, with a somewhat nasty email back....but I would not make theirs public here and I wouldn't let them do it to me here. I feel it's a good rule...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Never mind I am just beating my head against the wall and Dorskin wins again. Congrats Bruce. You are a much better man than I will ever be or try to be. I bow to we's greatness.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Like many (all?) regulars, I have gotten abusive unprovoked emails from Dorskind, including one recently in which he accused me of insulting the size of his manhood in a thread. Apparently he has trouble reading, because I never did any such thing. (Someone else in the thread did, but not me.) I pointed this out to him but amazingly did not receive an acknowledgement or apology for his error.

Leon, why DO we have to put up with unsolicited abusive emails which are a direct result of this board, since that's where he gets our addresses from? Is there nothing that can be done about this twerp?

I have to laugh when someone whines that the "class war" position of certain "poor" collectors on this board drives lurkers away and keeps supposedly wonderful people from posting here. One look at most of Bruce's posts would drive just about any sane person right into another hobby.

"Wharton (magna) '73" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, LOL.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Lee,

We don't need to read his email to know what kind of pompous ass he really is. I've noticed, in my short time on this board, that many of us can go out of our way to be asses. Bruce just has the shortest commute. He needs no busses, trains, cabs or limos. Two steps out the door and he's there.

Ignore him. Put a block on his emails through your ISP.

(For the record, when I graduated from college in 1973, I was accepted at Wharton. I deferred because my dad had passed away a couple of years prior and I needed to get a real job, right away. Today, I'm glad I never got back to it.)

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am open to debate about posting private emails but it's going to be tough to convince me to change it. I am sorry for the emails. Heck, he's sent me some too. I just think the rule is a good one for reasons stated. If ya'll convince me otherwise, then so be it.....I knew this wouldn't be a fun thread but I felt the need to post it...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Maybe if people were allowed to post some of Bruce's vile emails then he would think twice about sending them. I've often noticed that Bruce chooses to email replies to posts on Net54 rather than posting his thoughts on the board....I doubt he'd be nearly as vicious in his replies if people were allowed to post his emails.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I don't disagree with your position on private emails-- it wouldn't help in a situation like this. I was mainly just venting, and I have now learned how to use the "Blocked Senders" feature of my email program, which is fun.

However, at this point I do have to wonder whether Bruce hasn't caused as much or more grief on this board as some people who have been shut down.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

It's a judgement call. Only 2 people (that were known people, not anonymous trolls) have been banned. One was so over the top that I didn't need another opinion, though I got about 5 privately, and it was unanimous. The other person is someone that I specifically told not to interact with someone else on the board. Nine days later they started it again so I had to act on it. I would prefer to never ban anyone. Bruce does start some provocative posts and has a lot of hobby knowledge. I agree it's a shame he acts the way he does on the board sometimes. It irritates and riles folks up. I know you very much understand my position concerning banning though you might not personally agree with it. I am extremely slow to ban anyone....Two in over two years isn't too many....I hope it stays at two....

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Hi-

I have nothing to add.

Cobby33
UCSB '91
GGU Law '96

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

It is also my opinion that nothing good can come out of allowing the posting of private emails on the board. It's is just too easy to manipulate the email to one's advantage.
Having said that, I agree that it is wrong for Bruce to be sending abusive emails to board members with addresses that he has obtained from the board. An obvious first step is to block his emails.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

i don't condone the abusive e-mails but Bruce's posts are among the very besy on Net54 and I would hate to see him stop posting.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Here's one solution. I got some very disturbing emails from Bruce about a year ago, which included death threats. He was told if I ever get another email even remotely like that, I will contact local authorities and forward all emails. If you have gotten any threatening emails from him, please forward them to me, including all headers. If he does step over the line again, I will be more than happy to make the legal authorities in his area of his threats so he can be dealt with.

I recently got another email stating "the dark is lurking".

Go ahead and keep it up Bruce. You're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I agree with Leon's policy. It's just too easy for someone to edit an email. More important, in many cases emails can be used to resolve differences and foster greater understanding between people. Or in other cases they are meant to convey information not intended for public dissemination. People could be dissuaded from writing them if this Board allows them to be posted. Either way one looks at it, there are imperfections with either rule, but on balance I think looking at the entire situation and not any one particular instance, Leon's ban is a prudent one.

Also, I think Lee's point about the inconsistency between not allowing the entire email to be published (out of fear of editing) but allowing the receiver to post a summary is well taken. Summaries by their nature are subjective and can be quite misleading. If posting the email is prohibited, then so should posting a summary.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Well, I have to say that I still agree with the policy of not posting personal emails. But after reading the email Lee got, supporting the policy suddenly got quite a bit harder.

It was, for me, a theoretical position to take based on sound arguments in favor of preventing abuse and misrepresentation of content, plus betraying the sender's intent of a private communication. With Lee's email it is no longer theoretical because I think the email he got is horrible and there is a real urge in me to want to see Wharton (Magna) 73 exposed to the world for what he is.

So I still support the policy, but it is a much closer call.



And to idly respond to a few of the posts above:

I too thought I knew what a pompous ass he is from his posts on the board, but it turns out I didn't. What he posts here is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to what he sent Lee. I had no idea.

I still wonder if there is not recourse here, since he's using contact info from this board to make contact and the content of people's posts to fuel his bs, to do something to discourage this behavior. A suspension instead of a ban? I know that participation on a public forum leaves one (two?) open to uninvited emails and sometimes impolite disagreement. But if this guy is making a habit of doing it a lot, and to a lot of people, and emailing PURELY TO INSULT, NOT TO COUNTER A POINT, then maybe some response is in order.

Jim, even though you value Wharton (Magna) 73's contributions, I think you would be shocked to see what he has said to someone in an email. It may change your thinking about his overall value to this forum.

Finally, to those of you who have asked me to forward the email - I'd be happy to but I need to check with Lee first. He sent it to me and I don't know that he intended it to go past that. That he posted it on this board tells me he's not all that concerned about spreading the content, but I'll check first. If it's okay with him, I'll happily forward it.

Hmmm. Maybe I should start some kind of website where people could post his emails. Anyone happen to know if www.whartonmagna73.com is taken? Hahahahaa. Cracked myself up with that one. And pretty early in the morning too.

Joann
The proud product of our nation's public university system. Go Terps! lol

CMU 81 BS
Maryland 84 MS
WMU 94 MS
Cooley Law School - currently enrolled

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Corey,

I think posting a summary should be okay for the exact reason that it is clearly the poster's words. People would know that it is content as seen by the person posting, with whatever biases or spin or impressions that person may carry with it. So readers could decide what to make of it armed with the knowledge that it is the poster's words and version of events.

That is a lot different than posting an email that has possibly been edited according to the poster's biases and spin. In that case it is being represented as the actual words of the sender, and the reader has no reason to mentally account for the spin of the poster. That is much more deceitful to me.

Plus, if you extend the rule to cover summaries it would become impossible to find the limits. What about statements like "you told me in an email last year that you would do such and such, and now you are going back on that"?

JMO.

JMK. hee. I'm on a roll this morning.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

joann you said " I think the email he got is horrible and there is a real urge in me to want to see Wharton (Magna) 73 exposed to the world for what he is." i don't think we need to see the email to figure out what he is.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I need to drink black coffee at night so I can stay up and read all this scintillating banter.

I also agree that private emails don't belong on the board, but for whatever reason Bruce blind copied me on the email that he sent Lee. Like all of Bruce's takes on what is really important in life, my jaw dropped as I read it. When he is attacked in any way, Bruce pulls out the Ivy league degrees and his great wealth and culture, and lets people know in no uncertain terms why he is better than them.

I don't even know where to start regarding that email, I am simply speechless.

And Jim C., while Bruce does occasionally make some useful posts, please explain in your own words why you feel he is one of the best posters on this board. Does insulting people who may not have as much as he does (or pretends he does) count as part of the good stuff?

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Not a bad point, but the problem I see with it is that as a practical matter, in order for the sender to effectively rebut the summary, he/she will feel tremendous pressure to post the entire email, and then we are back to square one. So, while I think there is sound logic to what you say, on balance I still feel summaries should be prohibited as well.

Or, another way to look at it, if the main purpose of the ban is to not put a damper on people writing emails, I'm not sure if allowing summaries would not act as a comparable damper. In fact, it arguably could act as more of a damper due to concerns of the potentially misleading nature of summaries.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Oh my gosh. So Wharton (Magna) 73 is a bcc'er too??? Why am I not surprised? I have never once, ever, personally or at work used a blind copy. I think they are unethical (just my personal opinion), so it doesn't shock me in the least that he would use it.

Although why he would want another soul in the universe to know what he wrote to Lee is beyond me.

And Corey - also good points. I guess there is no good answer. In the end it's too bad that it even needs to be discussed. If people didn't misrepresent themselves and their role in events in public, it wouldn't even be necessary for someone to want to post a message that demonstrates the public falsity.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

Dammit. I want to be noticed, too!

--Chad
(The Hollow Leg, drunka, 'perpetually)

[Archive]

Posted By: PAS

I agree with Leon that private emails should not be posted. That said, no one should have to endure hate emails as the price of particpating here, and the moderator should consider banning someone if there is conclusive proof he is abusing other posters.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

Hey Chad,

Just sent you a threatening email. Thanks.

Dave

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

It hurts so good.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think this is a healthy debate. Before Corey ever posted his thought on summarized emails, and the point of NOT allowing them to be posted, I had already typed a long response to Joann, and deleted it before I hit the respond button. I came to the same conclusion as Corey though. I don't think summaries can be allowed either. Also, I am not sure how we can ascertain that an email addresss is ONLY derived from this board. The debate rolls on but so far I am not convinced the rule needs to be changed. To change this rule there is going to have to be a compelling argument that outweighs the current standard. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

It's funny most these people that like to send out hostile emails and such would never do the same thing face to face. Thats part of the wonderful world of the internet.

It seems its kind of on the same line as men that like to abuse women...most of them I've seen do so because they can't seem to handle taking their frustations out on another man...they are too scared to do so....same thing with the internet bullies...they are goofy little guys that can't and won't back up any talk in person.