WOW! What is up with this?

Do you have anything to substantiate these claims?

The numbers seems a bit bizzarre to me. Did you just randomly pull them out of the air?

SMB,

How are you? How is life? I'm having a hard time tonight and am glad to see you.

My goal is truth.

Yep, I noticed it.

So, what if this info was obtained via phone conversation...or in person...or, say, on another message board?

Would that change anything? If a poster was withholding information that was disclosed in one of these ways?

Yet on MB, was withholding this SAME INFORMATION???? Very PERTINIENT information?

This thread seems to be headed to nothing but disrespect and insults.

If it continues, it WILL be locked.

My goal is truth.

I usually refrain from posting to GQ. I am making an exception here only to share an experience some of you may or may not know about that occured shortly after I first joined MB.

Another MB member contacted me via email. I returned her email. I then left for a vacation. When I returned from vacation, not only had my private email/s been fwd. to other members without my permission or my knowledge, they were also posted here on MB. This poster additionally took the liberty to "edit" my emails claiming certain information she believed was "too personal" to share. Huh?? One would have thought that any email correspondance... anything shared in an email would be considered unethical to either fwd. or to post publically on MB. But sadly, this poster did not feel that responsibility.

The poster who did this was TOLD posting another person's email on MB was extremely unethical and was asked to remove my email message. This member never apologized for fwding my email to other members. In her mind she thought somehow she was doing me some kind of favor. Eventually she did remove the post containing my email message.

It was later determined that this poster was posting under numerous alias, as a WW, a BW, etc. both as male and female characters. I believe she was later banned from posting.

My point in this is that I do believe that warning ALL new posters that corresponding by email is a RISK. None of us knows for sure who is on the other end of the keyboard.

This isn't to say that others here haven't developed healthy friendships with other members who have greatly helped them with their recoveries.

However, I believe a line is crossed, when someone who trusts (and I do acknowledge that they made a choice to trust) you enough to open up to you in an email, is then compromised with either the unethical decision to either fwd. your email correspondance, or threatened with exposure of sharing private conversations with other MB members either behind the scenes through email, or to make their email or other correspondance publicized on the forum.

If a situation arose in off forum communication where one party was upset with something another party shared, then it seems to me that that situation should be dealt with in the same private manner in which it was confided.

I don't see it being akin to exposure of WS IRL. Of course this is only my very humble opinion.

I have no doubt that there are many that have benefitted from personal off board communcications. That said I do believe ALL new members should be made aware that what they do choose to share privately may NOT remain private and can and may be later used against them publically.

Just a cautionary warning. People are grown ups here and can make their own choices.

Jilly

Sounds like that is everyone's goal...except perhaps the person who has THE secret.

Your goal may be truth, Graplin, but the way you are going about it was as manipulative as what you are accusing others of doing?

I say that with a tone of explanation not accusation. Do you understand that the method you used to try to "reveal" the truth was not open and honest, but instead the same type of tactic as you are accusing others?

*******EDIT*******

Berlin, go ahead and lock it if you must. *************EDIT*********

Skinsgal,

I am doing really well. Pull up your thread if you want to chat a bit. I do read here a lot, but am weary of posting much about me.

Wouldn't want to t/j this thread....or maybe we should.

Are you sure???

Even if it upsets your great and gracious view of an upstanding member of the forum?

Someone you have chosen to faovr and revere?

Choose your words wisely here, .really wisely.

Here it comes....

Really, you refrain from posting on GQ.

I guess someone else has been using your login for the past month then.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

I see graplin's informative warning as accurate, and no worse than warning newbies about trolls.

(Hey, the spell-checker caught my mis-spelled "newies" and knew that "newBies" was correct! Cool!)

Also, I understand the reasons for a BS to expose an A. I think graplin is not talking about a BS exposing their spouse's A. OTOH, I understand the reasons behind confidentiality requirements with doctors, priests, counselors, etc. Probably graplin is not talking about a priest violating a confidence.

This begs the question, is the exposer's relationship to the betrayed, more like a spouse or more like a counselor?


IMO the above quote is in agreement with customary netiquette standards. I think that most newbies would assume this board would follow such standards. Therefore it seems reasonable to warn them that such is not necessarily the case here.


Just an open and honest statement of potential outcomes...

graplin - what is the proof of this allegation?

While I could be wrong, PM emailing has been disabled on MB for a long time, if not since the beginning. The understood reason was to minimize or eliminate the potential for affairs between hurting correspondents, NOT because it was "ended" because there was some "unnamed misuse" of Private Messaging.

Graplin, what is your truth?

Stellakat - on what factual basis do you "bet" you know?

"My estimation is that about 400 folks have met, there have been over 100 marriages and maybe 50 children born of MB parents who met on MB." ????

On what basis do you form this "estimation" other than pulling some number out of thin air?

"I could be wrong, there may be more or less. There are quite a few."

Stella, this appears to be taking your unfounded opinion and presenting it as FACT. "I could be wrong," I strongly think not only "could be wrong," but IS wrong.

If not, please provide your documentation on which you base such an outlandish seeming "conclusion."

If this allegation is mere unfounded opinion and NOT factual, it would also raise questions about your "advice" that offer others that they might want to consider in the context of your accusatory claim.

Then later you "compounded" your opinions with statements that appeared to not be very much in line with someone who believes in walking with Christ in truth.

Has something "stirred your pot" and made you so suspicious, bitter sounding, and untrusting of others?"

Why should anyone who comes here be expected to reveal every detail of their lives to a bunch of strangers? When you come here for advice....there's no guarantee about who is going to advise you....the only guarantee is that most of them have had troubled marriages and all of them are non-professionals. People who have supposedly revealed everything....could just be better liars.

We just don't know everything about people.

But I don't think we need some kind of "honesty police". Even if people are witholding "pertinent" information....they still have a choice to decide when, where and to whom they want to share their story, and unless it involves illegal activity....it's no one else's job to decide for them. People here choose to talk about the parts of their lives they need/want to talk about?

Why would anyone want to reveal any of their past mistakes knowing that it might be dredged up every time they post, or emailed to people as "warnings"/"exposure"? If we want honesty....we have encourage people to be honest...not punish them.

Yikes!

This place is really getting kinda scary.

Somewhere in the way back archives, in different threads and in different years, when people asked about the PM not working, the consistent reply (paraphrased by memory) I read was that the PM had been disabled because it had led to a few problems of questionable correspondence between genders. Your knowledge may be more accurate.

I think what some are confusing here is:

1. the right to privacy and confidentiality when sharing personal information

and

2. the abuse of trust by lying and or omitting relevant information


I do email privately with a few newbies. I am honored that they feel I have something to offer to them during their time of incredible sorrow and grief.


Would I ever intentionally share personal information about them that I gained through our email conversations? Absolutely not!

If, however, I realized that they were being purposefully dishonest or deceptive on the board about information relevant to the topic of the board in a way that could harm other BSs, would I expose the TRUTH. Absolutely!

If our goal is truth, it seems that would be the only right thing TO DO.