| |
Arcadius
|
I thing expatjack is right - there are two separate issues involved here.
Whether you think snooping on your BG is justifiable, and if so, under what circumstances and to what extent, is between you and your conscience.
Publishing her correspondence from other people is a gross violation of their privacy and a public issue.
You should be able to send a private e-mail to a BG (or anyone else) without some jerk you don't know from Adam hacking into it and posting your message on a public forum for the whole world to read.
f_ck, if anyone does that to me, the accusations of political correctness won't last very long.
If it's OK for e-mails, then why not PMs? Why shouldn't I hack into a PM from, say, expatjack to Kaymanx and publish it here if I happen to think it would be generally instructive or entertaining? Why should they be allowed to decide what they want to communicate privately and what they want to communicate to the forum at large?
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 11:16 pm on Aug. 25, 2003
|
|
ccvvbb
|
Quote: from Arcadius on 11:16 am on Aug. 26, 2003
Why shouldn't I hack into a PM from, say, expatjack to Kaymanx and publish it here...
Probably because you can't...
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 11:26 pm on Aug. 25, 2003
|
|
haam sup
|
"These days that could well be the price of being sooooo politically correct."
Really, it's more about the price of your integrity and ethics.
Let's not pretend to be absolutists here: given a strong enough motive, I believe (unfortunately) that almost anyone could be induced to do almost anything. ÝThe real question is "not whether you're a whore, my dear. We are merely trying to establish the price."
If snooping was universally rejected as a TERRIBLE thing to do, TPE would be out of business. ÝAs it is, I believe he sets some ethical standards when deciding to take a case (correct me TPE, if necessary).
Rather, the problem is the cheapening of the price of breaching ethical standards, in this case on a whim. ÝArcadius' description of the "uncomprehending contempt for the rights of other people" is apt.
The 'not getting the clap' argument is a straw man. ÝThe information was an unintended byproduct of someone snooping JUST BECAUSE HE COULD. ÝThe rest of it, i.e. barebacking is dangerous, etc. is obvious.
Perhaps there is some set of circumstances constituting "probable cause", which mitigates intercepting email? ÝI don't know, but it is not legal here in the States, and the privilege is reserved for those who can show REAL probable cause to a judge (at least ostensibly).
No matter how you look at it, it is a breach of ethics. ÝThe only question is how one justifies it to one's self, and how well you sleep afterward. ÝSadly, for many of te people here, it seems to be no big thing...
Ethics bought on the cheap, indeed.
haam sup
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 11:28 pm on Aug. 25, 2003
|
|
Arramsey
|
Quote: from ccvvbb on 10:20 pm on Aug. 25, 2003
Just a thought, maybe the guy e-mailing is Arramsey and he is pissed because he got a sore cock from this girl.
Read his post titled That time of the month, he says that "I really didn't think twice because I had read long ago that as long as there were no open wounds on my genitals there would be no problem," what the f_ck is he talking about, doing her without a condom...........that is the way I decipher it. I really think it is his e-mail I have been reading.
ccvvbb ,
VERY CHILDISH .
First you say you will take your bat and go home ( i.e. stop posting on this Forum ) - then when no one seems to care you back-track and come back .
Then you resort to stupid and childish posts like the one quoted above - As Polepolisher said , "DROLL".
With each new post you are proving that you are on very shaky ground & your frustration is showing .
You thought that you would get everybody applauding and saying "What a great guy ccvvbb is for publishing private E-Mails for us ."
Unfortunately you misjudged the bulk of members on this Forum - who are of a very much higher moral standard than you & who do not look kindly on invasion of other people's privacy .
Instead of showing more and more frustration - why don't you learn some lessons from This Thread - and go in peace .
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 1:24 am on Aug. 26, 2003
|
|
PolePolisher
|
HS "Really, it's more about the price of your integrity and ethics."
CCVVBB "I am looking out for myself and my own safety"
Snooping into someone's personal communications on a whim or for malicious purposes is indefensible and should not be done under any circumstances.
What is more interesting is the reproduction of the email, I think it might have been better if the original post had catelogued or described the contents instead of reproducing them, but either way I can see no real harm or damage caused by his actions.
Even here on the board field report details depicting (sometimes quite graphically) private and intimate details of girls who presumably have no idea that their actions, attributes, physical characteristics and personalities are being posted here for all and sundry to see. ÝAfter all the girls are conducting a private and personal service in most cases. ÝWhat would some of the membership think if the girls documented our encounters and posted them on the web without our knowledge (personally I'd enjoy it)?
I agree with HS in so much as I think by it's very nature privacy is a personal issue and the basic priciples are based on respect for your fellow man, where one draws the line is a personal choice.
?The Right to Privacy?
Warren and Brandeis
Harvard Law Review.
Vol. IVÝ Ý December 15, 1890 Ý Ý No. 5
"Besides, it is only the more flagrant breaches of decency and propriety that could in practice be reached, and it is not perhaps desirable even to attempt to repress everything which the nicest taste and keenest sense of the respect due to private life would condemn"
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 2:02 am on Aug. 26, 2003
|
|
nokna
|
"Of course there is no possibility she has opened an other email account and is receiving tens of emails per day from all her lovers !"
of course i know she might have other accounts,but if she has she does not access them either.
i am in weekly contact with her by phone and know where she is and know there are no Internet Cafes for many miles.
Yurune.
do not presume,i have not been put into the situation of seeing her receive a mail from someone else and i honestly do not know what i would do if i saw one to her.
but we know the danger of Human curiosity,but i like to think i would not read it,but who knows.
cmore told of a story similar to mine,set up the girls account and knew the password,but said it was now her property and he felt obliged not to access her account.
i look at my girls account just to keep it open for her,with Hotmail you lose the account if no use after 30 days.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:24 am on Aug. 26, 2003
|
|
Arcadius
|
it is only the more flagrant breaches of decency and propriety that could in practice be reached, and it is not perhaps desirable even to attempt to repress everything which the nicest taste and keenest sense of the respect due to private life would condemn
Of course, the unauthorised interception, let alone publication, of private mail IS widely considered a flagrant breach of decency and propriety, not just some trifling pecadillo.
Under federal and Texas law, the intentional interception or disclosure of cellular and cordless phone conversations and e-mail is a criminal act. It is a federal crime to intercept e-mail, while in transit, while stored, or after receipt
[Texas Lawyers' Insurance Exchange] Ý
I am pretty sure this is also a criminal (not civil) offence in the UK, and probably in most other Western jurisdictions. Very possibly also in LOS.
At any event, I think the view that it is the 'personal choice' of any wannabe snooper where to draw the line is very much a minority one.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:27 am on Aug. 26, 2003
|
|
Kaymanx
|
Expatjack,
Sorry about getting your name mixed up with Expatchuck. Sorry also if I cheesed you off with my "look up the dictionary comment." Didn't mean to "blast" you at all. I just wanted to emphasise the seriousness of what I believed was essentially a problem arising from the mixing of serious relationship (concrete and longlasting, as you put it) with P4P. For too often do we get easily entrapped and lose sight of the fact that we are in P4P territory. To remove any misunderstanding I will add that by P4P territory I am not confining myself to LOS.
It does happen that through over-use of abbreviations and acronyms like P4P, we sometimes lose sight of the original phrase and need to re-read the dictionary to consciously remind ourselves of the seriousness of what we are doing. ÝThat's what I intended to convey.
To come back to the discussion, suppose this was a situation where CVB gets involved with a girl he met in a club or a restaurant or in a mall or in the office where he works - in other words, mainstream society relationship. Then in the process of establishing trust with the girl would he like to check her emails or SMS history ? I am sure there will be many protests at this comparison I use, because some will say that is a different thing altogether. Exactly.
To my mind, it appears that we are trying to carry our usual standards of relationship into a different territory where some of the bases of usual relationships may not apply. And in trying to grapple with the conflict we end up having to sacrifice some of the ethics of usual relationship. I am not saying that the TG/BG does not deserve a "usualÝrelationship." If she can win the trust of the man, why not. But I suspect that trust cannot be established through snooping. I don't like the idea at all. What we do establish through snooping is reliability of a person in a general social environment. Thus governments sometimes snoop on emails or tap into phones to establish that no anti-national or anti-social activities are afoot.
I believe that such snooping carried out by a person in a person-to-person relationship does no good to the relationship. If the person being snooped on realizes that you were snooping on her, do you think she would trust YOU any more? If I find out that my company or government had been tapping into my phone lines or emails I am going to be mighty suspicious of these elements. That's it. But if I found out that my GF or wife had been snooping on my personal messages or emails or had hired a private eye to keep tabs on me, what happens to my relationship with her ? Snafu, AFAIK. By the same token I wouldn't snoop on her. If I am getting involved in a relationship with a BG the only way I would snoop would be if time was short. That is, if I had to make up my mind in a hurry Ýor, if it it was intended to be a short term relationship. In both cases I shouldn't be expecting anything serious in the first place. But, if it's a serious long term relationship, I would give it a long long time to develop. Our problems develop, IMHO, because we seek exclusivity in our relationships with mates who are in essence providers of a service.
HS hits the nail on the head when he says that back in our own societies we wouldn't dare snoop so easily because of the fear of legal action. In P4P we take the view that "they are different." But to be realistic I believe that snooping in any setting does no good to trust-building. We will be better off letting it evolve, which menas investing time in our relationship, and letting our GFs realise that our ethical standards are high. Ý
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:53 am on Aug. 26, 2003
|
|
PolePolisher
|
Arcadius,
The point I was trying to make was that even the law recognised that this is not a cut 'n dried subject, as HS says there are no absolutes.
Is it so difficult to distinguish between a guy checking up on a girl without her knowledge for his own protection and the plain nosey salacious snooper?
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 4:13 am on Aug. 26, 2003
|
|
Arramsey
|
Quote: from ccvvbb on 10:20 pm on Aug. 25, 2003
Just a thought, maybe the guy e-mailing is Arramsey and he is pissed because he got a sore cock from this girl.
Read his post titled That time of the month, he says that "I really didn't think twice because I had read long ago that as long as there were no open wounds on my genitals there would be no problem," what the f_ck is he talking about, doing her without a condom...........that is the way I decipher it. I really think it is his e-mail I have been reading.
ccvvbb ,
I have a sore cock ? It looks more like you have a sore head and that you are a sore loser - hence your VERY CHILDISH post above .
I am honoured that you do such extensive research into my posts ,(I did not know that my posts have been made required reading in your 4th. Grade ) but maybe if you learned to read English properly you would have noticed by now that I only have condomless sex with the 4 girls who are permanently out of the p4p scene . Incidentally (knowing them ) not one of them would condescend to have sex ( with or without condom ) with a low life like you .
Your frustration is showing more and more with each post you make :-
FIRST , you played the sulking school-boy by saying "I will take my bat and go home " thinking that there would be a flood of requests for you to stay . When that flood turned out to be just a trickle , you quietly edited your posts and came back .
NOW , you resort to CHILDISH posts like the one quoted above .
Why do you have such an inferiority complex ?
Is it because you have a very small prick and cannot satisfy any ladies ?
OR is it because you have some social disease that you are asamed of ?
OR are you impotent ?
OR are you so devoid of genuine friends that you want to garner friendship by giving us a peek into someone's private mail ?
OR are you just feeling useless because so many members are posting such interesting experiences whereas you have nothing to talk about ?
WHATEVER it is - Get out of it & GET A LIFE .
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 4:15 am on Aug. 26, 2003
|
|
| |
|
