|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Two threads have been removed. One remains. On Thursday I hope I get the trigger event that allows me to finally shed light on this matter.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... my reasons being-
(1) I expressed a valid viewpoint in a civilised manner, and I don't approve of censorship, and
(2) I was equally critical of the remaining thread, my whole point being that the cryptic remarks and innuendo were not helpful to anyone. If the issue needed to be aired on the board at all, it should have been held back until it could be explained coherently - presumably on Thursday - instead of generating yet more rumour-mongering, disinformation and possible suspicion of innocent parties.
I'd welcome considered responses, but only if my original post is restored.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
It isn't possible to restore yout post. Removed is removed.
So I deleted the post from Warren that for sure could be considered to accuse eveyrone, and then deleted your post that pointed out that it and the other one accused people. I suppose you could say that was censorship, but looked at from another direction it could be said that your post that pointed out hat a post accused everyone thus accused everyone. Thus it shoudl go as well as the post it referred to, for losing one without losing the other was wrong.
I suppose now this has turned back into a topic means that we are now accusing everyone again, too, because we are now elaborating on a topic that you had suggested and I half agreed, should not have been aired here nthe first place
The thread on deceit? You will have to wait until after 20th for me to elaborate. And it does not accuse everyone. It said "This deceiver will not be around for a while. A long while. I'm not going to name him, and he was not a regular here, though he has posted sometimes in the past. I very much doubt that he will ever see this post, but right now I don't much care either way." Thus it was very limited. As you will see my position has moved form "I am not" to "I am about to"
As we may well discover after the 20th, the deceit post may well cause quite some controversy anyway. The perosn concerned, while not a regular here, had assumed the position of some sort of moral guardian elsewhere and had some alleged authority. There will be some authoritative sources (which is why I am waiting) to show that this was unjustified and thus to remove others from harm's way.
The original post has already served its purpose in that many of those directly affected and I have been able to speak about the matter quietly. THis woudl have been far less posisble without it.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just don't understand all this fuss just about some little gal pretending to be a guy. Hell, some of us guys pretend to be gals. (Not me of course, I just can't walk with heels) :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
We get quite a number, here, of people who are more comfortable to represent themslves as gentlemen when they posses different appendages. Or who represent somewhat different ages from reality. The thing is it only matters if they form deeper relationships and ae unable to "come out" to the relevant people.
Now it matters a lot to those involved, quite often, but it doesn't cause earthquakes, hurricanes or tsunamis.
We are often as we wish to be, not always as we are. I, for example, always say how young and sexy I am when online (That's irony, Jim, but not as we know it! ::-) )
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I'm not so sure it is a good thing for people to misrepresent themselves.
The trust we share is far too fragile to toy around with.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> I'm not so sure it is a good thing for people to misrepresent themselves.
>
> The trust we share is far too fragile to toy around with.
I think I'd agree with that. Deliberate misrepresentation with the intention to mislead is never good. But the difficulty (IMO) occurs when someone is quite genuinely representing themselves - or perhaps exploring a part of themselves - as they feel they really are / may be ... rather than the biological body they "happen" to occupy which may not correspond with their feelings.
As for me - what you see is what you get. I guess someone would have to be pretty screwed up to want to pose as a skinny gay disabled 50-year-old guy if they were not actually so ... although I'm quite happy being one!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc, people will always misrepresent themselves. Why even I am much more handsome than my picture. I just use it so I won't get a lot of Email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well, actually most people do not misrepresent themselves.
Most are forthright honest and upfront about themselves.
Wishful thinking doesn't change who a person really is..... even if they see themself as other than who they truely are.
They are who they are.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> Well, actually most people do not misrepresent themselves.
> Most are forthright honest and upfront about themselves.
I'd certainly agree with that.
>
> Wishful thinking doesn't change who a person really is..... even if they see themself as other than who they truely are.
> They are who they are.....
But, just exactly what are they? I have known just a couple of people who I was aware had a severe dissonance between their body as they 'encountered' it, and who they actually were. But it really isn't that uncommon. It isn't just transexual / transgender, but a whole host of other body identification issues - amputatees/amputation wannabees for example. And, conversely, people who have a lifelong severe condition that others would see as disabling, but they themselves see just as a minor irritation ( I know an electrician who considers himself "able-bodied", although he has the vestigial arms typical of a person born to a mother who took thalidomide).
I agree that wishful thinking doesn't change who a person really is. But if a person really truely is (for example) in a wrong-sexed body, wishful thinking won't make it a right-sexed body either ... Many EU countries have now recognised this, at least, to the point of being able to issue transexuals with retrospective birth certificates giving their real (postoperative) gender.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
All these things only serve to confuse an already confusing situation.
A person is what they look into the mirror and sees.
Issues may give them the feeling that they SHOULD be something or someone other than what they SEE but that FEELING doesnt alter anything tangible.
A person interacting in a forum atmosphere with the full knowledge of and intent to present themselves other than the reality real time contemporaries see them is fradulent at best.
Wishful thinking doesnt make the situation justifiable.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote: (snip)
> A person interacting in a forum atmosphere with the full knowledge of and intent to present themselves other than the reality real time contemporaries see them is fradulent at best.
Where there is a specific intention to mislead, it's clearly not a good thing.
But things really aren't always clear-cut. Even something as apparently basic as physical sex - apart from the XX / XY female / male classic chromosome arrangment, over 20 other chromosome arrangements have been recorded (averaging about one in a thousand births), plus those who have a 'mosaic' of body cells of differing chromosomal types. Plus those who for assorted reasons may have been born with (or later develop) a mix of both male and female physical characteristics (about one in two thousand births). Just because contemporaries (or doctors, or parents etc) see or assign such people to a particular sex does not necessarily mean that they are genuinely so. Plus, of course, those whose psychological identity is at variance with their (defined, assigned or apparent) physical one.
I think that, if this is truly "a place of safety", this must include an understanding that some people may genuinely need to explore and construct a true identity. I really do not see this as necessarily fraudulent. I'd hope that they understood that most of us here have our own problems, and so be careful about not allowing potential misunderstandings to go too far without some reference to this.
I hope that nothing I've said here upsets anyone who may *be* in such a position (as regards sex/gender, or any other identity area). I confess that I have little experience from which to develop an empathic understanding.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Any situation can be twisted and turned to the view that best suites the viewer.
I would just rather be told the truth without the platitudes and hae everything up front.
It's just that simple.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... because I think that to some extent you miss my point.
First of all (and with tongue in cheek) I can't see the logic of your second paragraph. You say that (my) 'post that pointed out that a post accused everyone thus accused everyone'. That seems to me to be a leap too far - and in any event I didn't accuse anyone! What I did say, in a logically-developed argument in my now-vanished post was that by their very nature the threads (and I meant both threads!) inevitably provoked speculation and thus brought innocent people under suspicion.
Imagine a group of 50 or so workmates in an office. The boss announces that one member of staff is a convicted paedophile. The statement is true, but it's extremely harmful, because unless the individual concerned is identified everyone becomes suspicious of everyone else and friendships crumble under the strain. In this parallel circumstance I would not advocate that the individual should be identified; I would argue that the statement should never have been made in the first place.
Now I don't know anything about the present situation, except that it does not involve me. Neither do I have any zeal to ferret out the facts. All I am saying is that the topic should not have been raised until and unless the poster considered it appropriate to disclose the facts and identify the offender. I accept that this approach might have involved some communication difficulties among those involved, but I would suggest that this would be much the lesser evil. Veiled allusions of wrongdoing simply provoke speculation and suspicion.
Incidentally, I agree with NFR's comments about gender ambiguity, though the thread seems to have wandered from its original point!
From a legal point of view, though the field is complex and I don't pretend to be an expert, the underlying principle of UK law is that you can adopt whatever identity you wish; misrepresentation only becomes an offence if, for example, the person involved thereby seeks to act to the detriment of others or to avoid his own legal obligations. Thus, a female author can purport to be a male (or vice versa), or an 'agony aunt' writing
on the problem page of a magazine may use the name 'Aunt Emily' even if he is actually Harry Jackson. It would however be an offence to assume someone else's identity in order to claim a legacy.
I know nothing about the present situation, other than what has thus far appeared in posts to this board and elsewhere, but on this basis it may be that no legal offence has been committed in the internet communications, or at any rate that the misrepresented identity was not an implicit element of any offence. It's all a question of balancing freedoms and responsibilities.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
First, apologies to JFR for conjoining him (in print, at any rate!) with NW, to whom I meant to refer and to whom I also duly grovel!
Second, I applaud Marc's recent (02.20 20 Oct) posting, which hits the nail on the head. 'Fraid I was never much good with a hammer. A whizz with a screwdriver, though!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you cossie, this matter should never have been brought to any board, especially since a promise was made to the injured party that his wishes would be followed in this matter. Those wishes were that the person who was going to leave all boards be allowed to, with no mention of his name or this problem revealed. To just let it pass and soon be forgotten. :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since I happen to be privy to some of Timmy's thoughts I can assure you that the recent posts in this thread are wide of the mark and seem to be confusing two different and unrelated acts of deception. Let's not jump to conclusions and let's wait patiently for Timmy's clarifications.
FWIW, my own opinion (as I have told Timmy) coincides with that of Cossie, that it would have been better not to say anything until everything could be said. But, since the situation is as it is, please let's just wait a little longer for Timmy's update.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Or, to put it another way, there was a private issue which never should have been brought here, and there is a matter which is very much in the public interest with an entirely separate person who had a rather different agenda.
The reasons why I brought it here earlier were to allow it gradually to seep into the minds of those who had previously thought this person a force for good. The posts allowed me in private converstaions to reveal matters to those directly concerned and in some cases badly maligned (including Mr Bryce, for example) in a manner that allowed them to think more deeply about the person who had appeared to be some sort of saviour.
I have a press article to check later today or possiby tomorrow, depending on when it is issued. When it is I will publish it here. All will ten become clear.
NOTE please that this is nothing to do with the veyr small matter UNcle Jim is speaking if which should never have come here.
Cossie, please bear with me. I am not ignoring you, but all will become unpleasingly clear soon
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i hope so (all being revealed) because this is kind of alarming and unsettling, and all these posts make it even more confusing and unsettling..
i'm sure i don't personally know who is being referenced, but.. yeah. a little scared here.
my void does not want.
-- 2.13.61.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... whilst this thread has unfolded.
Point in fact, if Timmy had not already removed my earlier thread, I would have implored him to do so; but not for any of the reasons put forth subsequently.
To clarify:
This topic DID DESERVE TO BE and SHOULD BE aired here. Although it is rather unfortunate that it has somewhat overshadowed Timmy's own earlier, and CONSIDERABLY MORE IMPORTANT thread dealing with a deception on a far greater scale than that perpetrated upon all of you, and elsewhere, by the the unidentifed subject of my own.
Uncle Jim is correct, I had entered into a non-disclosure agreement between four individuals here who had been aware that this deception had occurred, namely the Owner and Moderator of this Forum, the one person apparently most affected by that deception, latterly myself and one other, both of us lesser victims; but, and I spell this out very clearly, that non-disclosure pertained only the identity of the NEVER IDENTIFIED person who authored the deception.
If, as Timmy had asserted, and the deceptor was to be believed; namely, that no malice of forethought was a precursor of the deception, then I agreed that he could go quietly. In all likelihood my thread here, and elsewhere, revealing that a fraud by misrepresentation of personal identity had been perpetrated would not have been made at all; excepting that after agreement by the parties to the affair about non-disclosure had been reached, the UNIDENTIFIED deceptor chose to announce his leave taking from within a non-public (and Members only) area of a Forum which the four others who knew about the circumstances of the fraud are also Members. This declaration prompted, as would be expected when a well-loved friend announces his retirement, the typical "Accolade Parade" of "Best Wishes", "Regrets", "Disappointment" and whatever, which frankly was more than I could stomach as none of those well wishers were even aware that a misrepresntation of identity had taken place, nor were they ever likely to.
I asked myself "Was it likely that they too had shared, and if so, what were their nature, any personal confidences with that Member, just as I had done?" Further, "What truths lay in any thing he may have spoken about with us?", and most imortantly "What was real, and what was artfice?"
Of course my own very reality, and potentially that of the others too, was that WE WOULD, NEVER, EVER, KNOW; never, because he was leavingl leaveing as there was a very strong likelihood that his deception would be uncovered, and revealed, for what it was. He had, over the course of some 6-months or more, lied to us in the most basic of manners, namely, he was not who he said he was, having created an identity chosen to lull us into believing he to be "what he projected rather than what he truly was".
My thread WAS WRITTEN TO FORCE HIS HAND into revealing to everyone he had become involved the extent of his web of lies and deceit. Whether this deception was purposefully intended remains to be seen; but, I've come to suspect probably not.
Once he had done his entire "mea culpa" routine, again in the non-public Members only area of the Forum where he made his departure announcement, I promptly revealed to all here, and to each and every venue where I had placed similar notices, that closure had been achieved in this matter, and that amends had been made, and wholehearetedly accepted by all immediately involved. That should have brought closure to this topic.
He remains UNIDENTIFIED, and frankly that suits me. If he chooses to continue here, whether using his old identity, or a new one, I'm not troubled by that. He has been given an opportunity few of us ever are offered, not in this life anywhay; that being his being able to start over and not make the mistakes he previously made. He is able to continue with old friends, who know him for who it is rather than what he thought we might find acceptable, if he choses to do so, and is capable of building new friendships which hopefully this time around will be founded ona firm bedrock of reality.
THIS IS MY "FINAL" POST, ETHER HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET. I have requested elsewhere, and now do so here too, that my User I.D.'s be retired, as I've been castigated and vilified for apparently having brought controversy, dischord and dishonour amongst friends and associates whom trusted me over this issue.
The CyberWorld troubles me more and more daily, with artfice and deception having become the established norms and the greater majority of it's citizenry, as had been made patently clear to me, indifferent to it. I've come to realize that I'm a fossil; one who should have faded from the scene a great long while ago, perhaps at a time when who we really were actually stood for something. I think I'm better equipped to deal with people face-to-face where I'm able clasp their hand in friendship, gaze into their eyes and see the truths or falsehoods, and where a hug is actually feels oh so good.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
2005.10.20 12:00 Hrs EST
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there's a members only area? or did i miss the point of that?
i know i'm not one of the "ones affected" but i AM one of the ones who is very, very alarmed. i mean yes, we all pretend to be what we wish we were (to some extents or others) and there's no harm in that, UNTIL you start an involvment or relationship (friend or more) where someone falls in love or like with what you're really not. your personality you show might be the same and if so, then it's not AS harmful i guess, but still... tactless, i guess. but i guess it's what the internet allows since you don't see face to face.
but if you are pretending that too, then it hurts. i agree to that.
i just wish i could know what's going on. call me nosy, call it none of my business, but i'm a member here too, and i have friends here (even if just a bare less-than-handful) and now i wonder if they, too, are really who they say they are?
it's scary. we all have lives off here but some of us come here to escape, but still maybe hope that who we talk to and care for are who they are, or, if they are being something/someone else, at least one shred is real. it's the internet, yes, but in a way it's real, too.
i don't know. it all makes me feel sick. as in worried/scared sick. who are we? why bond here at all if half of us aren't all of what we say we are, or are none of what we say we are? some of us come here and present ourselves EXACTLY as we are. i guess that's naive or stupid, because i've always said who i am, shown who i am (the good and bad) and have pretended nothing. what's the point? the truth always finds a way to come out. and then what?
i'm sorry. i'm just getting feelings out because i care for many here, even the ones who don't care to know me or never did... it just hurts to know something like this is going on, and then indirectly has caused more upset.
my void does not want.
-- 2.13.61.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Does the word "grandstanding" occur to anyone here?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Ok this is getting bewildering
1: there is no members only area
2: I am not going to delete any user ids
3: There is no number 3
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I admit I am getting lost too. But it is conversation, I suppose.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Thank you, Timmy for your post under the 'Deceit' thread.
I confess that as someone not involved in the issue I find the disclosure of the facts something of an anticlimax. Though I maintain the view expressed above that the issue should have been suppressed until full disclosure was possible, I do to some extent understand how you must have felt and I have some inkling of the emotions which may have led to what I regard as a premature airing of the topic. We are all prey to our emotions and I don't pretend that in the circumstances I would necessarily have had the strength of will to act differently. On the broader issue, I agree wholeheartedly that the matter should now be widely publicised on gay-themed message boards for the benefit of those who may have been deceived by Bishop's approaches, though picking up a point in my previous post, I doubt whether his overt actions as an internet poster (as revealed in previous posts) would fall foul of UK law unless there was evidence of an intent to 'entrap' a minor. However, given the background now made public, there is every possibility that he may have crossed the line in private exchanges.
The expression of anguish in the heading to the post is because it now emerges that there were two distinct issues - something which was by no means evident from previous postings.
Turning to the second issue, involving Warren and - apparently - yourself, among others, I repeat what is becoming something of a mantra: I don't know anything about the matter except that it doesn't involve me. At face value, it seems to involve an individual who is in some way gender-challenged, who has been guilty of some kind of misrepresentation, and who has been banished from the boards to which they posted by an agreement that their withdrawal would guarantee preservation of anonymity.
I don't have the slightest quarrel with that; it appears to be a pragmatic solution to a potentially difficult problem - provided that the whole affair was kept under wraps. But it wasn't; it was aired (under thick layers of gobbledegook) here and on other boards. Once that happened, the collateral damage discussed in my previous (present and absent!) postings impacted upon the wider community. As things stand, someone is at fault - apparently quite serious fault - but in the absence of a name the mud sticks to us all. It has been suggested that the individual is welcome to return under a different identity. I'm not sure that I understand the logic of that, but it does imply that it is a web identity rather than a personal identification which is at stake. I would strongly suggest that any 'non-disclosure' agreement is seriously compromised, simply by the revelation that such an agreement exists, and that in the interests of all who have recourse to 'A Place of Safety' the web identity of this 'seconary deceiver' should be revealed in order to remove suspicion from the innocent.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
>Turning to the second issue, involving Warren and - apparently - yourself, among others ... At face value, it seems to involve an individual who is in some way gender-challenged, who has been guilty of some kind of misrepresentation, and who has been banished from the boards to which they posted by an agreement that their withdrawal would guarantee preservation of anonymity. I don't have the slightest quarrel with that; it appears to be a pragmatic solution to a potentially difficult problem - provided that the whole affair was kept under wraps. But it wasn't; it was aired (under thick layers of gobbledegook) here and on other boards...<
Like you, I have no personal knowledge of the second issue to which you refer (i.e. not the one involving George Paul Bishop). When you say that it was not made clear that there were two distinct incidents involved in the deceptions mentioned on this board you are being rather unfair. Please see what I wrote just a few posts up ("This is getting out of hand").
This second incident was brought to our attention, apparently, in a precipitous and unnecessarily dramatic post (since removed) by Warren in which he presented himself as a deceived party and that he was therefore removing himself from this and all other boards he frequents (which he has not done, since there have been subsequent posts from him - equally loquatious and theatrical).
At no stage, as far as I can tell, did anyone else on this message board mention this second incident except as a response generated by your objection to Timmy removing both the original reference and your original response. Had you, Cossie, not pursued the matter with your objections (see the thread "I am sure Warren and Cossie will understand") the whole incident would probably have blown over and been forgotten, as you say it should.
It is very easy to use the Internet to deceive. I agree with you that when the deception has no malicious intent it is ultimately harmless (which seems to be the case with the second issue discussed here); when there is a clear danger of malicious intent the deception should be publicised widely, as Timmy has done in the case of "Deacon".
I myself have been deceived by someone on the Internet. When the person involved 'fessed up' there was for me a moment of true heartbreak. But, rather than playing the 'drama queen', I showed continued love and understanding, because there was absolutely no malicious intent involved in the deceit at all. I am so glad that I did because, as I have told the person who deceived me, I have lost a phantom but gained a very dear friend.
Please forgive this rather long and Warrenesque post.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I accept without reservation all that you say, but unhapplily this isn't the only board on which the 'second issue' has surfaced. It follows that I must maintain my position that I adopted above - the greatest obligation is that which will benefit the greatest number.
I can't argue against the supposition that Warren's posts provoked the issue, but as things stand I can't see that continued secrecy is in the best interests of the majority.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I really wish we could keep the two subjects separate.
Warren posted a dramatic leaving statement. Actually he has done this a number of times before over a number of different topics. He was genuinely upset that someone had "hurt" a friend of his. "hurt" not "harmed". The only reason I am involved is that I was told of this. The facts of that case are of someone trapped in an initially innocent lie that got out of hand. When they did the honourable thing and came out I do not think theyexpected this fuss.
There is nothing in this that should stick to anyone. They were just "being something else", trying it out for size maybe. They are like all of us. Not whole and in need of love and understanding. As I have said before I have represented myself as handsome and sexy - a large duplicity - and feel that they are as welcome here as I.
Now the Deacon/Bishop thing.
It was not emotion that created the post. That emotion came and went on 19th August when he was sentenced and the whol mess started to unravel. The post, cryptic as it was, allowed me to help others to unravel their part in being victims of his deceit. Sometimes cryptic things are necessary, perplexing as they may be at the time.
There wil be a few more snippets on the Bishop matter.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> I can't argue against the supposition that Warren's posts provoked the issue, but as things stand I can't see that continued secrecy is in the best interests of the majority.
I don't agree at all. The post was unwise. This topic should die. Let them live in peace. Destroying one person who has been silly is unwarranted, and is a witch hunt.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Just to make my position clear.....
In any of the postings reguarding this subject here and elsewhere I refered only to the idea that the truth in internet communication is the only course guaranteed not to cause ill feelings or a backlash.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
You are entirely correct.
I suppose sometimes we simply cannot hear our own truth. As a simple example I denied I was gay until I was 48. Telling even myself the truth at that point was hard. Telling the others I wished to tell was harder.
When we get it wrong we get it very wrong.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
I have intentionally remained silent ... 
