CONCERNING THE POST "EXPLOITING THE WEAK" dated Jun 16, 2006.
I am posting this here because I have no other means of communication with this blog's moderators.
A few days ago, I requested deletion of a thread that was cut-and-paste from Loftus' board concerning my departure from Christianity as a result of paranoid schizophrenia. I indicated in that request the thread be deleted. That request has yet to be acted upon. I made it clear that I had asked God's forgiveness, and had returned to the Christian faith.
1. I am no great fan of Loftus anymore, but cutting-and-pasting that post without his permission is a violation of copyright law.
2. I consider the title of the thread "EXPLOITING THE WEAK" to be offensive, patronizing and totally lacking in Christian love. It reads more like a trash tabloid headline than an indicator of sincere and genuine Christian love.
I am not willing to wait for the "triabloggers" to hold a committee meeting to determine whether or not the post should be deleted. It apparently never occurred to you that when people I am seeking to enter into business ventures with perform a google search or any search engine search of my name, that garbage shows up.
If the thread is not deleted soon, I may persue civil litigation against this blog's moderator's.
The post was directed against Loftus, not against you. Once something is introduced into the blogosphere, it's almost impossible to eradicate, even if you tried. And do you really think a quotation violates the fair use provision? And, assuming for the sake of argument, that this represents a breach of copyright law, Loftus holds the copyright, not you. So you have no legal standing.
BTW, it's not as if Loftus and his team members don't regularly quote material from Tblog "without permission." Bloggers respond to each other. That's a basic feature of blogging.
Steve, I have used blogger software architecture before many times. Yes, it can be deleted. I know that for a fact. You go into the "Edit Posts" function of the dashboard and delete it. The copyright violation aspect is a minor consideration for me. There is little doubt in my mind that I can make a civil litigation case for slander. It is incomprehensible to me how so-called Christians can defend their right to cling to a blog thread that defames a mentally ill person's name. Once again, I strongly suggest you find a way to delete it or I will strongly consider civil litigation against whoever is the proprietary owner of triablogue.
I didn't say it can't be deleted. But deleting a post doesn't make it disappear from the blogosphere.
"Slander"? You volunteered information about your medical condition in the public domain. I merely repeated what you said about yourself, and I did so in criticism of Loftus. There's no legal slander here. And there's no ethical lapse.
It would be slander if it wasn't true at the time you volunteered it. We're glad that you've recovered and returned to the faith, but part of that means you have to face the consequences of your past actions, the same way that all of us do, the same way Paul had to deal with his past.
I assume you mean "libel" and not "slander," for "libel" refers to written material. But you posted the material youself on another person's website and subsequently handed ownership of the material to them.
We can hardly be held responsible for material that you volunteered, that you yourself made public. Sure, we can delete it or edit it, but there's such a thing as Google cache and ye olde Internet Wayback Machine.
And Pike is right. Should you decide to "pursue civil litigation" against this blog or any other, you'd be making the post public for all to see, broadcasting what you said in the public record in perpetuity. To use your own words, it apparently never occured to you when you originally posted that material that people with whom you are seeking to enter into business ventures search for your name, that it could show up.
How does it defame the name of a person, when that person himself volunteered the information? Sure, you've recanted, but that doesn't change the way you felt then or the fact that you posted the information. We are "defaming" you, you did that all by yourself. Man up and own it.
It's amazing to me that the only interest the Triabloguers here have is whether they have followed the letter of the law, and how they have no responsibility for how the internet is. Not a single thought apparently for love of a brother that it would make him feel better if the post were deleted.
Mr. Permar's name was removed from the post. That seems sufficient from where I stand, and perhaps more than is warranted. It is not as though Triablogue made light of his illness or made unjust accusations against him or revealed information about him that was disclosed in confidence. Indeed, what they did was expose John Loftus' misuse of what Mr. Permar wrote.
If Mr. Permar is now suffering consequences for what he wrote and promulgated publically through the aegis of Mr. Loftus, the Triabloguers can hardly be held responsible for his poor choice or for Mr. Loftus' actions.
Furthermore, Mr. Permar is the one who introduced the "letter of the law" above in accusing Triablogue of violating copyright law and threatening to seek legal action against Triablogue for not removing the thread. They have violated no law, and the threat is empty and unbecoming of Mr. Permar.
All in all, the Triabloguers have nothing of which to be ashamed in this incident.
Since it will do his mind some good, just delete any and all posts in which he was involved.
He's suffering, man. Just erase his missteps. Trust me, it'll make him feel better if his slips aren't here for 20+ people to see. Spare him that dignity.
I'm not a Triabloguer, so I have no control over the thread. I merely pointed out that I see nothing shameful in their conduct. As it stands, while a Google search for Mr. Permar's name will bring up the archive page with the post in question, one cannot find his name anywhere on the archive page.
As for Mr. Permar, Gene was correct above when he said, "you have to face the consequences of your past actions, the same way that all of us do, the same way Paul had to deal with his past."
JJ and Dementophobist seem to think that reality can change if we delete a few posts. That is, they seem to think we can alter the past and pretend it never happened.
Sounds pretty much like how most oppresive regimes keep their people in line. Delete the history books and create a new past...
The post in question had little to do with Robert. It was a response to Loftus's tactics. That response remains valid regardless of whether Robert's name is on there. Therefore, we had no problem removing his name from the post.
But the post served a purpose, and (because Robert himself shone the spotlight on it again) it still serves one today. We cannot in good faith delete it simply because someone arrogantly demands that we remove it. (And that's what Robert's done here.)
In my opinion, what we've done on the matter is the best compromise. The post remains and serves its purpose, but Robert's name is no longer included and therefore Google will eventually update with one of their spider crawls. We can't do anything about internet archive sites--but that's true regardless of whether we delete the post or simply his name from the post.
That JJ would seek to use this rational response to try to condemn T-Blog shows more about JJ's character than it does about ours. That Dementophobist thinks that bowing to the demands of someone who claims to have converted (yet who would still break Scripture's command to not take brothers to court, before even giving us T-Bloggers a chance to do anything to begin with) says more about Dementophobist than it does about us.
This is my final response to all posts in regards to this matter: I will leave this matter in God's hands. He will be the final Judge of your attitudes, motives, and heart.
CONCERNING THE POST "EXPLOITING THE WEAK" dated Jun 16, 2006.
ReplyDeleteI am posting this here because I have no other means of communication with this blog's moderators.
A few days ago, I requested deletion of a thread that was cut-and-paste from Loftus' board concerning my departure from Christianity as a result of paranoid schizophrenia. I indicated in that request the thread be deleted. That request has yet to be acted upon. I made it clear that I had asked God's forgiveness, and had returned to the Christian faith.
1. I am no great fan of Loftus anymore, but cutting-and-pasting that post without his permission is a violation of copyright law.
2. I consider the title of the thread "EXPLOITING THE WEAK" to be offensive, patronizing and totally lacking in Christian love. It reads more like a trash tabloid headline than an indicator of sincere and genuine Christian love.
I am not willing to wait for the "triabloggers" to hold a committee meeting to determine whether or not the post should be deleted. It apparently never occurred to you that when people I am seeking to enter into business ventures with perform a google search or any search engine search of my name, that garbage shows up.
If the thread is not deleted soon, I may persue civil litigation against this blog's moderator's.
Robert T. Permar
STEVE SAID:
ReplyDeleteThe post was directed against Loftus, not against you. Once something is introduced into the blogosphere, it's almost impossible to eradicate, even if you tried. And do you really think a quotation violates the fair use provision? And, assuming for the sake of argument, that this represents a breach of copyright law, Loftus holds the copyright, not you. So you have no legal standing.
BTW, it's not as if Loftus and his team members don't regularly quote material from Tblog "without permission." Bloggers respond to each other. That's a basic feature of blogging.
Steve, I have used blogger software architecture before many times. Yes, it can be deleted. I know that for a fact. You go into the "Edit Posts" function of the dashboard and delete it. The copyright violation aspect is a minor consideration for me. There is little doubt in my mind that I can make a civil litigation case for slander. It is incomprehensible to me how so-called Christians can defend their right to cling to a blog thread that defames a mentally ill person's name. Once again, I strongly suggest you find a way to delete it or I will strongly consider civil litigation against whoever is the proprietary owner of triablogue.
ReplyDeleteRobert T. Permar
I didn't say it can't be deleted. But deleting a post doesn't make it disappear from the blogosphere.
ReplyDelete"Slander"? You volunteered information about your medical condition in the public domain. I merely repeated what you said about yourself, and I did so in criticism of Loftus. There's no legal slander here. And there's no ethical lapse.
Wouldn't persuing legal action against T-Blog...um, you know, like kinda PUT THIS OUT INTO PUBLIC???
ReplyDeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteIt would be slander if it wasn't true at the time you volunteered it. We're glad that you've recovered and returned to the faith, but part of that means you have to face the consequences of your past actions, the same way that all of us do, the same way Paul had to deal with his past.
I assume you mean "libel" and not "slander," for "libel" refers to written material. But you posted the material youself on another person's website and subsequently handed ownership of the material to them.
We can hardly be held responsible for material that you volunteered, that you yourself made public. Sure, we can delete it or edit it, but there's such a thing as Google cache and ye olde Internet Wayback Machine.
And Pike is right. Should you decide to "pursue civil litigation" against this blog or any other, you'd be making the post public for all to see, broadcasting what you said in the public record in perpetuity. To use your own words, it apparently never occured to you when you originally posted that material that people with whom you are seeking to enter into business ventures search for your name, that it could show up.
How does it defame the name of a person, when that person himself volunteered the information? Sure, you've recanted, but that doesn't change the way you felt then or the fact that you posted the information. We are "defaming" you, you did that all by yourself. Man up and own it.
It's amazing to me that the only interest the Triabloguers here have is whether they have followed the letter of the law, and how they have no responsibility for how the internet is. Not a single thought apparently for love of a brother that it would make him feel better if the post were deleted.
ReplyDeleteShame, shame, shame.
JJ,
ReplyDeleteMr. Permar's name was removed from the post. That seems sufficient from where I stand, and perhaps more than is warranted. It is not as though Triablogue made light of his illness or made unjust accusations against him or revealed information about him that was disclosed in confidence. Indeed, what they did was expose John Loftus' misuse of what Mr. Permar wrote.
If Mr. Permar is now suffering consequences for what he wrote and promulgated publically through the aegis of Mr. Loftus, the Triabloguers can hardly be held responsible for his poor choice or for Mr. Loftus' actions.
Furthermore, Mr. Permar is the one who introduced the "letter of the law" above in accusing Triablogue of violating copyright law and threatening to seek legal action against Triablogue for not removing the thread. They have violated no law, and the threat is empty and unbecoming of Mr. Permar.
All in all, the Triabloguers have nothing of which to be ashamed in this incident.
Hi Kyle,
ReplyDeleteSince it will do his mind some good, just delete any and all posts in which he was involved.
He's suffering, man. Just erase his missteps. Trust me, it'll make him feel better if his slips aren't here for 20+ people to see. Spare him that dignity.
Please.
Demontophobist,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a Triabloguer, so I have no control over the thread. I merely pointed out that I see nothing shameful in their conduct. As it stands, while a Google search for Mr. Permar's name will bring up the archive page with the post in question, one cannot find his name anywhere on the archive page.
As for Mr. Permar, Gene was correct above when he said, "you have to face the consequences of your past actions, the same way that all of us do, the same way Paul had to deal with his past."
JJ and Dementophobist seem to think that reality can change if we delete a few posts. That is, they seem to think we can alter the past and pretend it never happened.
ReplyDeleteSounds pretty much like how most oppresive regimes keep their people in line. Delete the history books and create a new past...
The post in question had little to do with Robert. It was a response to Loftus's tactics. That response remains valid regardless of whether Robert's name is on there. Therefore, we had no problem removing his name from the post.
But the post served a purpose, and (because Robert himself shone the spotlight on it again) it still serves one today. We cannot in good faith delete it simply because someone arrogantly demands that we remove it. (And that's what Robert's done here.)
In my opinion, what we've done on the matter is the best compromise. The post remains and serves its purpose, but Robert's name is no longer included and therefore Google will eventually update with one of their spider crawls. We can't do anything about internet archive sites--but that's true regardless of whether we delete the post or simply his name from the post.
That JJ would seek to use this rational response to try to condemn T-Blog shows more about JJ's character than it does about ours. That Dementophobist thinks that bowing to the demands of someone who claims to have converted (yet who would still break Scripture's command to not take brothers to court, before even giving us T-Bloggers a chance to do anything to begin with) says more about Dementophobist than it does about us.
BTW, if Robert is so concerned about his reputation, then why does his blog read like a help wanted ad for an S&M bar?
ReplyDeletehttp://queensvassal.blogspot.com/2008/06/reserved_10.html
This is my final response to all posts in regards to this matter: I will leave this matter in God's hands. He will be the final Judge of your attitudes, motives, and heart.
ReplyDeleteRobert T. Permar
It seems queensvassal.blogspot has been taken down. However, a Google search of "queensvassal" has cached pages that verify Steve's statement.
ReplyDelete