Uh-Oh!

[Deputy Nutz]

God Harlan is right! Its like I am13 again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The measure of civility of a group is how they treat the unpopular people.

You come up with all these sayings or credos, or whatever. Harlan don't get up on your soap box and claim that you are unpopular on this forum

Think of me as the new Buddhah. Actually, there is some physical resemblance. I may not be unpopular, but I frequently find myself a guest on various shit lists.

I really wasn't much thinking of you when I made this post. So your defensiveness (about you not picking on SOV & Tank etc.) was not necessary, sorry for implication that I was directly criticizing you.

I was just responding, in a general sense, to your statement that seemed to suggest that Devil's Advocates and Instigators are due a little extra something-something up the anus.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Here is my reply to Harlan on page 4. Did he respond no, because he was cowardly in the first place bringing that shit up.

I didn't respond because there's not much to say. For those unaware of what Nutz is worked-up about, lets get a handle on the crime that Nutz identified:

I made a brief, indirect reference to an opinion that Nutz expressed about Mazzin in a (now defunct) private forum .
Nutz then had opportunity to phrase and defend his opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

....wait....are you talking about the same guy that nailed scott campbell for posting something on the forum from a private email?
.....sorry.....2 cents.

Well 007, as long as we have your 2 cents, lets go for a dime, or even a quarter.

You never said much about Scott's faux pax, is that because you didn't think it was too big of a deal?

I would say our indiscretions are pretty different, if you way factors of malicious intent, and harm done.

Do you see them as comparable? I won't argue with you if you wish to weigh-in with opinion. (Am braced for the worst!)

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Did Harlan say something bed to Campbell? I must've missed it. Seems like yesturday, Harlan and Campbell were brothers in arm against me and Woodbuck.

I guess in a world where Iraq can be our ally in a minute and our ememy the next, anything is possible.

Thanx Harlan for defending me.

[Scott Campbell]

What is it about Scotty that makes him so special?

The sauce.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I was raped by Scott Campbell.

Actually I suppose it is time to put Woodygate to bed.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Macro Roni and Cheese! I just read a few pages back and it seems like The Kentucky hates me really much. I think it has something to do with me calling him the Whore, which in Italian is say kentucky, or kentucki.

[woodbuck27]

Attacking someone just makes matters worse.

ummm....so does posting something publicly that was written for only certain peeps.

I'm not sure if I'm perceiving this correctly. There may be something here that has beem misrepresented and used wrongly against an innocent party - Harlan ?

I'm guessing here. An incorrect perception you grnbay007, may have of Harlan, based on misrepresentation. It's hard to tell, as some of you fellas seem to get a polish, talking in code.

If this isn't a forum matter then I'm way off base, so please, ignore this post. I don't want to stumble into your love/sex lives.

I'll run you through this grnbay007. Also my intent is not to open any wounds but emphasize the TRUTH. If anyone wants to open a certain can of worms, they will after this find a uncooperative party in me.

Here goes:

If XX (that's Harlan) writes *** something ie an E-Mail, (about person - YY) and writes that to person - ZZ . . . as a personal and confidential correspondence . . .

and ZZ goes public with it *** to try to shock or otherwise harm YY , in a face to face confrontation with YY . . . and. . . in so doing, compromises the trust that XX placed in ZZ because of certain possibly perceived sensitivity.

Then ZZ is clearly unethical, on at least two counts.

1. Malisciousness by ZZ in the manner of the attacks, or need to use such methods on YY - or resorting to unfair tactics, as in using the name of an imagined ally ( XX ) or a lame alliance and. . .

2. A betrayel of XX's TRUST - by ZZ publishing in a public forum what XX wrote about YY in private - confidence with only ZZparticularly given the content of that correspondence that could have caused a REAL Forest Fire or escalated the problem.

As I see it. It matters little, what was said discussed or otherwise communicated as long as all communications were in confidence, excluding the rest of the world.

XX, YY and ZZ said this or that, about whatever and XX was in the middle. What is evidence of the worst wrong doing, is the publication of the private /confidential correspondence by ZZ.

Harlan isn't guilty ( or is innocent) of such willful abuse of a privalege/ confidence, In any matter that ever concerned me.

In my scenario above Harlan is XX.

The identification of all the parties and the specifics of the matter isn't of pertenence, as it's long over .

Ancient history to me is last week. Why do people carry on with stupid grudges - a waste of energy?

I felt possibly that Harlan has taken heat he didn't deserve. I'm out publicly to say he has been misjudged if that is the case.

postscript.

My deal here, is not to open old wounds, but rather make some efffort of ensureing that noone on this board is wrongfully acccused of mischief. I re-read this thread tonight. . . yes I know that's masochistic. . . and really felt a concern for how Harlan is interpreted and then that old crap about publishing whatever came up. . Red Flag !

I will not go back there, other than this loose end approach, that may be entirely off the mark. I elected not to get personal by utilizing the PM approach. Certainly this thread is ' of an OPEN - of the PUBLIC ' sort.

[GrnBay007]

Attacking someone just makes matters worse.

ummm....so does posting something publicly that was written for only certain peeps.

I'm not sure if I'm perceiving this correctly. There may be something here that has beem misrepresented and used wrongly against an innocent party -Harlan ?

I'm guessing here. An incorrect perception you grnbay007 may have of Harlan,based on misrepresentation. It's hard to tell, as some of you fellas seem to get a polish talking in code.

Woody, I got kinda dizzy reading all the XX's and ZZ's.

...anyway, that was my response to HH and my attempt at a very discreet reminder to HH that he doesn't live in a glass house. ....as none of us do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have a headache. Woody, nobody was unfair to me.

007 - live in a glass house? oh, ya, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!"

So you think what I did was comparable to what Scott did?

[woodbuck27]

" Woody, I got kinda dizzy reading all the XX's and ZZ's.

...anyway, that was my response to HH and my attempt at a very discreet reminder to HH that he doesn't live in a glass house. ....as none of us do."

Yea! the female gender are somewhat Math challenged and that's OK.

I'll cut to the chase.

Harlan trys very hard to make things great here and is often misunderstood but in that 'for your eye's only' fiasco Harlan is entirely innocent of any publication of what he wrote in confidence.

Unless he is some CIA operative type.

[woodbuck27]

[quote="Harlan Huckleby"]I have a headache. Woody, nobody was unfair to me.

Your not suffering then! Good.

I almost had to dig up old textbooks 'to boost' the case for you.

[GrnBay007]

....wait....are you talking about the same guy that nailed scott campbell for posting something on the forum from a private email?
.....sorry.....2 cents.

Well 007, as long as we have your 2 cents, lets go for a dime, or even a quarter.

You never said much about Scott's faux pax, is that because you didn't think it was too big of a deal?

I would say our indiscretions are pretty different, if you way factors of malicious intent, and harm done.

Do you see them as comparable? I won't argue with you if you wish to weigh-in with opinion. (Am braced for the worst!)

Got change for a buck Harlan?

You are right, I don't think I ever gave an opinion about that other ordeal. I don't remember when that happened or even what exactly it was all about other than contents of an email being viewed by other than those intended.
If I remember correctly we were kind of in between forums at that time and I was dealing with a family member illness and death. I don't think I really posted too much at all, so you will have to forgive me for not voicing my opinion then.

I don't know, I guess I'm just one of those people that hates to see any form of trust betrayed.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ok, 007, fair enough.

People are not able to be completely trustworthy, they don't keep secrets. Some are better than others at it. Discretion is not my strongest suit.