Notice of RETRACTION of "A Reluctant Warning," posting #49369. [Archive]

View Full Version : Notice of RETRACTION of "A Reluctant Warning," posting #49369.

Barry

11-27-2009, 09:51 AM

I have retracted the above posting, posted on feb 22, 2009, with a full apology to the parties concerned. The posting contained unverified allegations. I gave the subject of the posting no opportunity to respond, which was not fair to the person to whom the posting referred. I jumped to conclusions regarding the issue of whether the subject allegedly treated an acquaintance of mine fairly in the course of assisting him, because I did not hear both sides of the matter. Further, I jumped to conclusions regarding the subject's purported conduct as a tenant, which matter is a pending lawsuit about which I do not have first hand information. Again, I apologize to all concerned.

Dram

11-27-2009, 07:37 PM

Damn Barry lets keep this on a roll, are there any other misfits of the world who could not find community here from when you were in your Banning ways?

would their apology help your apology?

Or are there any other apologists needing their stage?

I have retracted the above posting, posted on feb 22, 2009, with a full apology to the parties concerned. The posting contained unverified allegations. I gave the subject of the posting no opportunity to respond, which was not fair to the person to whom the posting referred. I jumped to conclusions regarding the issue of whether the subject allegedly treated an acquaintance of mine fairly in the course of assisting him, because I did not hear both sides of the matter. Further, I jumped to conclusions regarding the subject's purported conduct as a tenant, which matter is a pending lawsuit about which I do not have first hand information. Again, I apologize to all concerned.

barista

11-29-2009, 10:30 AM

I think I know what this is referring to and if I am wrong then I am sorry for jumping in and I am sorry that Barry has been dragged into all this along with many others. Since there are so many others, have you all thought about working together? I suggest getting help from the bay area media like CBS 5 Consumer Watch etc. I would be willing to help.

Damn Barry lets keep this on a roll, are there any other misfits of the world who could not find community here from when you were in your Banning ways?

would their apology help your apology?

Or are there any other apologists needing their stage?

Magick

11-29-2009, 10:36 PM

Barry, I do not know what you are referring to and since you are posting publicly please explain. Is there a lesson to be learned by someone, everyone? Yours in truth, Magick

I think I know what this is referring to and if I am wrong then I am sorry for jumping in and I am sorry that Barry has been dragged into all this along with many others. Since there are so many others, have you all thought about working together? I suggest getting help from the bay area media like CBS 5 Consumer Watch etc. I would be willing to help.

ElizabethM

12-01-2009, 10:39 AM

Thank you Barry for your apology and your humility around this...
It is Tragic that Barry had to get dragged into this mess as a part of his service to this community.

Let it be known that there are very unhealthy people in our midst who, do things that cause tremendous harm to others. period.

There are LONG dramatic stories involving this perpetrator resulting in financial ruin, emotional ruin, lawsuits, endless court dates along with unresolved court orders and lawsuits in other states.
When you rent to someone...check their references well !!
and if you choose to take a stand with a warning notice to the people in your village ...do it more wisely than Barry did...it cost him big time in more ways than one.
Thank you Barry and Bless you for your service.

Hoku Honu

12-03-2009, 03:43 PM

I too believe that I know the person concerned in Barry's post that he retracted by using these words:

I have retracted the above posting, posted on feb 22, 2009, with a full apology to the parties concerned. The posting contained unverified allegations. I gave the subject of the posting no opportunity to respond, which was not fair to the person to whom the posting referred. I jumped to conclusions regarding the issue of whether the subject allegedly treated an acquaintance of mine fairly in the course of assisting him, because I did not hear both sides of the matter. Further, I jumped to conclusions regarding the subject's purported conduct as a tenant, which matter is a pending lawsuit about which I do not have first hand information. Again, I apologize to all concerned.

I am so happy that Barry has apologized to this person. And if is this is the person I think it is, the people who have been posting negatively about this person couldn't be more wrong. The person to whom Barry apologized to doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't cause harm, has helped those less fortunate, and is the sort of responsible community member that I wish all communities had - because they hold themselves and others responsible for keeping their word.

As to those who are saying hateful things, let's remember what Barry has in his rules for posting on Wacco. "no hateful postings are accepted." A recent posting against this person was extremely hateful and untrue. I am surprised both that Barry let it be posted and how wrong the person who posted it is about the person to whom Barry apologized.

I have retracted the above posting, posted on feb 22, 2009, with a full apology to the parties concerned. The posting contained unverified allegations. I gave the subject of the posting no opportunity to respond, which was not fair to the person to whom the posting referred. I jumped to conclusions regarding the issue of whether the subject allegedly treated an acquaintance of mine fairly in the course of assisting him, because I did not hear both sides of the matter. Further, I jumped to conclusions regarding the subject's purported conduct as a tenant, which matter is a pending lawsuit about which I do not have first hand information. Again, I apologize to all concerned.

someguy

12-03-2009, 04:02 PM

I too believe that I know the person concerned in Barry's post that he retracted by using these words:

I have retracted the above posting, posted on feb 22, 2009, with a full apology to the parties concerned. The posting contained unverified allegations. I gave the subject of the posting no opportunity to respond, which was not fair to the person to whom the posting referred. I jumped to conclusions regarding the issue of whether the subject allegedly treated an acquaintance of mine fairly in the course of assisting him, because I did not hear both sides of the matter. Further, I jumped to conclusions regarding the subject's purported conduct as a tenant, which matter is a pending lawsuit about which I do not have first hand information. Again, I apologize to all concerned.

I am so happy that Barry has apologized to this person. And if is this is the person I think it is, the people who have been posting negatively about this person couldn't be more wrong. The person to whom Barry apologized to doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't cause harm, has helped those less fortunate, and is the sort of responsible community member that I wish all communities had - because they hold themselves and others responsible for keeping their word.

As to those who are saying hateful things, let's remember what Barry has in his rules for posting on Wacco. "no hateful postings are accepted." A recent posting against this person was extremely hateful and untrue. I am surprised both that Barry let it be posted and how wrong the person who posted it is about the person to whom Barry apologized.

Me-ow....

Nobody has yet to post anything hateful towards [-]you[/-] the person in question.

Hoku Honu

12-03-2009, 05:30 PM

Bark.

Excuse me, "someguy" I am not the person to whom Barry had to apologize. And if you think what "Templekeeper" posted yesterday about this person was not hateful, you aren't paying attention.

Me-ow....

Nobody has yet to post anything hateful towards [-]you[/-] the person in question.

someguy

12-03-2009, 06:25 PM

Bark.

Excuse me, "someguy" I am not the person to whom Barry had to apologize. And if you think what "Templekeeper" posted yesterday about this person was not hateful, you aren't paying attention.

Well I think you need to take a hard look at the word hate.

bodegahead

12-03-2009, 08:16 PM

I occasionally drink, and sometimes smoke my medicine. I find it offensive, blind and ignorant, that you preclude that someone who drinks or smokes is less of a responsible community member than one who does partake in these activities. I`ve know plenty of jerks that don`t drink or smoke. What does drinking and or smoking have to do with being a responsible member of the community?
And by the way, I also try to help those "less fortunate", one of many ways by sharing my drink and my smoke.

I too believe that I know the person concerned in Barry's post that he retracted by using these words:

I have retracted the above posting, posted on feb 22, 2009, with a full apology to the parties concerned. The posting contained unverified allegations. I gave the subject of the posting no opportunity to respond, which was not fair to the person to whom the posting referred. I jumped to conclusions regarding the issue of whether the subject allegedly treated an acquaintance of mine fairly in the course of assisting him, because I did not hear both sides of the matter. Further, I jumped to conclusions regarding the subject's purported conduct as a tenant, which matter is a pending lawsuit about which I do not have first hand information. Again, I apologize to all concerned.

I am so happy that Barry has apologized to this person. And if is this is the person I think it is, the people who have been posting negatively about this person couldn't be more wrong. The person to whom Barry apologized to doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't cause harm, has helped those less fortunate, and is the sort of responsible community member that I wish all communities had - because they hold themselves and others responsible for keeping their word.

As to those who are saying hateful things, let's remember what Barry has in his rules for posting on Wacco. "no hateful postings are accepted." A recent posting against this person was extremely hateful and untrue. I am surprised both that Barry let it be posted and how wrong the person who posted it is about the person to whom Barry apologized.

Barry

12-04-2009, 05:58 PM

Bark.

Don't you love it when people show their true colors right off the bat?
It makes it so much easier!

As to those who are saying hateful things, let's remember what Barry has in his rules for posting on Wacco. "no hateful postings are accepted." A recent posting against this person was extremely hateful and untrue. I am surprised both that Barry let it be posted and how wrong the person who posted it is about the person to whom Barry apologized.

That guideline that refers to "hateful postings" is using "hateful" in the same meaning as is commonly referred to as "hate crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime)" where the "hatred" is directed to a group of people as opposed to one person.

someguy

12-06-2009, 08:16 AM

Don't you love it when people show their true colors right off the bat?
It makes it so much easier!

That guideline that refers to "hateful postings" is using "hateful" in the same meaning as is commonly referred to as "hate crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime)" where the "hatred" is directed to a group of people as opposed to one person.

Did you just say that it's OKAY to direct hate towards a single person here on Wacco?

Please say it aint so...

Barry

12-06-2009, 03:51 PM

Did you just say that it's OKAY to direct hate towards a single person here on Wacco?

Please say it aint so...
It ain't so! :heart:

My comment above is just a clarification of the guideline.

To recap, my original warning started with "<link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/Home/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml">  <style>  </style>  I have posted in the past how I don't want to see WaccoBB.net to be used for character assassinations or to air private disputes between people. "

And I stand by that, and the same applies to any other hateful expressions.

My post was a warning; the post was not hateful nor intended to harm anyone, including the person that was the subject of my warning, but rather to alert the community to the presence of someone that appeared to be of a litigious nature.

However, as my retraction states (see below), I did not have first hand experience or direct knowledge of person's actions, and as such was based on hearsay and therefore factually unfounded.

Lesson learned: Have provable facts before speaking out.

This episode raises an important question for this community:

When and how is it appropriate to safely and responsibly warn the community about a member who has caused provable harm.

I have retracted the above posting, posted on feb 22, 2009, with a full apology to the parties concerned. The posting contained unverified allegations. I gave the subject of the posting no opportunity to respond, which was not fair to the person to whom the posting referred. I jumped to conclusions regarding the issue of whether the subject allegedly treated an acquaintance of mine fairly in the course of assisting him, because I did not hear both sides of the matter. Further, I jumped to conclusions regarding the subject's purported conduct as a tenant, which matter is a pending lawsuit about which I do not have first hand information. Again, I apologize to all concerned.

someguy

12-06-2009, 06:04 PM

When and how is it appropriate to safely and responsibly warn the community about a member who has caused provable harm.

Well I remember reading your original post and not finding it to be lewd, damaging, inappropriate or irresponsible.

With that said, I wonder if you were actually proven by either a court or by your own logic/conscience that you were in the wrong for making such a post?

In other words, was your original warning post deemed inappropriate, hurtful, or slanderous by someone other than the perpetrator/victim??

Barry

12-06-2009, 10:00 PM

Well I remember reading your original post and not finding it to be lewd, damaging, inappropriate or irresponsible.

With that said, I wonder if you were actually proven by either a court or by your own logic/conscience that you were in the wrong for making such a post?

In other words, was your original warning post deemed inappropriate, hurtful, or slanderous by someone other than the perpetrator/victim??
The simple answer to your question is No, though "Hoku Honu", who joined soon after this thread was started, would probably consider it slanderous (or to be precise, libelous). Where I failed was to get direct factual evidence and present only that (and thus my retraction below)

It was a difficult call for me to make in the first place (hence "reluctant") and the question still stands:

When and how is it appropriate to safely and responsibly warn the community about a member who has caused provable harm?

Speaking in general and not about this specific case:

For me, as founder and moderator, the notion of being aware of somebody that in my estimation is a potential danger to the community and not alerting the community about this is abhorrent.

What I'm trying to create here is a safe and trusted environment for community to come together. I know I can't prevent all abuse to all members. Hell, I can't even prevent all abuse to myself! But none the less, I do what I can to keep this space as safe as possible.

And I'm a fallible person. Just like you and the rest of the members. I failed in the present case to get verified information and present it in a strict factual way. And I had no agenda other than to keep this space safe and trusted. Think of the damage that could be done with someone with grudge.

As we see every day in these pages, many people have many agendas or axes to grind and can use the wide visibility offered here, while others, whose heart is pure, speak plainly about what they feel and what concerns them.

My best answer so far, is to lean more heavily on authenticity and responsibility. While our guidelines call for people to use their real names, and thus be responsible for what they "say", I have no way of enforcing it at present.

What's more I haven't constituted or enforced a strict "code of conduct" other than "respect" that people must agree to (another one of my failings?). I am considering implementing systems that further these goals when I upgrade the system next year.

As always, your thoughtful comments are appreciated.

I have retracted the above posting, posted on feb 22, 2009, with a full apology to the parties concerned. The posting contained unverified allegations. I gave the subject of the posting no opportunity to respond, which was not fair to the person to whom the posting referred. I jumped to conclusions regarding the issue of whether the subject allegedly treated an acquaintance of mine fairly in the course of assisting him, because I did not hear both sides of the matter. Further, I jumped to conclusions regarding the subject's purported conduct as a tenant, which matter is a pending lawsuit about which I do not have first hand information. Again, I apologize to all concerned.

someguy

12-07-2009, 04:02 AM

The simple answer to your question is No, though "Hoku Honu", who joined soon after this thread was started, would probably consider it slanderous (or to be precise, libelous). Where I failed was to get direct factual evidence and present only that (and thus my retraction below)

It was a difficult call for me to make in the first place (hence "reluctant") and the question still stands:

When and how is it appropriate to safely and responsibly warn the community about a member who has caused provable harm?

Well I would say it is much safer when you are absolutely within your legal rights make such a warning.

It would be appropriate if the matter was conducted with respectful and truly thoughtful actions, without any condemnation or ill wishes whatsoever.

someguy

12-07-2009, 12:19 PM

What's more I haven't constituted or enforced a strict "code of conduct" other than "respect" (another one of my failings?) that people must agree to. I am considering implementing systems that further these goals when I upgrade the system next year.

As always, your thoughtful comments are appreciated.

This may be an unrelated/inappropriate question Barry, but what types of systems are you considering that might be able to enforce Wacco's code of conduct better?

Juggledude

12-08-2009, 05:42 PM

My participation would increase dramatically if Wacco somehow required real names to be used. Folks hiding behind a nickname and presenting with egregious behavior really gets my goat. If this is community, let it be an extension of our physical community, not some half measure...

Unfortunately, the only way I know of enforcing that would be some type of credit card verification or other Babylonian and perhaps a tad draconian methods, which would certainly have ramifications beyond those of authenticity.

Royce

(note, real name and picture avatar!)

This may be an unrelated/inappropriate question Barry, but what types of systems are you considering that might be able to enforce Wacco's code of conduct better?

Magick

12-08-2009, 08:24 PM

I totally agree with you. Anonymous people do not make a community. I don't think we need to create a system of enforcement, but more inviting photos, real names and more fleshed out profiles would be a way of setting a precedent.
I think most people would come forward and those that don't and are rude and disrespectful just might find no responses to their posts. Non-engagement is a useful tool without aggression or conflict, to disempower negative forces. Yours in truth, Magick

My participation would increase dramatically if Wacco somehow required real names to be used. Folks hiding behind a nickname and presenting with egregious behavior really gets my goat. If this is community, let it be an extension of our physical community, not some half measure...

Unfortunately, the only way I know of enforcing that would be some type of credit card verification or other Babylonian and perhaps a tad draconian methods, which would certainly have ramifications beyond those of authenticity.

Royce

(note, real name and picture avatar!)