Can't resist. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: >
> > Awww, I don't know if it's permanent...for you > > maybe...."reputation"? Really? I think he [Curtis] > > just got angry. > > Sure, he got angry. But being angry doesn't give one > license to be unethical. And this was one of the most > unethical things I've ever seen anyone do on FFL. Just in the interest of science, please rank what Curtis did on your personal scale of "most unethical" among these other contenders. Please explain for us which of them ranks as "more unethical" than the others, and why. We'll wait. * Curtis suggesting that Judy might not be happy if she knew what Robin really thought of her. * Judy not just suggesting but stating many times that someone on FFL had made a "death threat" against her, knowing that to be a false claim. * Raunchy dissing Sal and then, when the facts were pointed out to her, doubling down rather than simply apologizing. * Ravi attempting to smear someone's reputation and ability to make a living by making up stories about him being a pervert and flooding Internet search engines with them. * Tom posting pornography to Fairfield Life and then notifying the Yahoo administrators, in an attempt to get the site taken down, because someone on it dissed him by calling him a racist, shortly after several posts in which he *bragged* about being a racist. * Jim posting under at least four different aliases on FFL, claiming vociferously that it wasn't him but then stupidly posting material copyrighted to himself under one or more of the aliases. All of this while claiming to be enlightened. Am I correct in feeling, Judy, that you consider what Curtis did "more unethical" than any of these? Please explain why you believe that. *THAT* should get her to post out by Tuesday. :-)
