Dotcomunity latest

masonic

colsten wrote: »

Really?.......................................

Seen it several times recently. Thread started about company, someone comes in and overtly posts personal correspondence from the company and a few days later posts get edited to remove the text, or deleted. Especially when that correspondence is signed off using the author's full name, as this one was, IIRC.

Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong. The OP need only repost the email in its entirity again and let's see what happens...

FOREVER21

masonic wrote: »

The actual facts are that you posted the message, along with an assertion by the author that it must not be reproduced. In so doing, you pretty much guaranteed it would have been removed by the forum team if you hadn't done so yourself. Had you posted it without the footnote, in all likelihood nobody would have noticed the potential issue.

I tend to disagree, the MSE forum team would I expect be very aware that such footnotes are not enforceable (see my post5)
Had fwor known this then there would not had been an issue in the first place.

The problems addressed by the e-mail I published had been raised by many other MSE members on another thread.Many had complained that they had not received any reply, so I was only trying to allay their concerns.

A further e-mail has now been issued to all members, so to quote the famous bard this whole thread seems to me to be" Much Ado about nothing"

masonic

FOREVER21 wrote: »

I tend to disagree, the MSE forum team would I expect be very aware that such footnotes are not enforceable (see my post5)
Had fwor known this then there would not had been an issue in the first place.

The problems addressed by the e-mail I published had been raised by many other MSE members on another thread.Many had complained that they had not received any reply, so I was only trying to allay their concerns.

It is not about what is legally enforceable, it is about what is considered to be a breach of forum rules and the precedent for posting personal correspondence.

The rules specifically prohibit the posting of PMs from other forum users, but are unclear on other types of personal correspondence. My experience is that the more obvious ones do get removed. As I mentioned above, if I'm not mistaken your message included the full name of an employee of the credit union and posting that here is against forum rules. So in future, I'd suggest quoting relevant content, but not the rest.

Archi_Bald

FOREVER21 wrote: »

Had fwor known this then there would not had been an issue in the first place.

I thoroughly agree. Had fwor known this you would too. I mean, you couldn't possibly disagree had Had fwor known this. Compelling stuff.

FOREVER21

masonic wrote: »

It is not about what is legally enforceable, it is about what is considered to be a breach of forum rules and the precedent for posting personal correspondence.

The rules specifically prohibit the posting of PMs from other forum users, but are unclear on other types of personal correspondence. My experience is that the more obvious ones do get removed. As I mentioned above, if I'm not mistaken your message included the full name of an employee of the credit union and posting that here is against forum rules. So in future, I'd suggest quoting relevant content, but not the rest.

Your final point is taken, however for the record my original posting did not quote full name merely a first name.