Even the so called good guys...ugly hobby?

[calvindog]

Peter, you might have a decent point if it were Elkins who posted the email: clearly Kevin meant for his discussions about committing fraud on Net 54 members to remain private between the two of them. Once Elkins released it to others, what obligation did John have to keep it private? And surely Kevin's stated desire to defraud Net 54 members trumps any privacy interest of his.

Plus I'm sure the many highly trained lawyers who post on Net 54 would be rushing to Kevin's side to file a lawsuit if such a claim existed. But of course we both know that won't happen.

Finally, Kevin came on here and gave his explanation so all's well that ends well. I would suggest to Kevin that instead of whining about his private email being splashed here for all to see he should probably come up with a better explanation as to why he felt it appropriate to write about his glee in defrauding Net 54 members -- and his disappointment over not defrauding me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think there is even a ghost of a legal issue. Whether it is right is another matter.

[calvindog]

See my paragraph one just above.

[wonkaticket]

For the record I was asked to be sent this email from Elkins he had Dan McKee forward on his thoughts about something and he just happened to foward on this email to me.

This email was addressed to me not sent under the table....

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am sure all of us have said things in emails that, if taken out of context and published on message boards, would not make us look pretty. This is not to excuse Kevin (although I continue to be highly skeptical he actually did anything along the lines he was speaking about) but to make a broader point that I don't think people should publish private emails, even if their intentions are good.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am not condemning John by any means, I understand this is a matter on which people have legitimate differences of opinion, I am merely stating my own.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sure all of us have said things in emails that, if taken out of context and published on message boards, would not make us look pretty.

The entire email string was revealed; nothing was taken out of context.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In this particular case, sure, but that doesn't change my view of the wisdom of the rule (which this forum has) against publication.

And I quote
Things you can not post about

Personal information about people including but not limited to: Phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, etc, unless given permission ...Personal emails should not be posted on the board.

[calvindog]

Except it wasn't a private email that was published; it was an email that was released by Elkins to someone other than the sender.