David Wolcott on "Gossip" as a Species of Sin

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: David Wolcott on "Gossip" as a Species of Sin · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Since I have been accused by some of "gossip"

First version of the post had three consecutive sixes in post number. Since I changed post, I have also added some material.

David Wolcott to me

Tuesday 19:33

Hans, please remove my name and comments from your blog. If others gave you permission to share their names and comments, so be it, but you never talked to me first. Please don't do it again in the future, either.

Me to David Wolcott

Sorry, but as you are a moderator, I won't.

David Wolcott to me

So, you do not respect personal privacy?

Me to David Wolcott

The group is closed, but not secret or private.

I am also not sharing with another specific group on FB, but with the readers over the web.

That was my rationale when Matthew Hunt made a similar request some weeks ago, it's my rationale with you as well.

However, if any of the others like to have names abbreviated, that is another matter.

Do check how your colleague Daniel Quinones felt about Matthew's complaint a few weeks ago.

I do not think anything except the names are private, and yours as a moderator's isn't to me.

Precisely as Matthew Hunt's as a PhD's.

Those who would have some legitimate interest might get their names abbreviated so the initial distinguish otherwise anonymous people - but I have no request from them so far.

Ask [I asked them anyway, outside this correspondence], if he/they blocked me, they might not know of my offer.

David Wolcott to me

Why do you not know that a closed group means only members can read comments, Hans? Why do you want to put people at risk through gross social media security violations?

Me to David Wolcott

Now, if risk we talk, I am perhaps one running more.

If others are possibly at risk, I will abbreviate names on request.

David Wolcott to me

To be an honest and mature adult, you WILL ask permission before sharing other people's information first. Doing otherwise is just feeding the predators. And if you don't understand how to be respectful and protective of other people's information, then you need to remove yourself from Facebook entirely until you have educated yourself on privacy.

Hans, I have talked with Daniel. Until you remove information from those requesting you to, you have been removed from the group. As of now, Hunt is the only exception being a public profile anyway. You are free to message Daniel if you want, but I am working under him on actions taken here.

Me to David Wolcott

Wednesday 10:13

Look here.

I looked up the group.

It has 2.4 K members.

2444 to be precise.

Pretending sth posted in it is posted "in private" is ludicrous.

Pretending that YOU as one of the moderators of so many are a private person is also ludicrous.

What is not ludicrous is someone saying sth without being otherwise notable, then me abbreviating the names.

I might have done so anyway, but was just a bit stressed.

However, you have so far been the only one to request removal, after Matthew Hunt.

If others want that chance, now that you have removed me from group (just in time for when Hunt makes his OP about Heliocentrism), you take my profile and post it to each who might be concerned in a PM or under the OP where I gave opportunities to react, with greetings from me.

But those who I think are entitled to privacy as to name, well, it seems they are not so eager to request it.

"Doing otherwise is just feeding the predators."

What exact predators are you talking about?

Unlike Bill Ludlow taking sth out of context and letting a group laugh at a lady, behind her back, my "taking out" is definitely into public as public, as far as I am concerned.

Anyone had access to it and access to context, since I did NOT cherrypick tidbits which I could twist behind peoples's backs.

David Wolcott to me

12:02

What kind of arrogance let's you think you are the authority over other's information? I would expect such foolishness from Hunt.

Me to David Wolcott

14:46

Nice, but I don't think information which has already been shared in public is anyone's private such.

And 2444 persons is the equivalent of a village.

Here is my answer to someone else who thought me arrogant:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I was Given Advice …
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2015/04/i-was-given-advice.html

David Wolcott to me

Tell me how many posts you can see in the group now before calling it public again.

And if you really are too arrogant to ignore advice from someone who actually does understand privacy and your sin of gossip, that's your folly.

Me to David Wolcott

15:53

"sin of gossip"

You might like to define exactly whether it was calumny or detraction.

In the case of detraction, whether I was revealing Hunt's foibles without good reason (=sin of detraction) or WITH good reason (=no sin of detraction).

As to "sin of gossip" I don't find that in a Catholic Catechism on the VIII commandment.

You have calumny, detraction, lying, false witness in court of course.

So, what exactly do you mean by "sin of gossip" here?

Hunt is doing no harm OR the harm he is doing cannot in any way shape or form be combatted by my act?

David Wolcott to me

• 1) I'm not Catholic.
  
  
• 2) one form of gossip is spreading information you have no right or permission to spread. You know you don't have access to the threads now, which tells you that they are NOT, contrary to your mythology, public.
  
  
• 3) after being told by different people to remove various names, you have refused.
  
  
• 4) what Hunt does gives you no excuse to hurt others, otherwise you are worse than him.

Me to David Wolcott

It seems you Bible has the word "gossip" in Proverbs 18:8.

Here is mine:

[8] The words of the double tongued are as if they were harmless: and they reach even to the inner parts of the bowels. Fear casteth down the slothful: and the souls of the effeminate shall be hungry.
[8] Verba bilinguis quasi simplicia, et ipsa perveniunt usque ad interiora ventris. Pigrum dejicit timor; animae autem effeminatorum esurient.

And the article "gossip" mentioned "lashon hara" whereof the definition is basically the same as for "detraction" : NEEDLESSLY exposing the sins of others.

That article mentions Leviticus 19:16, which in my Bible has this text:

[16] Thou shalt not be a detractor nor a whisperer among the people. Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbour. I am the Lord.
[16] Non eris criminator, nec susurro in populo. Non stabis contra sanguinem proximi tui. Ego Dominus.

As to "criminator", I think this is meant by "detraction".

As to "susurro" or "whisperer" a blog can hardly be considered that discreet.

It is more like a "closed group" where someone says about someone "I have mentioned this so often to him, until he blocked me" and then you consider this information cannot be used in a public action about Hunt's ways as an Academic, it was just for the entertainment of others in the group ... like when Ludlow posted someone's "crazy thing" or "batshit" in a group dedicated to laughing at what creationists say.

David Wolcott to me

You are like Ludlow, yes: spreading comments you have no business spreading, with complete disregard to who you hurt.

"You know you don't have access to the threads now, which tells you that they are NOT, contrary to your mythology, public."

They are public to the present 2444 members of the group, if that is still the number.

"after being told by different people to remove various names, you have refused."

I have refused YOUR and HUNT'S request.

If I have had other requests where I published, you are the one who blocked me from them.

"what Hunt does gives you no excuse to hurt others"

I intend to hurt none except him by what has so far been published. And not for no purpose at all, but to show what modern Academia is in Europe. If you think YOU are hurt by your words being there, you might want to reconsider your own role.

And I might want to consider I need to publish this conversation, as a defense against calumniators who hold me culpable of detraction or lashon hara. Ludlow spread them where the person who originated the words could not comment on context.

I am spreading them in public, and that means the person can complain if I quoted anything out of context and can argue back.

David Wolcott to me

They are not public to you anymore, nor were they public to those who have access to your blog but are not in the group.

And your argument about the posts being public will be violated if you spread this private messaging, which will only be you posting yourself lying and breaking your own argument.

And I understand that you intend to hurt no one.

You don't care what your actions do, and what the consequences of your actions are. That's the problem.

You hold double standards, period. And you don't care.

Furthermore, Hans, your every spreading of these comments is helping Hunt, not hurting him. You are playing yourself into his hand, exactly what he wants.

Does that make you happy, to know you are encouraging him, feeding him? To know you are threatening others by association just because you don't care about the consequences?

Me to David Wolcott

How you spread a newspaper article affects how public it is?

No, I don't think Hunt is really happy, he plays happy in order to impress.

David Wolcott to me

You don't think, in general, otherwise you'd wonder why NO ONE HAS GIVEN YOU PERMISSION TO PUBLISH THEIR INFORMATION.

But no, you are just like Hunt and Ludlow: you will hurt everyone you can to satisfy your pride. You don't care about them. You don't care about truth.

You don't even care about your own arguments. "it's not private because there are two thousand members; but I'm okay to spread this explicitly private thread with only two members because I need to protect my reputation".

It's hypocrisy.

And in all of this you have tried bragging about you being willing to listen to others.

That's a joke.

Me to David Wolcott

As said, if someone except you (moderator), Quinones (obvious as moderator like you) and Hunt (as PhD) or his associates, one of them friend of Ludlow and other would seem to be a public person wants the name abbreviated to initials, they should be able to mail me, so you should post my profile in the group, under the OP about my publishing.

If you don't do that, you can pretend I am joking, when I am not.

Thanks for warning me at least.

David Wolcott to me

It's no warning. It's you directly threatening me because you have no decency, no character.

I get that you don't understand what you did, that you don't care.

I understand that you threatened to publish your own refutation to your lame excuse.

You are a threat to the public with your hatred of people by spreading what you don't have permission to spread. That's gossip. Go tell your priest, if you aren't too hateful to tell him the truth.

Me to David Wolcott

"It's you directly threatening me"

It's no threat.

I am waiting for exactly one response from people I consider more balanced than you but who are also more entitled to privacy - since I mentioned them here. [Or no longer, since I decided to settle the publication context through brackets instead.]

I don't see how this can hurt you, unless you think you argued badly.

No, I don't think I am a threat to the public, I think you are threatening freedoms which should be cherished.

And before you stamp anyone as a "threat to the public", read Manalive, by Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

As to hate, well, I do hate what Hunt stands for, I do not think this will hurt him in ways no one better than he will gain from.

I also think ... well, I'll tell you what I do hate. I do hate people calling a debate private if it is on matters of public interest, and I do also hate when someone says "you have a fixation on me".

And I think I have a right to hate both actions, even if not those making them, after what I have been through due to Protestant moralities on these matters. Pro-discretion to extremes and pro-psychiatry.

David Wolcott to me

You don't think, that's the problem. You may not care about publicizing everything in your life. That's doesn't mean you get the abuse to decide for others what you will publish from them.

You can't even have honesty in your own position, at one moment making excuses because you think a restricted group is public, and then next threatening to publish explicitly private communication.

Me to David Wolcott

"You may not care about publicizing everything in your life."

It is not everything in my life.

"then next threatening to publish explicitly private communication."

You have tried to make it "extremely private" that is one more thing I hate about Protestants.

Nope. If I think I don't deserve a certain sauce, and think it is nevertheless typical of a certain network, I think that needs adressing in public.

And I am not saying a restricted group is a public group. I am saying things were said in public within that group.

Distinction.

David Wolcott to me

Yes, the distinction is that they were within that group.

You took them outside of the group.

Me to David Wolcott

But not out of reach of those in it, each can still read them where I put them.

David Wolcott to me

You put it in reach of everyone not in the group.

Why is that distinction too difficult for you to grasp?

And you can quit with the "I hate Protestants" garbage. If you can't deal with my arguments, then be better than Hunt and admit it. But quit with the "they're different from me therefore they are wrong" bias.

Me to David Wolcott

Well, why should something which was public before 2444 eyes be treated as a private matter no outsider can see.

I also did not say "I hate Protestants" and then period, I said I hate them doing a specific thing.

David Wolcott to me

That's the whole point, Hans: if we wanted the group to publish we could make the group public.

Have you figured out yet that it's not public?

More importantly, have you figured out yet that you never had the authority to spread their information? No? Still having problems with that?

And yes, you hate people that are different than you, that aren't as disrespectful as you. You are worse than Hunt and Ludlow: pretending to be wise, you give them everything they want.

Me to David Wolcott

Two things are great for bullies:

• 1) treating sth said within a group larger than a few friends or family as a private matter;
• 2) chosing private communication and feeling ill handled if the one you try to badger into some kind of submission goes public with your words along with refutations.

So, I think a certain type of Protestant morality is wrong, because it is great for bullies.

"That's the whole point, Hans: if we wanted the group to publish we could make the group public."

Most of us didn't chose the "public" or "closed" or whatever.

Most of us were put before a fait accompli by the choice of moderators. OK, we would also have been free not to join the group. BUT most of us joining the group did not do so BECAUSE the group was closed.

Most, not all.

"More importantly, have you figured out yet that you never had the authority to spread their information?"

Once it had been said in public in ANY context, it was not THEIR private property or confidential information any more. I'll except names, but I'll not except words.

"And yes, you hate people that are different than you, that aren't as disrespectful as you."

If by "respectful" you refer to a certain Jewish or Muslim or Protestant or Masonic version of respect, I do feel superior to those who are different that way.

No, I don't think I was giving Hunt what he wanted, and I think Ludlow pretended to do the same thing (but did not since sharing in another, precisely closed, group) in order to revenge himself for arguing better than he on carbon dating, and showing it outside the group.

David Wolcott to me

Publishing information you never had permission to publish: bullying and gossip.

And yes, by the way, you did accept it: by choosing to join and stay in the group, you accepted the CLOSED nature of the group.

By violating that, you only gave Hunt more material to work with.

Me to David Wolcott

"And yes, by the way, you did accept it: by choosing to join and stay in the group, you accepted the CLOSED nature of the group."

Accepting is sth other than cherishing.

I did not pretend I did not accept it.

David Wolcott to me

You just whined about not having the choice in the group type.

Me to David Wolcott

Whined? No. I explained the group type was not WHY I joined the group.

Distinction.

David Wolcott to me

You explained that you don't like it and therefore chose to ignore it and do your own thing anyway.

Protesting much there, giving your theses nailed to the door?

Me to David Wolcott

Well, my theses are at least not the 41 theses condemned here:

EXSURGE DOMINE
Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther
Pope Leo X
https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/l10exdom.htm

David Wolcott to me

Isn't your pope granting saint status to Luther, anyway?

So yes, you joined a closed, not public, group.

You then decided, completely on your own (you know, the thing you hate about Protestants), that the rules didn't apply to you, and you could do anything you want.

Period.

Me to David Wolcott

"Isn't your pope granting saint status to Luther, anyway?"

I don't think so, but feel free to ask him. No, not antipope Bergoglio, but him here:

David Bawden (Pope Michael)
https://www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1

Also, "the rules" are not the ten commandments. You tried to make it a matter of detraction, or sth like it, against commandment VIII (though you might feel it is IX). Now you are on the level of rules of a group.

David Wolcott to me

The Pope Commemorates The Reformation That Split Western Christianity
October 28, 20164:29 AM ET - Sylvia Poggioli
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/10/28/499587801/pope-francis-reaches-out-to-honor-the-man-who-splintered-christianity

You are really good at getting things wrong, Hans.

And no, I'm not saying that the group rules are the ten commandments, but thanks for getting that wrong as well.

But what does Paul say about gossips?

Me to David Wolcott

That article is wrong in classifying Jorge Mario Bergoglio as "Pope"

[link here]

"But what does Paul say about gossips?"

Name locus

Could not find 'gossip' in any verses.
[http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=gossip&b=drb]

David Wolcott to me

You just violated your own argument, Hans. You just publicly announced yourself a hypocrite.

Me to David Wolcott

Could not find 'gossips' in any verses.
Name locus. Book, chapter, verse.
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=gossips&b=drb&t=0

David Wolcott to me

Try Romans 1, though given your legalism I'm not surprised you have problems understanding the text, but instead have to limit yourself to spellcasting, expecting specific verbal formulae

Me to David Wolcott

"[8] First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world."

I think that is a good case for liking the publishing.

Other verse?

David Wolcott to me

Yes, you like hurting others, and finding ways to not live in peace with others. What's your point? You don't understand Scripture, plain and simple.

Me to David Wolcott

But perhaps you thought of 29 to end?

[29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention,

I don't think argument is contention in this sense, or I have been more exposed to it.

deceit,

I don't think I was deceitful, though you may argue otherwise by legalistic interpretation of what I did when joining.

malignity, whisperers,

As said, publishing before the whole world is not whispering.

[30] Detractors,

As said, speaking of someone's fault or exposing it, with intent of acheiving correction, is not detraction.

hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty,

You might think I am these, I don't.

inventors of evil things,

You might stamp some up to 1500 posts among the 6000 + as evil, because exposing those arguing badly, I don't

disobedient to parents,

You are not my parent.

[31] Foolish,

You may think I was, I hope not.

dissolute,

without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

You might consider my behaviour such, I hope there is still some excuse.

[32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death;

In that case, I don't really think I was "without affection, without fidelity, without mercy"

and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Well, I do not consent to a culture of secrecy amounting to a kind of omertà and paranoia about exposure ...

And me liking to hurt others, sometimes when I'm hurt myself, yes, but normally no.

David Wolcott to me

Oh, you really think Paul was only talking about people who go and talk quietly one on one? You are really that legalistic to think he wasn't talking about those who reveal secrets, who say what's not in their purview to say?

And yes, by sharing this private thread you are hurting me, even if you hate me too much to care.

I get that you have no respect for others.

I get that you fight to create a world of no trust.

I get that you have no clue how to love others.

And what did it do you? It makes you look bad, by sharing things no one else would.

Me to David Wolcott

Whisperer certainly means exposing others in quite without exposing yourself as the one doing so.

Detractor may involve published media - but not if there is some hope of correcting either culprit or adequately warning others. I have a REASON to expose Marxist bias in Academia.

I live in EUROPE.

And no, I don't hate you, but I do hate what you are doing on a day in Easter week.

"I get that you have no respect for others."

One part of your hysterics.

"I get that you fight to create a world of no trust."

Not really. What you say to someone in front of 2444 other people should not be a matter of trust. And when you go out of your way to badger someone in a private way, you don't deserve trusting the hour he feels too exhausted to put up with it in private.

"I get that you have no clue how to love others."

I don't pretend to love you, I am not homosexual.

"And what did it do you? It makes you look bad, by sharing things no one else would."

Perhaps to your culture.

In the Gospels, authors did share Pharisees arguing badly.

OK, ultimate author is God, but the human authors were not above commandments.

If it had been their duty to get permission from everyone who had called Our Lord bad things before republishing (under anonymity, which is why I also offer anonymity for people of little concern, or naming important people like Hannas, Kaiaphas and Herod and Pilate, or naming people who had given consent, like Nicodemus, who was giving consent before John was published).

But if it had been their duty, well, then they failed it. On your view perhaps on God's orders.

I don't think American / English Protestant inspired business culture is all that highest standard there is.

Or, are you sure Gorgias gave his permission before the publication of Socratic dialogues?

You are appealing to a culture, not to a commandment.

David Wolcott to me

What I said to you in this PRIVATE MESSAGING should have been a matter of trust, but I see such concept is not in your hear the anyway.

And you really think Jesus was talking sexually when He said to love your neighbor? Wow.

That explains why you can't figure this out.

Me to David Wolcott

"What I said to you in this PRIVATE MESSAGING should have been a matter of trust,"

You seem willing to pester me in private, but want to make it a matter of trust?

Oh, you mean the part about "love thy neighbour as THYSELF"

Well, I don't love myself in a way involving to pester people hoping no exposure if they get fed up.

David Wolcott to me

You don't love people at all given how you accused me of sexual context on something that clearly had no sexual context.

And, by the way, posting my comments and messages publicly is pestering me. I get you don't want to accept that, but it doesn't change that you have a problem.

Especially when you do so not only without my permission but refuse to take it down after I asked you to.

Me to David Wolcott

"given ... on something that clearly had no sexual context."

Words like someone not knowing how to love people do sometimes get sexual connotations.

And words with such intent about me in that context has kept me single far longer than I like.

Take it as an aside to those people. OK?

I do have a problem with people like you, yes. People who do WHISPER among themselves that I "have a problem", yes, I have one with such people.

David Wolcott to me

Notice how your problem with me started after you created offense? No, of course you didn't.

And if you think about sex with men so much that your first thought when a man talks about love is to presume sex.... Well, that's your life, please keep it away from me.

Your priest wants to hear all about it, though, if you can ever find the courage to tell him.

Me to David Wolcott

"Notice how your problem with me started after you created offense? No, of course you didn't."

Notice how YOU used words that are sometimes a euphemism for diagnoses. Matthew 5:22

"And if you think about sex with men so much that your first thought when a man talks about love is to presume sex.... Well, that's your life, please keep it away from me."

How about learning to read before you bluster out baseless accusations against me?

"Your priest wants to hear all about it, though, if you can ever find the courage to tell him."

Look here, I did have to confess all mortal sins, as it is up to the one Christ gave the power to forgive sins.

But me having to confess mortal sins does not equal you having to invent them for me.

Whereon

I blocked him. And as I blocked a moderator, I don't expect to be let back into that group.