Countdown....will Pickle And Joy Do The Right Thing..., now that we know they did not have permission.... Options

[västergötland]

Just a thought on the issue of Pickle and Joy posting information without permission. In fact, let's look at a (sort of) different situation and make comparisons. Suppose a person shares with you concrete evidence of an individual who repeatedly drives drunk, beats his wife, sells drugs or what have you. This person has photos, documents and all sorts of things to back up the allegations. Being one who desires order in society, you take this matter to the local police. One small "problem"....the person who shared the evidence with you did not give you permission to share it with the police. Now, you did what you did out of your desire for justice and general order, but are you still in the wrong for sharing the evidence without permission? Is that really relevant in such a situation? If no one says anything, then this guy continues to drive drunk and other drivers remain in danger, he continues to beat his wife and she remains in fear for her life, he continues to sell drugs and new and experienced addicts, and society in general, continue their downward spiral, or whatever the situation. Is it acceptable for injustice and societal decay to continue until you get "permission" to share the evidence? I don't buy that! The aforementioned situation is, of course, totally hypothetical, but the message is there, and it would be extremely difficult to miss it.

Surely this is not comparable to giving incriminating evidence to the police? Rather, here we have this hypothetical person taking all of this evidence and writing a letter to the local newspaper giving all of the evidence.

[watchbird]

Just a thought on the issue of Pickle and Joy posting information without permission. In fact, let's look at a (sort of) different situation and make comparisons. Suppose a person shares with you concrete evidence of an individual who repeatedly drives drunk, beats his wife, sells drugs or what have you. This person has photos, documents and all sorts of things to back up the allegations. Being one who desires order in society, you take this matter to the local police. One small "problem"....the person who shared the evidence with you did not give you permission to share it with the police. Now, you did what you did out of your desire for justice and general order, but are you still in the wrong for sharing the evidence without permission? Is that really relevant in such a situation? If no one says anything, then this guy continues to drive drunk and other drivers remain in danger, he continues to beat his wife and she remains in fear for her life, he continues to sell drugs and new and experienced addicts, and society in general, continue their downward spiral, or whatever the situation. Is it acceptable for injustice and societal decay to continue until you get "permission" to share the evidence? I don't buy that! The aforementioned situation is, of course, totally hypothetical, but the message is there, and it would be extremely difficult to miss it.

The situations are not comparable, therefore it does nothing but confuse the issues to use such an illustration. In your example, the man's decision is about sharing information with law-enforcement officers who have the ability and the obligation to work to resolve the issues. That is not the same as posting that evidence on a public bulletin board for the whole neighborhood to see.

Things are complex enough without bringing in "illustrations" which are not comparable to the situation to which you are comparing them.

[Noahswife]

Just a thought on the issue of Pickle and Joy posting information without permission. In fact, let's look at a (sort of) different situation and make comparisons. Suppose a person shares with you concrete evidence of an individual who repeatedly drives drunk, beats his wife, sells drugs or what have you. This person has photos, documents and all sorts of things to back up the allegations. Being one who desires order in society, you take this matter to the local police. One small "problem"....the person who shared the evidence with you did not give you permission to share it with the police. Now, you did what you did out of your desire for justice and general order, but are you still in the wrong for sharing the evidence without permission? Is that really relevant in such a situation? If no one says anything, then this guy continues to drive drunk and other drivers remain in danger, he continues to beat his wife and she remains in fear for her life, he continues to sell drugs and new and experienced addicts, and society in general, continue their downward spiral, or whatever the situation. Is it acceptable for injustice and societal decay to continue until you get "permission" to share the evidence? I don't buy that! The aforementioned situation is, of course, totally hypothetical, but the message is there, and it would be extremely difficult to miss it.

Justice4Jesus:

I have no doubt you put considerable time into this hypothetical but once again "this is apples and oranges". Your analogy is not remotely close to what happened IMO. For some what happened may be in a grey area as discussed by Observer. For some, they don't care how information or what information is released as they REALY enjoy reading about one more thing DS or the 3abn Board has done wrong because it supports their view. For some of us, publishing the Nick Miller email before it was entered into the official court record was wrong and was little more than a trial strategy maneuver.

The bottom line IMO is there was no authorization, explicit or otherwise, despite the initial suggestion there might be in the first response by Gailon Joy to PB to release it at this time.

The ongoing rationalizations and justifications and speculations have told me a great deal about the posters who wrote them.

NW

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Aug 15 2007, 11:13 AM

[Johann]

Justice4Jesus:

I have no doubt you put considerable time into this hypothetical but once again "this is apples and oranges". Your analogy is not remotely close to what happened IMO. For some what happened may be in a grey area as discussed by Observer. For some, they don't care how information or what information is released as they REALY enjoy reading about one more thing DS or the 3abn Board has done wrong because it supports their view. For some of us, publishing the Nick Miller email before it was entered into the official court record was wrong and was little more than a trial strategy maneuver.

The bottom line IMO is there was no authorization, explicit or otherwise, despite the initial suggestion there might be in the first response by Gailon Joy to PB to release it at this time.

The ongoing rationalizations and justifications and speculations have told me a great deal about the posters who wrote them.

NW

You are almost forcing some of us to say more of what we know. . . and that indicates that even more openness could be essential.

[justice4jesus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the general consensus is that, regardless of how horrible the situation, the wrong must be allowed to continue until such time as "proper permission" has been granted to reveal the evidence. Again, correct me if I am drawing the wrong conclusion.

[justice4jesus]

Afterthought: Clay, yours was a very good point, and well taken. That's really what I'm looking for here....ways to ensure that the truth will be told in such a way that no one who matters is offended.

[PeacefulBe]

You are almost forcing some of us to say more of what we know. . . and that indicates that even more openness could be essential.

Johann,

Shhhhhhhhh! I've hushed up.

[watchbird]

You are almost forcing some of us to say more of what we know. . . and that indicates that even more openness could be essential.

Never allow yourself to be "forced" into saying things that should not be said. No matter WHAT we know... there is still the fact that only time will tell the whole story... and time cannot be rushed... now should we attempt to rush it.

Patience is the order of the day.... Allow God to work out His will through the mechanisms of His own choice... and do not allow the vagaries of either friend or foe cause us to speak unwisely ... no matter what the pressure or temptation.

Rest peacefully......... .........

[Clay]

Afterthought: Clay, yours was a very good point, and well taken. That's really what I'm looking for here....ways to ensure that the truth will be told in such a way that no one who matters is offended.

cool beans.....

[Ralph]

Then have the decency to tell the person who shared with you the information that you cannot and will not keep it to yourself that you must report it. In fact in some cases it would be good to let the person know that there are some things that they might want to share with you that you will report, and you tell them that before they tell you so that they can decide if they want to share anything with you......

That would be the ethical thing to do......

You are right Clay. That would be the ethical thing to do. I am a position where I am required to report certain crimes if the individual tells me about them.
BUT
If I suspect that there would be anything of this nature, I am also required to stop the person and immediately tell them of my legal responsibility. If they choose to tell me, so be it, but at least they have had the choice whether to do so or not.

[Brick Step]

I am very glad this issue is being aired. IMHO equally sincere persons with differing opinions have made valid points which deserve our prayerful consideration.

I believe there must be many, many courageous Christians who have down through centuries of time, wrestled with this question of when to hold a confidence in regard to a wrong-doing which affects a troubling issue in the public arena -- and if, when and how to speak it out. It seems to me it can take as much grace and courage to speak if the Holy Spirit says to speak, as to remain silent, if He so directs.

True Christians are ready to obey the letter of the law (whether a church or government law), unless such obedience requires disobedience to a higher law. I do not believe God will hold anyone guiltless in this 3ABN debacle, who might score a point by arguing that someone on whichever side broke a church or civil law, if in His eyes this alleged guilty party did so in obedience to a higher law. Professing Christians are under obligation to their God always to remember that higher law.

"To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven: …

A time to keep silence,
And a time to speak; …” Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

“Faith is doing the right thing at the right time.” And the Lamb/Shepherd is more than ready to lead us in this endeavour. Praise His name!

This post has been edited by Brick Step: Aug 15 2007, 08:10 PM

[västergötland]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the general consensus is that, regardless of how horrible the situation, the wrong must be allowed to continue until such time as "proper permission" has been granted to reveal the evidence. Again, correct me if I am drawing the wrong conclusion.

You are drawing the wrong conclusion. I think there is a general consensus that there is a clear and quite serious difference between acting against that which is wrong by giving the incriminating evidence to the appropriate authorities and between making gossip out of this letter against the explicit will of the author.

[Artiste]

You are drawing the wrong conclusion. I think there is a general consensus that there is a clear and quite serious difference between acting against that which is wrong by giving the incriminating evidence to the appropriate authorities and between making gossip out of this letter against the explicit will of the author.

Don't quite understand your post.

*************************************************

This post has been edited by Artiste: Aug 16 2007, 01:06 AM

[västergötland]

What is it that you do not understand about my post? That justice4jesus is wrong about the general concensus? Several posts have already been made protesting his strawman comparing posting the lawyers letter on Mr Joy and Mr Pickles website to giving photo evidence of wife beating or drug dealing to the police.
Or don't you understand my claim that the majority of people posting in this thread agree that incriminating evidence should be given to the police?
Or is it my statement that publishing the letter on Mr Joy's and Mr Pickles website adds it to the pool of gossip that leaves you confounded?
How can I make my view clearer to you?

[Observer]

Justice4Jesus:

I have no doubt you put considerable time into this hypothetical but once again "this is apples and oranges". Your analogy is not remotely close to what happened IMO. For some what happened may be in a grey area as discussed by Observer. For some, they don't care how information or what information is released as they REALY enjoy reading about one more thing DS or the 3abn Board has done wrong because it supports their view. For some of us, publishing the Nick Miller email before it was entered into the official court record was wrong and was little more than a trial strategy maneuver.

The bottom line IMO is there was no authorization, explicit or otherwise, despite the initial suggestion there might be in the first response by Gailon Joy to PB to release it at this time.

The ongoing rationalizations and justifications and speculations have told me a great deal about the posters who wrote them.

NW

Yes, I have posted that I consider it to be a grey area. Part of that reason is that I am not clear, based upon the public posting of the "facts." as to what the facts actually are.