[Tommy_Naccarato]

While this is the holiday season and it's starting to get colder and colder outside, thus feelings of being trapped inside while buckling down the hatches for a long winter's nap....Please, What is said in an IM STAYS in an IM!

Merry Happy Holidays to all!

[ForkaB]

 

Merry Christmas to you, too, Tommy!

Rich

[Mike_Cirba]

IM??

I thought this was Fight Club?!  

Merry Christmas to you too Tommy, and Happy Holidays to All!!  

[BCrosby]

Same to you'ns guys as well.

BTW, if someone reading my IM's, could they please contact me. I need some help deciphering a couple of them. Thanks.

Bob

[cary lichtenstein]

Does this mean that IM are really private?

[Bill_McBride]

Does this mean that IM are really private?

I suspect that was Tommy's point!

Merry Christmas to all you folks too - many happy birdies in 2007!  

[SPDB]

I don't get this. Isn't it between the people exchanging the IMs? There seems to be a lot of arbitrary enforcement going on here lately.

[Dan Herrmann]

Yep -IM messages should remain private.  It's like a personal phone call.  

Unless you have the OK from the other party, you shouldn't disclose anything you're discussing.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

I believe that gossip has always played an important role in the world of golf architecture.  I support and promote all future leaks and innuendo if in public or IM...Keep it coming for the good of the game.

[Brad Klein]

You can forget about privacy these days. I assume that IMs, like emails generally, are subject to a subpoena as evidence in a civil or criminal case.

[Dan Kelly]

You can forget about privacy these days. I assume that IMs, like emails generally, are subject to a subpoena as evidence in a civil or criminal case.

I didn't realize we were preparing for litigation here.

[Mike Benham]

You can forget about privacy these days. I assume that IMs, like emails generally, are subject to a subpoena as evidence in a civil or criminal case.

I didn't realize we were preparing for litigation here.

Well, if you are surfing this site and IMing while at work, then nothing is private, it is all the property of your employer.

[Brad Klein]

Dan Kelly,

hey, I was just trying to provide free legal advice so that when XXXXXX (you fill in the architect's name) sues Tommy or somebody else here on GCA they are forewarned.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I avoid any problems by forwarding all my IMs to Homeland Security and the FBI.

[TEPaul]

Damn straight what goes on in the IM should stay in the IM and never, ever, NOT EVER, find it's way onto the DG!  

It's kinda like what goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas but frankly much more serious!!          

[JESII]

I avoid any problems by forwarding all my IMs to Homeland Security and the FBI.

Uh, Anthony, haven't you been reading the newspapers? That step has been unnecessary (read: "redundant") for the last five years!

GMAFB!

[JR Potts]

Damn straight what goes on in the IM should stay in the IM and never, ever, NOT EVER, find it's way onto the DG!  

It's kinda like what goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas but frankly much more serious!!          

That's not what you told me in our IM chats!!!!!

[DMoriarty]

I am sorry Tommy, but I just cannot take TomPaul's hypocracy about  the sanctity of private messages.

For those who do not know what this is about, you should . . .  

Tom MacWood has either left the site or been kicked off, because he publicly asked TEPaul why TEPaul hadn't forwarded private emails from certain individuals, like TEPaul had said he would.

 As near as I can tell, this is what happened . . .

1.  Most likely to make some point or to get Tom MacWood to back off on the Merion issues, TEPaul told Tom MacWood that he had been receiving private emails about the Merion thread.  
2.  TEPaul told MacWood the names of the individuals that sent the emails, and also told him that he would forward them.  
3.  When the emails did not arrive, MacWood called him on it in a public forum.
4.  This most likely sent TEPaul into panic mode, and rightfully so.  After all, TEPaul is the one who betrayed the confidences of the men who sent the emails.  
5.  TEPaul tried to cajole MacWood into pulling the post, and MacWood wouldn’t budge.  
6.  TEPaul then used his pull at gca.com to get someone else to get rid of Tom MacWood's post.  
7.  Understandably, MacWood finds this unacceptable.

MacWood wasn’t the one who was telling tales out of school, TEPaul was.  If these emails were private, TEPaul should have kept them to himself.   MacWood’s post shouldn’t have been censored to cover for TEPaul, who apparently betrayed confidences in order to make a point in an argument.

Should MacWood have posted the names?  I probably would not have handled it the way he did, just because I’d rather not drag third parties down into this muck.  But I have got to say, given the abuse that Tom MacWood has taken from TEPaul, I cannot say I blame him one bit.    

This was TEPaul’s bad, not Tom MacWood’s.   Yet unfortunately we may lose MacWood over it.  

TEPaul, do the men who sent you the emails know you were using their names in your argument?  Do they know you were planning on forwarding their personal emails?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
You are 100% correct on this matter.

I knew when I was asked to remove the said post, it was going to be a rough sea in shit-storm of hope. It's my own fault and I apologize to Tom MacWood because of it.

for what it's worth, I was contacted last night--what seemed to be a life and death matter to get the said post off. I obliged, only knowing this would be the result--hence my topic of discussion. For some of you it must be like driving past a 10 car pile-up.

However, I still feel the same: What goes on in a private IM should remain private.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tommy,

Since it has been stated publicly that, "Tom MacWood has either left the site or been kicked off..." can you please inform us if he has been "kicked off?"

This is an extremely obvious situation where confidences have been breached and not only should it have been handled privately but should have never occurred in the first place.

It will be very easy for you to cite privacy constraints and say that you cannot answer, but because of how controversial this situation is to the site and all who come and/or post here, an answer needs to be given.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I did let out the contents of a private phone conversation here recently. I feel badly about it, and know it was wrong, but every so often we all have a brain cramp.  I got an IM from the other party chiding me for same, that said..... whoops, never mind.


The only private message I ever had posted here was by Lou Duran - but he did it with my permission, as part of his Ralph Plummer piece.  My only gripe is he could have edited it to make me sound more intelligent!

[cary lichtenstein]

I have a question that I would like a straight answer to:

Are IM read by the moderators here?

[Brian Phillips]

David,
You are 100% correct on this matter.

I knew when I was asked to remove the said post, it was going to be a rough sea in shit-storm of hope. It's my own fault and I apologize to Tom MacWood because of it.

for what it's worth, I was contacted last night--what seemed to be a life and death matter to get the said post off. I obliged, only knowing this would be the result--hence my topic of discussion. For some of you it must be like driving past a 10 car pile-up.

However, I still feel the same: What goes on in a private IM should remain private.

David,

I have to agree with Tommy here.  What is promised between Tom and Tom should stay with them.  Tom P should not even have mentioned the emails with names in the IM (which he has aknowledged) but Tom M should not ever put other peoples names out on a public website.

I hope Tom M comes back because he makes people think not just guess.

Merry Christmas Tommy.

[wsmorrison]

Seeing Brian post reminds me of the highlight of my years on GCA and that was the cooperative effort that purchased the 1913 Colt routing map of Pine Valley and delivered it to the club.  When we work together we accomplish so much more than trying to do things independently and with some measure of derision towards others.  

Especially at this time of year, let's take a step back from emotional investments and once again recognize that we are a community of shared interests.  As is human nature and as with all groups including family, there are bound to be conflicts.  Let's let common sense and courtesy subordinate baser tendencies and work togther to discover and disseminate information.  This is the most noble goal of this site.  Not access, not to use and abuse.  All members have a responsibility not to embarass, humiliate or cast a negative light on the entire community.

I think both parties made mistakes, one private and one public.  The public mistake has the greatest potential for negative results.  We should strive not to air our dirty laundry.

Hopefully, as has happened in the past, cooler heads will prevail and Tom MacWood will return to the site.  In the meantime (and I include myself in this) let's raise our expectations for behavior and meet those expectations.  I enjoy a good barroom brawl as well as the next guy, but when we get mean spirited and that extends beyond the circle of members on this site, we can cause unforseen damage to larger projects and events.  

So many people read this site that are important in the world of golf that we should bear in mind that this is a great and powerful platform.  

As Winston Churchill said, "The price of greatness is responsibility."

[TEPaul]

TommyN, you need to delete this thread. You really do, and you should do it right now. It serves no purpose at all on this golf architecture discussion group.

"However, I still feel the same: What goes on in a private IM should remain private."

Then you shouldn't be so upset about this. You should feel you did the right thing. I asked him to delete his post on the DG and keep it on the IM but he refused. If you're going to take some responsibility to control things on here then that's what you're supposed to do, right? What did he put an IM subject on here for anyway but to try to embarrass me and others? Would you be so upset if it was someone other than Tom MacWood? What you should probably do is learn how to treat everyone on here in the same manner in this regard.

And now, again, you should remove this entire thread. It doesn't belong on here.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()