When PMing with a user I often explicitly state that I expect my PMs to remain private and they are not to be published publicly without my express permission, but I don't always do so.
This is almost always followed with a response such as "Of course they will remain private and I expect the same." as if this is a well known common courtesy, but I admit that it is not a hard fast rule or completely adhered to by all.. The reason I state it at times is it ends the opportunity of interpretation otherwise by either of us..
That's why I in my last post here I added "if either of you requested any information you shared in PM to remain private" because without such a statement of requested privacy sharing PM without permission is just a low blow dick move, but after such an agreed upon request of privacy to later breach that agreement I absolutely consider a breach of trust.. If any user that made this agreement with me later published my PMs without my permission they would most likely be getting a red tag from me depending on what they used my PMs for..
I would consider that quite untrustworthy behavior indeed, especially if either of you requested any information you shared in PM to remain private, or reasonably assumed so.. It could even be construed as trade-related danger IMO..
If it actually IN YOUR OPINION then what is more important to you?
Techy endangering trades by behaving untrustworthy, or your dislike of me?Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive and I do not want to dislike you..
Rather I feel sorry for you and would like to avoid debating with
YOU even over your own posts, but anyone else that uses or agrees with your non-factual posts are fair game..
But, my disagreeable side wants to argue that even the phrase "personal message," while not directly implying privacy, the implicity of such should be regarded, if for no other reason that the demonstration of respectable behavior.
I agree, it is a loophole around what should be common practice, but making a statement of expected privacy closes said loophole..
Rather arbitrary to make this accusation isn't it?
Not to me.. I may very well tag someone for breaching such an agreement with me, if an agreement was made thereby closing the loophole..
If nullius shared "sensitive" information with SM it is likely he asked for it not to be shared, thereby closing the loophole..
I can't know that though, but just the threat on its own is greasy..