On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> [..]
>
> >>>> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
> >>>> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
> >>> Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
> >>> the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
> >>> an issue.
> >> Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
> >> information about him, you should just take it down.
>
> > I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
> > actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
> > Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
> > develop.
>
> >> What's more you
> >> ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
> >> mocking you.
>
> > You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
> > I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
> > for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
>
> This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
> intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That, my good friend, is absolute rubbish. I thought it might be fun
to publish a debate with Jonathan Ball on my webpage. I said I was
going to, and I did. I gave him fair warning that his remarks would be
published. It did not occur to me that the publication of his full
name would be an issue. He then tried to give me orders and threatened
illegal activity, so I showed him exactly how much I care about his
desire to protect his reputation and exactly how much he can do about
it. If he had asked me nicely, of course it wouldn't have been a
problem. There is absolutely no legal or moral reason why Ball should
be allowed to behave the way he does anonymously. He wants me to help
him be anonymous as a *favour*? As a sign of good will? Give me a
break.

I have now taken down everything except the debate and Jonathan's full
name. I may put the other additions back if I feel like it. If Ball
wants to protect his reputation, maybe he should, shock horror, behave
a bit better in public? Yeah, that might be a good idea. Everything I
put up there was factual and already in the public domain. I have
absolutely no reason to feel the least bit embarrassed about this
incident and I couldn't care less what you think about it. People
making moral criticisms of me but not Ball is utterly absurd. And as
for the "intellectual high ground", it clearly has absolutely no
bearing on that. Ball irritated me by trying to give me orders, so I
made some factual statements about him in public. Nothing un-
intellectual or immoral about that.