Rupert wrote:
> 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.
>

Windbag. Your whole "argument" with him shows that you aren't focused on
real debate. You enjoy the muck. If you really occupied intellectual
high ground you would killfile him.