there are so much better ways to spend the time than trying to fix all the interestingly behaving people :-)))

I almost enjoyed DesertWolf’s patience :-)

Very good conversation.

I will feed the inbound part of it as a seed to my random number generator.

:-)

[5:17] Honey Wendt: I can’t speak with a person who cannot understand a simple concept as a ToS that’s valid only within the bounds it’s defined and not outside the bounds :) This is such a simple thing, I’ve tired to explain it to you multiple times, but it’s quite beyond your grasp. I welcome criticsim, but you need to gather your thoughts and read what others have written before jumping into an intellectual conversation. In other words, I’m tired of explaining to you a very simple concept. I only went after things that were illegal within Second Life (as defined by Linden Labs), the Linden in question was acting on her own behalf, and all this has been answered in full on May 15 post on my blog. Thank you and goodbye.

1. Last time I’m going to say this: I was not questioning your behaviour as seen through the TOS, I was questioning your behaviour as seen through my idea of ‘netiquette’ and FL ‘privacy of correspondence’.
2. You do not welcome criticism. You ignore it and just type ‘TOS’ a lot of times. :p
3. I did not jump upon what you call an ‘intellectual discussion’. For starters, there is not much intellectual about it and secondly, I posted this blog entry before you said anything about Meta contacting you (and probably even before she did?). So I’m not judging on if Meta Linden was wrong or right by what she did, as that has nothing to do with this discussion. I know this might be not intellectual enough to you, but try and grasp this, will you.
4. In other words, I’m tired of explaining to you a very simple concept. Same here.
5. You never answered to the question I raised in the first place: That the means you used to report on you going after SL illegal activities were - at least - questionable when looked at them from FL point of view (and as the web is FL, even if it’s about SL…)

Ms. Vint, The ToS does not cover posting these information on a 3rd party blog. I was speaking of intellectual rights, rights to IP. How dare I question LL? LL was wrong, the Linden went out of bound, I’m sorry miss but your quite not getting what happend. Robin Linden, yesterday morning told us that the Linden in question was new and did not know the established policies, if you would like to read this please read her meeting yesterday. I’m sorry but here ends our discussion, I can’t debate this matter with you, have fun.

You don’t try, do you? At trying to understand what I’m saying? Let me go with the shoe example of you. You forgot there is a reason why it is not allowed wearing shoes in Mysti’s house: you would make the floor dirty (read: privacy matters). So you’re in Mysti’s house with the child avie. The child avie wears shoes and thus you say ‘hey, I’m going to tell Mysti that! It’s not allowed!’. Feeling rather good about yourself, you then go to the child avie’s house - that does not say you can’t wear shoes, but just assumes you’re polite enough to not do that -, enter with dirty shoes on, and make as large mess on the floor as you possibly can. (read: spread the IM convo’s not only in Second Life, but on the internet too)

See, in Europe we have the ‘privacy of correspondence‘ thingie, which also extends to electronic conversation. I am not arguing against you on the fact that she did breach SL TOS by copy pasting the message in Second Life. I do think that the conversations between you and those avies were private correspondence and you should not have posted those on the internet for all to read without the said avie’s prior consent, seeing the delicate subject you were discussing. You are in no position to question LL’s ethics it seems, as you have none yourself!

[3:22] Honey Wendt: No ToS applies to IM conversations posted in verbatim to my blog, since the ToS is only within SecondLife. :) I’m sure you understand this bit. I don’t mean to be rude but you come out very defensive, if you’d log into SL, we can discuss this more.
[3:23] Honey Wendt: This also was a matter I discussed recently (just yesterday), read through it and you’d understand how a corporation does not have that kind of power. If one did we can’t live in this world. The microsoft’s and Linden Labs would be taking over the world lol. Do you understand?

1. Please stop talking to me as if I were a little child.
2. Try to grasp that it’s not the TOS I’m talking about. And stop using ‘The TOS doesn’t say I can’t’ as an excuse for rather impolite behaviour. You ignored what I assume standard ‘netiquette’ by posting private conversations with delicate subject matter on the internet and including the avies name.

I even think if you did this with real people’s name you’d be breaking FL-TOS. Actually you might still be doing that. Quick search on wikipedia: ‘When applied to electronic communication, the principle protects not only the content of the communication, but also the information on when and to whom any messages (if any) have been sent…‘

PS. I know I’m copy pasting Honey’s IM’s here. But I’m not breaching TOS or anything, as I copied them from my webmail client. *rolls eyes (again)*