BMIT

[patientlywaiting]

[quote=SD Realtor] I think there is a difference though in simply stating facts without speculation verses presenting factual data in a biased manner.

You are correct that it is simply more of a golden rule approach and that does make alot of sense. [/quote]

Some questions and comments:

– Do realty insiders ever discuss facts without speculation?

– Didn’t Realtors tell their buyers that they think that prices would increase x%? Buy now or you never be able to buy again. This neighborhood is gentrifying. Interest rates are low, buy now, it’s a lifetime opportunity. Obama will stabilize home prices. The Fed will ignite inflation.

– What’s wrong with speculating that prices will drop? Or that gang activity in a neighborhood will increase?

– What’s wrong with speculating that a buyer can’t afford the house or that he bought or obtained shaky financing to buy it? What’s wrong with speculating about a possible foreclosure or bankruptcy soon to come? People have been doing that for age in their own forums (at home, on the town square, at the water cooler, at the country club, etc…).

Blogs are social networks. They are like private journals that the writer chooses to share with other readers.

Don’t worry, people can continue to speculate that a person is pregnant, or had an affair with the neighbor, or is about to lose the house in foreclosure without fear of lawsuits.

I remember a realtor posting that he looks in the closet to see if a spouse might have moved out. Isn’t that speculation?

[DWCAP]

Russel,

Here is my problem with you stance. As I understand it, OCR did live by the golden rule. He wasnt nice to people, but when the request was made he provided the details about his/her own purchase. You make it seem like as soon as he bought he tried to hide it, but didnt want other people to hide. I dont know, but I believe it unlikly, that OCR ever tried to SUE someone who purchased a house. There is a world of difference between badmouthing someones decisions with public facts on a public forum, and attempting to sue someone to hurt them financially. He was willing to provide the details about his purchase, and I have to believe that he realized that it could end up on a blog somewhere (hopefully without outing him) and analized. Only when financial ruin was brought into the picture did he stop. Was OCR ever directly responsible for bringing financial ruin on the subjects of on of his stories?

The golden rule is great and all, but in the course of public discourse, the censurship of “you were not nice to me” cannot be tollerated if we are to have a truthful discussion.

And T4L, I would also like to hear how OCR created a lack of creditability using public facts. Ethics is debateable, cause your ethics and mine can be very different. But creditablility says that the guy isnt believeable, or most commonly called lying, and I am curios how you came up with that charge.

[DWCAP]

Russel,

Here is my problem with you stance. As I understand it, OCR did live by the golden rule. He wasnt nice to people, but when the request was made he provided the details about his/her own purchase. You make it seem like as soon as he bought he tried to hide it, but didnt want other people to hide. I dont know, but I believe it unlikly, that OCR ever tried to SUE someone who purchased a house. There is a world of difference between badmouthing someones decisions with public facts on a public forum, and attempting to sue someone to hurt them financially. He was willing to provide the details about his purchase, and I have to believe that he realized that it could end up on a blog somewhere (hopefully without outing him) and analized. Only when financial ruin was brought into the picture did he stop. Was OCR ever directly responsible for bringing financial ruin on the subjects of on of his stories?

The golden rule is great and all, but in the course of public discourse, the censurship of “you were not nice to me” cannot be tollerated if we are to have a truthful discussion.

And T4L, I would also like to hear how OCR created a lack of creditability using public facts. Ethics is debateable, cause your ethics and mine can be very different. But creditablility says that the guy isnt believeable, or most commonly called lying, and I am curios how you came up with that charge.

[DWCAP]

Russel,

Here is my problem with you stance. As I understand it, OCR did live by the golden rule. He wasnt nice to people, but when the request was made he provided the details about his/her own purchase. You make it seem like as soon as he bought he tried to hide it, but didnt want other people to hide. I dont know, but I believe it unlikly, that OCR ever tried to SUE someone who purchased a house. There is a world of difference between badmouthing someones decisions with public facts on a public forum, and attempting to sue someone to hurt them financially. He was willing to provide the details about his purchase, and I have to believe that he realized that it could end up on a blog somewhere (hopefully without outing him) and analized. Only when financial ruin was brought into the picture did he stop. Was OCR ever directly responsible for bringing financial ruin on the subjects of on of his stories?

The golden rule is great and all, but in the course of public discourse, the censurship of “you were not nice to me” cannot be tollerated if we are to have a truthful discussion.

And T4L, I would also like to hear how OCR created a lack of creditability using public facts. Ethics is debateable, cause your ethics and mine can be very different. But creditablility says that the guy isnt believeable, or most commonly called lying, and I am curios how you came up with that charge.

[DWCAP]

Russel,

Here is my problem with you stance. As I understand it, OCR did live by the golden rule. He wasnt nice to people, but when the request was made he provided the details about his/her own purchase. You make it seem like as soon as he bought he tried to hide it, but didnt want other people to hide. I dont know, but I believe it unlikly, that OCR ever tried to SUE someone who purchased a house. There is a world of difference between badmouthing someones decisions with public facts on a public forum, and attempting to sue someone to hurt them financially. He was willing to provide the details about his purchase, and I have to believe that he realized that it could end up on a blog somewhere (hopefully without outing him) and analized. Only when financial ruin was brought into the picture did he stop. Was OCR ever directly responsible for bringing financial ruin on the subjects of on of his stories?

The golden rule is great and all, but in the course of public discourse, the censurship of “you were not nice to me” cannot be tollerated if we are to have a truthful discussion.

And T4L, I would also like to hear how OCR created a lack of creditability using public facts. Ethics is debateable, cause your ethics and mine can be very different. But creditablility says that the guy isnt believeable, or most commonly called lying, and I am curios how you came up with that charge.

[DWCAP]

Russel,

Here is my problem with you stance. As I understand it, OCR did live by the golden rule. He wasnt nice to people, but when the request was made he provided the details about his/her own purchase. You make it seem like as soon as he bought he tried to hide it, but didnt want other people to hide. I dont know, but I believe it unlikly, that OCR ever tried to SUE someone who purchased a house. There is a world of difference between badmouthing someones decisions with public facts on a public forum, and attempting to sue someone to hurt them financially. He was willing to provide the details about his purchase, and I have to believe that he realized that it could end up on a blog somewhere (hopefully without outing him) and analized. Only when financial ruin was brought into the picture did he stop. Was OCR ever directly responsible for bringing financial ruin on the subjects of on of his stories?

The golden rule is great and all, but in the course of public discourse, the censurship of “you were not nice to me” cannot be tollerated if we are to have a truthful discussion.

And T4L, I would also like to hear how OCR created a lack of creditability using public facts. Ethics is debateable, cause your ethics and mine can be very different. But creditablility says that the guy isnt believeable, or most commonly called lying, and I am curios how you came up with that charge.

[jpinpb]

We can’t really be calling into question OCR’s ethics, especially considering the featured properties, some of realtors, and the fraud committed and the walkaways occurring. I guess that would be hypocritical, now would it.

[jpinpb]

We can’t really be calling into question OCR’s ethics, especially considering the featured properties, some of realtors, and the fraud committed and the walkaways occurring. I guess that would be hypocritical, now would it.

[jpinpb]

We can’t really be calling into question OCR’s ethics, especially considering the featured properties, some of realtors, and the fraud committed and the walkaways occurring. I guess that would be hypocritical, now would it.

[jpinpb]

We can’t really be calling into question OCR’s ethics, especially considering the featured properties, some of realtors, and the fraud committed and the walkaways occurring. I guess that would be hypocritical, now would it.

[jpinpb]

We can’t really be calling into question OCR’s ethics, especially considering the featured properties, some of realtors, and the fraud committed and the walkaways occurring. I guess that would be hypocritical, now would it.

[NotCranky]

DWCAP,
I don’t know anything about OCR’s purchase and ensuing flack. I don’t think I am making reference to that? It probably is angry people giving him trouble out of revenge, justified or not.

Like you say opinions on ethics are variable. That is not necessarily my point though. It just seemed pretty predictable that he would have problems with this. I think that started way before he bought a house. It seems to me, he, by his behavior, especially the deleted material, is slowly admitting that something other than his house purchase is questionable. I hope all is well in the long run.

JP, I guess it could be hypocritical depending on the source. There is nothing in my past that makes my commentary hypocritical. I just don’t see what it matters that the problems include an element of hypocrisy.Hypocrisy is endemic to our society, especially business culture.The blog wasn’t working or else it would still be up. Maybe there is a better way to accomplish whatever the legitimate goal was?

As far as the public square comparision goes,well yeah, you can go to a public square and gossip at your own risk. I wouldn’t think at any time in history it would be a good idea to print and distribute material, factual or not, which included accusations of unethical or criminal wrongdoing that affected some one’s fame and fortune. If you do, expect a backlash.Seems like common sense.

[NotCranky]

DWCAP,
I don’t know anything about OCR’s purchase and ensuing flack. I don’t think I am making reference to that? It probably is angry people giving him trouble out of revenge, justified or not.

Like you say opinions on ethics are variable. That is not necessarily my point though. It just seemed pretty predictable that he would have problems with this. I think that started way before he bought a house. It seems to me, he, by his behavior, especially the deleted material, is slowly admitting that something other than his house purchase is questionable. I hope all is well in the long run.

JP, I guess it could be hypocritical depending on the source. There is nothing in my past that makes my commentary hypocritical. I just don’t see what it matters that the problems include an element of hypocrisy.Hypocrisy is endemic to our society, especially business culture.The blog wasn’t working or else it would still be up. Maybe there is a better way to accomplish whatever the legitimate goal was?

As far as the public square comparision goes,well yeah, you can go to a public square and gossip at your own risk. I wouldn’t think at any time in history it would be a good idea to print and distribute material, factual or not, which included accusations of unethical or criminal wrongdoing that affected some one’s fame and fortune. If you do, expect a backlash.Seems like common sense.

[NotCranky]

DWCAP,
I don’t know anything about OCR’s purchase and ensuing flack. I don’t think I am making reference to that? It probably is angry people giving him trouble out of revenge, justified or not.

Like you say opinions on ethics are variable. That is not necessarily my point though. It just seemed pretty predictable that he would have problems with this. I think that started way before he bought a house. It seems to me, he, by his behavior, especially the deleted material, is slowly admitting that something other than his house purchase is questionable. I hope all is well in the long run.

JP, I guess it could be hypocritical depending on the source. There is nothing in my past that makes my commentary hypocritical. I just don’t see what it matters that the problems include an element of hypocrisy.Hypocrisy is endemic to our society, especially business culture.The blog wasn’t working or else it would still be up. Maybe there is a better way to accomplish whatever the legitimate goal was?

As far as the public square comparision goes,well yeah, you can go to a public square and gossip at your own risk. I wouldn’t think at any time in history it would be a good idea to print and distribute material, factual or not, which included accusations of unethical or criminal wrongdoing that affected some one’s fame and fortune. If you do, expect a backlash.Seems like common sense.

[NotCranky]

DWCAP,
I don’t know anything about OCR’s purchase and ensuing flack. I don’t think I am making reference to that? It probably is angry people giving him trouble out of revenge, justified or not.

Like you say opinions on ethics are variable. That is not necessarily my point though. It just seemed pretty predictable that he would have problems with this. I think that started way before he bought a house. It seems to me, he, by his behavior, especially the deleted material, is slowly admitting that something other than his house purchase is questionable. I hope all is well in the long run.

JP, I guess it could be hypocritical depending on the source. There is nothing in my past that makes my commentary hypocritical. I just don’t see what it matters that the problems include an element of hypocrisy.Hypocrisy is endemic to our society, especially business culture.The blog wasn’t working or else it would still be up. Maybe there is a better way to accomplish whatever the legitimate goal was?

As far as the public square comparision goes,well yeah, you can go to a public square and gossip at your own risk. I wouldn’t think at any time in history it would be a good idea to print and distribute material, factual or not, which included accusations of unethical or criminal wrongdoing that affected some one’s fame and fortune. If you do, expect a backlash.Seems like common sense.

[Author]

Posts