View source for 2006-12-23 The tirCysP Affair

==Main Message==
[[category:Dated Items]]My involvement with tirCysP is not a matter of confidentiality; it is posted on the tirCysP web site, and my involvement with it was ''never'' predicated on any kind of requirement that I not discuss it outside of certain circles. Such discussion is part of my personal life, and is not subject to external control.

As stated below, with regard to the [thing I'm currently not supposed to discuss further], I have reluctantly agreed to go along with a strategy whose basic premise goes strongly against my better judgment and which requires suppressing discussion of details related to that particular issue. I have stretched my accommodation to the limit by going along with that requirement, and it '''must stretch no further'''.

Any further discussion of my involvement with tirCysP &ndash; ''aside from'' that which concerns the [thing] &ndash; I shall consider fair game. If that means that someone else needs to take over webmastering duties at the tirCysP web site, then I will be happy to show them the ropes, and I will be happy to be out from under microscopic scrutiny for possibly discussing things it was somehow assumed I would not discuss.

Just don't expect to squeeze any more secrecy out of me. It violates some very deep principles of mine, and actively works against much of what I hope to contribute to life. I do not believe it benefits any of us, in the long run.

<small>(P.S. to trouble-making interlopers: he probably won't be within reach of email until after Christmas, so you have that long to work up a really good fuss. ...unless you want to maximize the alarm by calling him on Xmas Day or something, which is always good for an adrenaline spike. Have fun!)</small>
==Explanation for others==
I have been asked by certain parties to remove all searchable references to {"[[tirCysP]]"-reversed} from this wiki and any other places where I might have mentioned it (except, of course, from the [http://psycrit.com web site] itself). This is part of the expert-recommended strategy for handling [[htyp:2006-11-30 psyccritiques legal threat|something I'm currently not supposed to discuss further]]. Although it is the diametric opposite of the strategy I strongly recommended in dealing with that issue, I have reluctantly consented to going along with it (with stipulations).

However, I have no understanding of why it is important to remove ''all'' references to tirCysP. It seems really stupid and invasive to go to that extreme, but unfortunately I can't really explain any further without giving details of the [thing I'm not supposed to discuss further]. So I'm already once-gagged in this respect and it will have to wait.

Also unfortunately, the instruction to perform this cowardly redaction was given in a tone which seemed to me very peremptory (although, sadly, I can't quote it so that you can judge for yourself, because the speaker has asked me to refrain from quoting him without prior permission) &ndash; closing the door for further discussion while making me disinclined to comply without understanding (I do not like being ordered around) and inclined to suspect the reasoning behind it (forcefulness often being a sign that the speaker does not believe his words can stand on their own merit). Thus I am now thrice overriding my better judgment.

In other conversations we have had (and which I am also presumably not supposed to quote), he has said that if I post, without asking, things which other people say to me, they will not want to communicate with me anymore.

I am of course aware of this basic rule of human communication. The only times I ever post such communication without approval (whether explicit or presumed) is when the communication (a) was unasked-for and (b) has become strongly objectionable in some way.

I do respect honest attempts at constructive criticism, and would never go posting someone's negative words about me all over the place simply as some sort of revenge for being criticized. As with the give-and-take rule above, however, there are give-and-take rules about this sort of interaction. When it seems quite clear to me (or, at any rate, I am unable to arrive at any more plausible theory) that the speaker is essentially uninterested in my point of view or priorities and is primarily interested in (at best) bending me to their will, or at worst just criticizing for the sake of criticism (as has seemed the case with certain other people not primarily under discussion here), then I have two choices: (1) ignore them completely, or (2) post their words publicly so that I can more easily obtain input from others. The latter seems clearly the fairer of the two choices, and ''when the topic is primarily my personal life'' I would seem to have complete license to do so. This at least allows for the idea that I have ''misunderstood what I was being told'' and makes it possible for others to help explain it to me, in the event that they understand it better than I do.

Moreover, I try to be fair and post a more-or-less complete transcription of what was said (both sides, and not just the objectionable bits) so that I won't be "quoting out of context" or "making the speaker look bad" by selectively quoting their worst moments (or only my negative reactions to their presumably well-intended words). Supposedly the speaker ''believes'' what he says, otherwise he wouldn't be saying it, right? If I post such writings publicly, what possible harm to the speaker?

Oh, absolutely, if someone's email to me contains any details which they arguably "own" and which I've been asked to keep under wraps, then I would omit such details. Including them would not be playing fair. But criticism ''of me'' hardly seems like it is personal to ''someone else''.

However, in this particular situation with this particular person, I am now forced to paraphrase, thus risking not only quoting out of context and selectively, but also coloring his words with my own misperceptions and misunderstandings, thus risking further unfairness to him. It doesn't seem reasonable to apologize, though, because I ''tried'' to be fair, even though I don't feel as though I've been dealt with fairly myself. I can't quote him directly, so I have to explain it the way I understand it. So be it.

In short: although I have explained my point of view on the matters of posting details of my life in public web space, this person continues to disregard that point of view, continues to criticize me for such postings (especially when he somehow feels that he "owns" a piece of the topic, i.e. in this case my involvement with tirCysP; as explained above, this is fallacious), and then expects me not to discuss those criticisms within that web space.

If anyone expects their criticisms or comments regarding matters whose confidentiality ''is not theirs to decide'' to be taken seriously, they need to be prepared for those comments or criticisms to be discussed openly.
==Footnote: Alternatives to public posting==
One of his suggestions, in past conversations, has been that I should post in a password-protected area, so that only specific people (and no search-bots) can see it. While this is a reasonable suggestion on the face of it, it suffers from a combination of problems which ultimately bring me to discard it:
* I do not currently have a facility for selectively making wiki pages private (I have been investigating this for some time)
* Posting it in another venue increases the difficulty of cross-reference between it and the wiki, lowering its value and usefulness
* Posting it with password-protections means that some of the people whom I would like to see it probably would not do so (people are much less likely to start reading something if they have to log in first), further lowering its value
* I continue to be enormously skeptical of the need for secrecy when the topic is (essentially) me