Open letter to Yvonne in reply to her blog,
http://www.freedomfieldsnaturistranch.com/feedom_fields_naturist_ranch_blog_page.html
I will reply just the once. That your photo was attached to my shared blog post on to FB. was definitely a SOFTWARE ISSUE which has been fixed. No amount of saying it was not so, changes the very real life fact that it was the direct result of the FB implementation of the OG protocol which caused a random image to be selected from the linked page, based on the OG information provided in the shared link combined with the size of the available images. This is where your image came from. This is reality talking. To demonstrate I attach a link to someone else having the same issue with FB blog/link/image shares (remember this is only one of many similar posts), which describes the technical issue in question.
http://wordpress.org/support/topic/wrong-thumbnail-when-sharing-post-on-facebook
The related issue of privacy is one which is simply misinformed, and no amount of "spin" will change the facts. There is no arse-wiping on the Naktiv site, privacy is something which each individual is responsible to set for themselves, as described extensively in the onsite documentation. To pretend this is an issue for the site is to purposefully misrepresent the situation, and you know that too. There is no such thing as "members are expected to honour…permissions". This is the internet, (reality again), and even if you wish to request permission from someone (very laudable I'm sure), somebody else will almost certainly not. When you go onto FB. (for example) your material is sharable UNLESS you secure it. Precisely the same situation is in place on the Naktiv site – this is not rocket science. For your continued reference, the privacy documentation on the Naktiv site is available here:
http://www.naktiv.net/permissions/
Your extreme anger and out-of-control rage, which was directed towards me personally and to the Naktiv site generally, over an entirely made-up story, was completely uncalled for and ensured the end of an otherwise productive relationship. While I was not surprised to find your friend Laurie joining forces with you against the authority figure, I do admit to being quite surprised that the therapist Robert stepped in (again) to manipulate you and your emotions during this debacle. Most unprofessional, cynical and unfriendly too.
In an effort to pour oil on a churning sea, I declared on several occasions that this issue was fanned by several people, for their own personal agenda, and that no single individual was responsible for the morass which was being unreasonably generated. That you and your friends persist in "pointing the finger", and attempting to undermine the the Naktiv site is wrong, and you know that too. We all had our part to play in this unfortunate affair when it escalated beyond calm discussion. The only censorship which occurred during the storm was in a perhaps misguided effort to stop the spread of inflammatory and hysterical misinformation. Furthermore, persistently trying to damage the reputation of the Naktiv site which, as you know, is firmly against the idea of censorship in principle, just because someone has said "no" to you, and called a halt to the misplaced tantrum, is quite simply unnecessary.
That you appear incapable of modifying your opinion in the face of the truth, and persist in spreading what you know to be erroneous FUD, is very sad. Deciding how we present ourselves to the world, and the stories we tell, is of course a personal choice for us all and it's not possible for me to ensure that you tell the truth. Nevertheless, despite your current level of venom, and on the basis of the effort you did undoubtedly put into the Naktiv site, Yvonne, I do wish you and your friends well for the future.
ps. people are welcome to return to the Naktiv site once the fever has subsided.
So who exactly made the response? Or is it anonymous?
wake up Susan!!
Well, I think I know however being of a practical nature and spending many years in law I guess i need confirmation !!! 😛
Considering the name was at the start I thought it would have been easy to who wrote it.
Lots of response to this on areas of the Nets
Quote
Doug – Sun, 19th January, 2014
"I will reply just the once. That your photo was attached to my shared blog post on to FB. was definitely a SOFTWARE ISSUE which has been fixed. No amount of saying it was not so, changes the very real life fact that it was the direct result of the FB implementation of the OG protocol which caused a random image to be selected from the linked page, based on the OG information provided in the shared link combined with the size of the available images. This is where your image came from. This is reality talking. To demonstrate I attach a link to someone else having the same issue with FB blog/link/image shares (remember this is only one of many similar posts), which describes the technical issue in question."
Ok… To begin with, his first paragraph states that "the issue" was a software issue. It was not. The problem came about by his engaging or enrolling in the OG thing on Facebook. It was Richard and no one else that did this. Although it is possible that he did this knowingly, my belief is that he did not know this would happen, and he felt that admitting that he did not know this would show weakness or defect (which he can't handle). So the stuff that went on Facebook was most likely unexpected. The FACT is he was responsible for this and has yet to accept this fact and continues to act defensively and deceptively buy tossing out a ton of red herrings. This behaviour is readily obvious to anyone who has the whole story. I must point out, the whole story is only available here. It is certainly NOT available on the Naktiv site.
"The related issue of privacy is one which is simply misinformed, and no amount of "spin" will change the facts. There is no arse-wiping on the Naktiv site, privacy is something which each individual is responsible to set for themselves, as described extensively in the onsite documentation. To pretend this is an issue for the site is to purposefully misrepresent the situation, and you know that too. There is no such thing as "members are expected to honour…permissions". This is the internet, (reality again), and even if you wish to request permission from someone (very laudable I'm sure), somebody else will almost certainly not. When you go onto FB. (for example) your material is sharable UNLESS you secure it. Precisely the same situation is in place on the Naktiv site – this is not rocket science. For your continued reference, the privacy documentation on the Naktiv site is available here:" <link not available>
Again, he misses the point. RJ states it clearly in his response, but again it is side-stepped. I think most would agree that the norm should be to assume that people would want their privacy protected by default, given the nature of what we do and the possible fall out in some areas of their life. This is not "spin" it is what I think most would desire and expect. Richard does not see it that way and the Naktiv site does not either. Fair enough! He babbles on about how the internet is not secure anyway and insults those who disagree with his philosophy about privacy (or the non-existence of it) by stating that "this is not rocket science." He refuses to address the fact that the Naktiv site is marketed as a naturist site and as such, again, I think most people would expect that others claiming to be naturists would understand and honour each person's desire for privacy as they see fit. The fact that he blames people for not protecting their own profile is typical of my impression of Mr. Foley and his ethical reality. Finally, the terms of service statement originally posted on the the Naktiv site, did not make any statements about the fact that Richard would redistribute profile information and pictures anywhere in the interest of promoting himself via the Naktiv site. He revised the TOS statement after all of this crap started and THEN posted the link mentioned in his letter and stated that it was all there in black and white, when the FACT is that it was not.
"Your extreme anger and out-of-control rage, which was directed towards me personally and to the Naktiv site generally, over an entirely made-up story, was completely uncalled for and ensured the end of an otherwise productive relationship. While I was not surprised to find your friend Laurie joining forces with you against the authority figure, I do admit to being quite surprised that the therapist Robert stepped in (again) to manipulate you and your emotions during this debacle. Most unprofessional, cynical and unfriendly too."
He characterizes Yvonne's reaction as "extreme anger and out of control rage" and accuses her of "making up (lying) a story that was uncalled for." Honestly folks I am laughing as I write this. ANYONE who knows Yvonne KNOWS this is not her. Like me and, many others, she was certainly shocked to know that profile information was posted on Facebook, but the real insult occurred when Richard coldly defended his actions and blamed everyone else for having a negative reaction to his self-serving attitude. Remember, the reason these postings were made in the first place was to promote the Naktiv site, no other reason. He hides behind the crusade of nudity anywhere, anytime, but it is my opinion that this "crusade" is more about Richard glorifying himself than anything else. He sees himself as an "authority figure" and as you can see chooses to characterize three individuals' common reaction to Richard's insulting and ego-maniacal actions and words, as a calculated attack on him personally. WHY would these people want to attack Richard with no provocation? I know 2 of these people personally, and I can assure you that neither of them are overly mentally unstable. He goes as far as to accuse Robert, a psychologist, of using his healing skills to manipulate people and drawing them into such a petty issue. Kind of like a doctor using a date rape drug, it could happen but highly unlikely given the level of professionalism that people like this must maintain everyday. Robert's actions here amounted to speaking up in agreement with the ladies AFTER they had made their point. He simply agreed with them. This was not a "misplaced tantrum" this was a group of people PISSED OFF at his arrogance and deception.
"In an effort to pour oil on a churning sea, I declared on several occasions that this issue was fanned by several people, for their own personal agenda, and that no single individual was responsible for the morass which was being unreasonably generated. That you and your friends persist in "pointing the finger", and attempting to undermine the the Naktiv site is wrong, and you know that too. We all had our part to play in this unfortunate affair when it escalated beyond calm discussion. The only censorship which occurred during the storm was in a perhaps misguided effort to stop the spread of inflammatory and hysterical misinformation. Furthermore, persistently trying to damage the reputation of the Naktiv site which, as you know, is firmly against the idea of censorship in principle, just because someone has said "no" to you, and called a halt to the misplaced tantrum, is quite simply unnecessary."
The issue was fanned by one person, Richard Foley. The only person with a personal agenda was and still is, Mr. Foley. This "morass" WAS reasonable and yes Mr. Foley the finger points directly at you. It is obvious that you are uncomfortable with being viewed as wrong, but as they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, "if everyone in the room is telling you that you are drunk, then you are most likely drunk, even though you feel you are not." So… if everyone is telling you that you are wrong, then guess what my friend, YOU ARE WRONG. The only commonality that each posting that was censored shared was that they said that Richard Foley was wrong. The "inflammatory and hysterical" information was nothing more than a plea from members of the Naktiv site to experience a little empathy. Again, Mr. Foley is incapable of showing any weakness around being wrong. The only reputation that was in danger of being sullied was not that of the Naktiv site, it was Mr. Foley's. I think he did a fine job of destroying his own reputation.
"That you appear incapable of modifying your opinion in the face of the truth, and persist in spreading what you know to be erroneous FUD, is very sad. Deciding how we present ourselves to the world, and the stories we tell, is of course a personal choice for us all and it's not possible for me to ensure that you tell the truth. Nevertheless, despite your current level of venom, and on the basis of the effort you did undoubtedly put into the Naktiv site, Yvonne, I do wish you and your friends well for the future."
Wow! huh? What a joke. Back at ya buddy! He is a master of the red herring! He engages in the very thing that he paranoiacly accuses others of doing! Stunning!
"ps. people are welcome to return to the Naktiv site once the fever has subsided."
p.s. I will NEVER be associated with the Naktiv site or have any involvement with anything Richard Foley is involved in. His dishonesty is remarkable, and that would bug the shit out of me…"
End quote
Oh, FB is good with removing things.I'm just not sure if they really remove it or just hide it from view.
It's FB after all 😉
No Paul, what Susan means is there was a link to her the Naktiv site-Blog on FB. from where the blog was visible. When she set her privacy appropriately on the Naktiv site, her the Naktiv site-Blog was no longer visible (obviously) from the link on FB. You can post a link to anything, anywhere, but your permissions to view that item are wholly dependent on the site at the target end.
Thank you Richard. You explained that better than I could have. You so clever! *giggles like a silly schoolgirl who's wearing very short school skirt, knee high socks and high pigtails *
Ahhh, right. I did pick that up backwards. Thank you for clarifying. 🙂
I had a blog of mine go onto fb. I then realised I hadn't set my privacy. I then went in, changed those settings and, hey presto, blog was gone from fb. Wasn't that so simple? 😀
If anyone is concerned about privacy, they simply need to use the extensive permissions settings available on the site, which can be tailored to suit each person and each situation.
The permissions certainly are effective and extensive if used correctly. However what they need is a 'fail-safe', surely it would be simple to make them user friendly for those who are not such computer geeks as you and I and set the default to 'community only', defaulting to 'anybody' definately is not 'safe'.
People can then open themselves up to the world if they so wish. If this had been done at the beginning all the troubles of this year could have been avoided (hindsight I know).
I sympathize, Richard, however the site policy has been to be as similar to Facebook behaviour as possible (in the circumstances), and that dictates certain "features", so as to operate on the principle of least surprise.
Some would say this is non-nudist-club-compliant, well it's not a nudist-club. And some would say this is the right way to go to be more open about naked activities, which is site-policy-compliant.
BTW. there is a "fail-safe" if you set your privacy settings to "Friends Only" as described in the documentation. I should also add that the settings for PHOTOS is always the Naktiv site community-only. You can't please everybody, no matter how hard you try. All you can do is to have a clear site policy, implement it cleanly as possible and attempt to educate site users as to the features available.
Shane, you make a very good point. Something that I will keep in my mind before I make rash decisions.
It's unfortunate that people get so highly emotive about these situations. I have again missed the high drama as I tend to.
I've seen these kind of blow ups on Facebook and other places.
It's not a good look at all for people to drag their dirty laundry out into the open. It's a poor reflection on those concerned to try and garner support by publicly posting what should be a private conversation. In response to Yvonne's blog post however, I believe this post is an acceptable response.
Having read Yvonne's blog the only comment I'd make is that the Naktiv site has never claimed to be a nudist or naturist site. This is made clear in the mission statement.
I think on the whole the site has quite ambitious objectives trying to cater to a very broad and diverse audience who don't necessarily fit together. I'm not enthralled by all of the content posted here, but I do believe in many of the objectives the site is trying to accomplish.
It takes a good amount of effort to stay active somewhere that falls short of your own personal definitions. Continued participation does force you to keep examining your views and values however. That's a good thing. It generates interesting conversations provided everyone can keep their emotions in check.