On The Question Of Fiduciary Relationships

Discussion in 'General Industry Related Topics' started by Spocko, Jul 28, 2001.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Spocko


    A More Reasonable Post

    Katman, first of all let me commend you on a more enlightened, thoughtful, non confrontational and overall reasonable post. You have given me back a little of the respect that I formerly held for you. That does not necessarily mean that I totally agree with everything you say, only that now, just maybe, we can discuss differences like adults and not like children having a school yard brawl.

    Whether you want to admit it or not, the kitten in question would never have involved either with this post or the one on the other board unless you had first jumped in with all four paws with your "hypothetical" post there or the above abusive post here.

    If you read all my threads here, I admitted that the question was based on an incident between two parties that I considered friends. I also stated that I was not going to reveal any more information about either of them other than that. That didn't seem to be a problem with anybody here. They just answered my questions as best they could based on what I had asked and the rather poor way that I had asked it.

    In fact, the post on this board was going just the way I had hoped it would go on the other board. But it never had a chance on the other board because it was taken over by personal attacks on me by the likes of you and AJ and his alias friend For The Record. Here at least I had received several rather enlightened answers to my question. Even though they did not touch down to the level of insignificance with regard to what first put the question in my mind, I was able and happy to receive some very sage general comments and feedback.

    Your jumping in again on this issue, calling me a liar and telling me that I have no honor and threatening to post certain information if I didn't have the courage to do it on my own was totally uncalled for. In my eyes, you placed yourself on the same level as that idiot AJ, and I think you know how I feel about him.

    IMHO, I don't believe our kitten friend had the s*it scared out of her by the other person or his perceived threats. She is far too smart and nice a person with her feet planted firmly on the ground and in reality to be intimidated or scared by anyone at that level. I do, however, think she was hurt and angered by what she perceived that the other person had said to her and felt like he was trying to take advantage of her through threat and/or intimidation. That, of course, is only a supposition on my part, because I cannot yet "mind meld" and read the minds of others like my cerebral hero Mr. Spock.

    What I do personally believe, however, is that there was an honest, albeit unenlightened, mistake made by one individual which was over reacted to by the other. To the best of my knowledge and current information "they" have made an attempt to clarify the situation themselves and were on the verge of burying the hatchet.

    With regards to the fact that I'm a newbie has little to do with anything. That only applies to overcoming the curve and learning a few new rules for a given situation. I didn't just come into the country on the last banana boat. For example, I made 2 dumb mistakes in posting on this board on my first 3 three posts. The moderator was quick enough and nice enough to fix my newbie mistakes and help me, therby not leaving me hanging and appearing to be the dummy of the week. So now I'm not even a total newbie here. Thanks again moderator.

    With regards to what my experiences are in life and what I'm willing to bring to the table and share far outweigh the length of time I'm in a newbie status in any endeavor. I suspect I was doing what you now refer to hobbying before you were born. I was also trained in a great many other human relations skills that I doubt most could even come close to understanding. I'm not bragging, just stating a fact that I also posses a worthwhile store of knowledge about many human conditions. I would hope you could agree and understand that kind of knowledge only comes to most people with age, a desire to learn and trying to improve life for both yourself and others.

    I do have honor and I do not lie. Unlike having the "lack of ethics philosophy" that I find prevalent in most people in today's society, my grandfather taught me "A man's word is his bond". If I say I will do something, you can take it to the bank. If you want to start an argument with me, all you have to do is just say I am a liar or that I don't have honor.

    Another way to "get to me" is to unjustifiably insult someone I consider a friend, especially when I don't feel it would be in the best interest of himself/herself or anybody else concerned for him/her to respond in his/her own behalf. I don't make friends quickly or easily and their numbers are very few, but when I do make one, they are my friends for life unless "they" betray that friendship. My friends also come in both the male and female variety. A disagreement between any two people I consider friends, places me in a very uncomfortable situation. But I am smart enough to realize that when such a rift occurs, only "they" can make things right. That requires the willingness to listen and try to understand the other party's point of view and maybe reevaluate their position and maybe even make a little compromise when necessary.

    It was not my intention to flame you in this response, but only to explain my position in the matter. I also hope you can understand that reasonable people can have differences of opinions and still get along without resorting to attack tactics. That sort of behavior does nobody any good and only serves to make fools of both participants. Live Long & Prosper.
  2. Spocko...

    Whether you want to admit it or not....whether you are in denial or not...the reality is that you and the other male party involved with this particular Kitten scared the s*** out of her.

    I don't think you fully understand that.

    She has been polite because that's her nature. Don't confuse her benign demeanor with lack of fear and intimidation.

    You and the other guy should be ashamed of yourselves.

    I mean not to flame. That is NOT my nature. But I WILL defend the Kittens from predators, and myself from baseless attacks. I have a rather ->long<- history of that.

    I know you're kinda a newbe; we all started somewhere. I just sincerely hope you learned some lessons from the situation that you won't repeat with future Kittens.

    And I hope you learn not to be so defensive. It makes you very difficult to converse with.


    Pet All The Pretty Kitties
  3. Slinky Bender

    Slinky Bender The All Powerful Moderator

    I would have thought the "flame bait" was readily recognizable substance. I guess sometimes it's just to tasty to resist. Oh, well. I guess cats aren't only one's who have their "catnip".
  4. Hotpuppy

    Hotpuppy Mr.Butterworth

    My cat "Buddy" has been skunked seven times in the past four years. You think he would learn. Nasty business that.
    take care HP
  5. Spocko


    There He Goes Again

    Katman, to be quite frank, the reason I came to this board was to try and get some legitimate answers to a real question and away from the likes of you. I have had some level of respect for you in the past but at this point I think you are just a pompous cat's ass who likes to display a know it all level of arrogance.

    I notice a large peeing contest regarding you on another board and chose not to attack you or says anything. But, to quote Ronald Regan, "there you go again". You think this is so important because the lady in question is your new favorite kitten and your willing to show your claws to defend her position. Well, take your claws and shove them where the sun don't shine. Get a life, neither you, her or the other person are that important in any scheme that will matter to anybody in a hundred years.

    You can call me names or insult me all you want because, quite frankly, you or your opinions no longer have any worth in my eyes. If you think the individual's names and a full accounting of the things that started this question is so important as to post the names and events, then go ahead and do it. Don't dare me to do so, because you know I won't.

    They have also both been smart enough to keep their mouths shut. They know the incident was insignificant and did not warrant the attention "YOU" drew to it on the other board. Be my guest and bring up names and give us "your biased take" on the incident however you want. Only this time be a real name caller and insulter. Don't use your little "hypothetical" scenario. Put up or shut up Katman.

    It was, in fact, your big mouth that started all the insults and name calling on the other board. So go ahead and start it again right here. Tthis time I will not let your reply go unanswered, as I did there, and show you that I have some claws of my own. One word of advice before you decide to draw and cross swords with me sonny boy "Don't get in a pissing contest with a skunk" even if you think you're the biggest and meanest cat in the back yard.

    I told both parties that I was posting here and neither chose to make any comment. Good for them and shame on you.

    I actually thought this post was a dead item and just checked back here out of curiosity since I didn't feel I could provide the level of information without violating any trust issues on my own. You apparently have no such compunction about things told to you in private. You are willing to go on line and say or repeat anything that is told to you.

    I at least feel that I have a better idea of what went on than you do because I have spoken to "BOTH" sides of the story. And it is a small and trivial story at that. YOU are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why don't you just go back to your cat box and do what you do best.
  6. Spocko...

    ...I can't believe you choose to pee all over your shoes here about this. Again. I thought you were over it.

    If you had any honor, you'd post ALL of the thread from TBD, not just yours.

    Why not put ALL the facts on the table, ALL the truth, and see what people have to say?

    Or, would you prefer that I do it?

    Let's face it:
    1) You lied. This WAS about a provider. You know that.
    2)Your post was NOT over peoples' heads. Pretty arrogant, if you ask me, to think it was.

    You know I have...well...some respect for you, but it is dwindling...


    Pet All The Pretty Kitties

    [Edited by The Kitten Connoisseur on 08-10-2001 at 07:00 PM]
  7. Monk



    I think the problem is that you posed your question as a legal question when, in reality, it is simply a matter of common decency. If you out someone you are trying to hurt that person. And that steps over the line. Period.

    Now, is writing a review, for example, "outing" a provider? We could argue this to death. But the fact is that most reviews end up advertising a provider's services, for better or worse.

    I think you'd have a hard time sueing someone for outing you. But, on the other hand, your reputation would be damaged and you might end up in a sticky situation with your wife and family (if taken to the extreme), so the damage could be quite extreme. You couldn't make a legal case of the situation, but you could say that you suffered due to their action.

    Which leads me back to my first point: it's simply a matter of common decency not to out someone.
  8. Candide


    Slinky, we're talking about different kinds of lawn :)
  9. Slinky Bender

    Slinky Bender The All Powerful Moderator

    I don't trust anyone from that whole country - Lawn Guy Land.
  10. Candide


    I trust my lawn guy :)

    Forgive me Justme...it was too tempting
  11. justme

    justme <i>pop and click tainted</i> Vinyl ( is dead )

    It's amazing what is said when you are lying down in bed after furious sex

    Exactly. Everyone should remember that these are artificially intimate settings. There should be no more reason to trust your commercial partners than you would your lawn guy.
  12. Spocko


    Sage Advice

    I guess as a bottom line you are the most correct of them all. If you say nothing, don't make friends and don't discuss anybody's business but your own, you can't go wrong.You can't be quoted for something you haven't said. Iit's too bad things have to be that way, but that would appear to be the safest path to take and the best advice you could give to anybody. Keep to yourself and mind your own business.
  13. HH


    Well to put it simple, you can't trust most providers in this business. A 'trust' relasionship has been broken on me a few times in the past, and by a couple of the most popular ladies on this board. I don't do anything about it because that's the nature of the business. And if you think they don't talk about you to other clients/providers then you are sadly mistaken. I have been told stuff about many of you guys by these same ladies, sometimes more then I care to know about. It's
    amazing what is said when you are lying down in bed after furious sex. Back channel issues run rampant. I have the emails to prove it, but I won't. Thats how the wars start. I'm sure many of you have gotten similar ones sent to you. So as a matter of trust - just take notice what you do and say because most likely it will reach other peoples ears.
  14. Spocko


    Well, after no further responses within the last several days, I am guessing that this subject is probably a dead issue. I want to thank the few who did take the time to respond and for their thoughful answers. I'm sorry that I could not be more specific with my question because I consider both parties that were initially involved in the prompting of my question to still be my friends. In that case I think it was a matter of interpretation of what information was released and how it was done. I think they have both let the incident pass and my question was only with regards to at what level, if any, could a trust be considered violated. I know that without specifics that is a hard question to answer. To those of you who tried, thanks again.
  15. pswope

    pswope One out of three

    IMO,the issue is one of implied and social contract. Whether it's expressly discussed or not,the client has the right to infer that the private info he gives the provider will not be disseminated,absent extraordinary circumstances.
    Since a "date" is a contract for illegal services,in most places,and therfor not enforceable,I'm not talking in a strict legalistic sense where an aggrieved party would seek redress in a civil court.
    Rather,there is a market place,which should and does sanction providers,who unjustifiably disseminate private client information by ostrascizing those providers from additional business. Before the advent of the UCC and our currently over litigious society,this is how the commercial market policed itself.
  16. Spocko


    The term to "out" somebody

    I did not find your answer too long and wish I could have read the longer version. The use of the word fiduciary has caused the most problem with understanding this post and I wish I had not used it. As defined in the FREC handbook it states "in a broader sense, whenever one person invites another to have trust or confidence in him and such trust or confidence is given, a fiduciary relationship exists." Regardless, I should have just used the word "trust". We trust them and they trust us. It became embroiled in a legal definition that I never intended. With regards to further breaking down the question, I'm not sure I understand the definition of the term "out".

    Please understand that I am not purposefully trying to reinvent the dictionary here, and I hope you can follow my thinking. Does "out" refer to full disclosure of personal information or some lesser transgressions as well. Example of a lesser transgression might public disclosure, without revealing of actual identity, of previously private communications, or any part of such communications, be it verbal or electronic, in or out of context. When and if such revelations occur, should the second party just be quiet because he/she has not been identified, even if derogatory comments are later made about his/her character in public? Please forgive the last few sentences, I'm not trying to be a smart ass just thorough. Just asking this question has already cost me at least one valued friendship and I'd just like to know how far off base I might have been.
  17. thelastone


    in response to spocko...

    I must agree with O'Charley that your definition is slightly flawed. However, this is not a legal relationship (at least in this state), and therefore cannot be supported under any legal umbrella. Would you say there is a relationship of "trust" between drug dealer and drug user? Certainly, but, no legal form of that relationship.

    In the scenarios where it is a legal industry ('dam, Aus., Nevada, etc.), there are certainly standards that exist. They come from local, regional, and industry wide practices that get adopted. When you go to a restaurant, you usually give a 15% tip. When you valet park your car, you usually give the guy a few bucks. These are standard practices of today in these service businesses. However I do expect to get "my money's worth". I expect that my waiter won't spit in my food, and that my valet won't dent my car. I also expect this from any provider I see. But in this case, is this a "fiduciary relationship"?
    Even by your definition of "fiduciary relationship", I wouldn't agree that it exists between provider and client. I would say it is more like contractor-contractee. If you pay some guy $X amount to mow your lawn, he does the job, you pay him, and thats it. There is no need to continue your relationship with this guy unless you want your lawn mowed again. The relationship ends when both parties are satisfied. To break off a relationship, there must be an implied continuation of services (a service contract). I'm skeptical of your idea that personal knowledge is the condition for furtherence of this relationship. I don't need to break off the relationship with my landscaper because it is built into the contract. The same with provider and client. The relationship ends when the contract ends.

    I must agree mostly with FF here. I don't deem any situation acceptable to "out" a client or a provider (with very few exceptions). Most of the providers here, seem to me that they are sensitive to this and follow this "standard". However there are some that don't agree with this, and have outed others. These people are on both sides of the fence (providers and clients). All you need to do is go back and search for a few threads and this will become evident (or I'm sure a few of the "old-timers" here could point you to the exact threads). There should be no reason for a client to "out" a provider. And the only time where I can even think that a provider can out a client, would be when violence is involved. Even in this case I would say that it would be best to restrict this information away from open boards like these, and go to a more private, provider-only, board.

    This of course is my 2 pesos worth.
    If there are certain holes in my logic please forgive. When I wrote it the first time, it sounded much better, but unfortunately, my NT box crashed while I was previewing it and before I could post it.
    It was also alot longer so you can thank my pc for not have to read 2 pages of this drivel. I don't de lurk often but when I do, I sometimes go crazy!


    [Edited by thelastone on 07-30-2001 at 05:11 PM]
  18. OCharley


    As a Lawyer I can tell you your basic definition of "fiduciary" is flawed leaglly, but accepting yr definition, the next step of the analysis becomes, what do the parties themselves expect. What has transpired in the past, that may control the expectations of the future conduct.

    Also, note, legaly, "illegal relationships" do not enjoy the protections under the law. You cannot sue a hired killer because he botched the job.

    Finally, one of the problems with letting providers have access to personal info is that they may very well disclose it. To think otherwise is wrong, and to act accordingly is necessary.
  19. fishfry


    "I'm sure there is no prize"

    Slinky will buy you a club soda at the next UG get together. See how I love to throw his money around.

    "When is the line crossed in revealing any or all of this information, to a third party or 1,000 third parties, either in a public or private way?"

    Ah. The question is, under what circumstances may a client or provider out each other's personal info.

    My answer is almost never. Only in extreme cases of physical violence, coercion, essentially behavior that's both criminal and immoral.

    For example if I happened to have someone's personal info and they did a cash and dash out of my apartment, I might or might not report them to the police. But I would not publish her true name on the Internet. There are just too many psychos out there, too many guys who might be moved to vigilante justice.

    I believe that privacy and trust are almost absolute in client/provider relations. I would not out someone based on a minor ripoff or bad service; I would not out them based on rumors of disease or unsafe activity (this is a popular justification for outing and harassing people).

    If someone does a criminal act, report them to the police.

    Vigilantism is almost never justified. I keep saying "almost" in case somebody comes up with an extreme example that does justify outing, but it would have to be pretty extreme.

    Petty misbehavior (cash and dash, rude and crude, whatever) is not grounds for outing.

    My two cents. Now every cash and dash artist in town is going to be calling me up for a date. Sorry girls I gave at the office.

  20. Spocko


    English Translation

    First of all, as I said, this is the first time I have ever posted here. I have never had any other screen names. Thanks to slinkybender for letting me know I'm number 2000. I'm sure there is no prize but it's always nice being unique in some small way.

    Regarding the translation:

    Let me say that I won't discuss any specifics about why I first posted this or any provider/client who may have inspired it in the first place. I will, however, try to make it a little more simple if I can.

    In the relationship between a client and provider, many times each may come into contact with personal information about the other. When is the line crossed in revealing any or all of this information, to a third party or 1,000 third parties, either in a public or private way? This is with regards to either side leaking such information. The subtlety of the various situations are discussed in the original post, but that's the crux of it. I said I was sorry for the vagueness of the original post but it did not want to reveal if real parties even inspired the post. I can assure you that I have never discussed this situation with any third party, pubic or private and will certainly not do so here, even though it has been the subject of much speculation. Please just consider it a generic question. Thanks.