M-1 sent an email Saturday morning requesting to move the meeting back 30 minutes.

I arrived first, and ordered a coffee and a snack. M-1 arrived soon after, and to my surprise he was accompanied by someone who, it turned out, was F-1, the civic association person who had challenged my rudeness but not M-1's in our initial exchanges.

I selected a table and sat down. F-1 and M-1 joined me, and M-1 began with an apology for the tone of his initial email. He continued with a reiteration of his commitment to keeping pictures his children off of the internet. Along the way M-1 said he even went so far as to restrict his own image from being on the internet. Eventually M-1 got into his view of his rights as a parent and attendee at a private party, and of my responsibilities as a photographer at a private event. M-1 claimed to have spoken to some number of other parents and gotten unanimous support for his assertions.

When it was my turn to speak, I pointed out that M-1's original email was rife with unfounded assumptions, like "it would be best for everyone" and shot through with unexamined premises, such as there was some overarching cause for concern at having anonymous pictures of a Halloween parade and party on the internet. I said I received several email replies thanking me for taking and posting the photos, and that the only person not present that had publicly agreed with M-1 was M-2. At that point both M-1 and F-1 looked embarrassed. I said I thought M-2 had other problems, and M-1 said he didn't know what was M-2's problem. I challenged M-1 on his unfounded assumptions regarding the unanimity of his underlying assumptions. For example, I returned to safety in the modern world, pointing out that the media is responsible for the mind-set that we are surrounded by dangers and that somehow our world is less safe than it was in some earlier time. M-1 agreed that the world probably wasn't any less safe now than it was during his childhood, and that even though he had "done his research" it might be that his reasoning was flawed,. He repeated his apology for his initial communications.

I also challenged the statement that the parade and party were private affairs, given they were put on by the community, with announcements put in doorways throughout the neighborhood. We quibbled a bit about the definitions of public domain and paranoia, but F-1 interjected that the goal was to reach a closure on M-1's issue of wanting pictures of his children removed from the website. We dropped the public domain discussion.

F-1 and M-1 said they were not interested in drawing out the matter and wanted closure as quickly as possible. M-1 said all he wanted was to have a few pictures of his kids taken down. F-1 tried to say that we had both agreed we had made mistakes, but I stopped her and said I was clear that M-1 had made mistakes, for which he had apologized, but that I was, in fact, very clear I had been deliberate in my actions and communications, and felt fine about my contributions.

I said I would be happy to take down the pictures, but that I wanted to send out a summary email to clear the air for the neighborhood, and that I would like that to be a joint communication. I offered to draft the email and send it for review. M-1 and F-1 agreed, and we shook hands and parted amicably.