response 152 of 357:

Jan 14 10:37 UTC 2004

resp:138 Whoa, cowboy, just hold on right there.  If you really want 
to believe that, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I don't know you.  But is it possible for me to disagree with 
what how you did things without coming to the conclusion, "oh, gee, 
he's just buying into everyone's rant that jep is an unethical vandal?"
I think it could be.  By your same reasoning-- you don't know me-- I 
don't know why the hell you chose to single me out.

I am a father, and I hope I can empathize on some level.  If I 
understand things correctly, you want some control on how you want to 
discuss things with your son... to not risk the possibility of a lot 
of unpleasantness just land in his lap.

Honestly, I think scribbing out your responses in the item would have 
been the best way to go.  Apparently-- that didn't happen-- we are all 
dealing with this after the fact.

Again, I'm not sure why you see that I am projecting such unfavorable 
views upon you.  Granted, all I know of you is a father who obviously 
cares about his son (hmmm, there is a possibility that I might have a 
response or two in your items) and that the material that the items 
covered was about a very difficult time that you wish to put behind 
you.  You've said that restoring the items jeopardizes that-- that 
unscrupluous users will repost them to the forefront (do I remember 
correctly) and that it could be damaging to you, and your son... if he 
was to find it.  I think it was mentioned that your ex-wife *might* 
get a hold of it if she hadn't already.

I can understand all of that, and understand why the material should 
be gone.  Even if, theoretically, the material might have remained and 
no harm would have been done, you had very good reasons to remove 
it... and as best I understood, scribbling was the legitimate way to 
have it done.  However, a staff member intervened on your behalf, 
deleted everything, and hence the controversy.

I don't make decisions cast in stone-- I do try to get as much 
information as possible.  To be honest, John, I am sympathetic and 
empathetic, if you would believe that.  But I am also sympathetic to 
those who are examining the precedent this may cause, and 
unfortunately, because Valerie was involved and because of the 
controversy surrounding her own actions, well, I would like to push 
for a solution that keeps policy on an even keel... because I don't 
think any of us can tell what might happen in the future.

I know this must be terribly emotion-wrenching for you.  But I'm not 
thinking what you're claiming.  Much too simplistic.  At best, my 
opinion is that some decisions were made that weren't well thought 
out... maybe more on Valerie's part.  I also see that those decisions 
will have an impact on Grex policy... and what people decide will 
determine how things are run in the future.  I see two interests very 
much at seeming conflict-- a father pleading against restoration, 
arguing such is a foreseeable risk, and a group that argues 
restoration (with scribbling later) is the way to preserving policy 
for the future.  Not sure how to have the cake and eat it too... but 
solutions seem to be at an impass for the moment.