|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 104 of 184:
| 
Feb 3 00:08 UTC 2004 |
Okay, here are some ferinstances. Should the following responses *by
other participants* be deleted from an item from which one participant
wants his or her own responses deleted. Let's call the person who
wants his or her own responses by the his-or-her name of "Leslie."
1. So, Leslie, you say your Visa card number is 1234567890?
2. But Leslie, why on earth would you want to have sex with little boys?
3. I agree, Leslie, I don't think taking your nextdoor neighbor's old
laptop counts as stealing, if you're sure they weren't using it.
4. Er, Leslie, I don't think you should be saying stuff like that
here. What if the FBI is reading this item?
5. Leslie, you're paying way too much for your Xanax.
6. Look on the bright side, Leslie: if your wife is having an affair,
that means you can have one, too, guilt-free!
7. But Leslie, there are lots of guys who like fat women. Plus, if
you're just 5'4" 180 lbs, that doesn't sound fat to me at all.
8. Good grief, Leslie, how many times have you been fired this year?
9. So, Leslie, do you really think your breast milk is vegan because
*you're* vegan? What are you, some kind of an idiot?
10. Leslie thinks the whole world has to stop and feel sorry for her
just because her boyfriend dumped her. What a whining loser!
11. Leslie is nothing but an antiabortion christian fundamentalist
whacko.
12. Grow up, Leslie, you knew your wife was flat-chested when you
married her.
13. Leslie, does your girlfriend know you're HIV positive?
14. Leslie, when you say your penis is 3" long erect, which side are
you measuring it on?
15. Leslie is under *no* obligation to tell his employer he's addicted
to heroin!
16. Btw, Leslie, thanks for entering the nuclear bomb specs. I didn't
know it was that easy to make.
|
jp2
|
|
response 105 of 184:
|
Feb 3 00:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 106 of 184:
|
Feb 3 00:31 UTC 2004 |
3
|
cyklone
|
|
response 107 of 184:
|
Feb 3 01:15 UTC 2004 |
Re #103: "know" sb "no"
Thank you md for finally getting to the heart of what many are avoiding.
Not all of your examples are easy choices, although my view generally is
that no one puts a gun to a poster's head and forces them to write someone
else's words. #1 is the only one that jumps out at me, although there are
maybe one or two others I could change my mind on.
I also like that much of what md used for examples is similar to what has
already been posted here. Yet there was no big outcry to delete them.
|
naftee
|
|
response 108 of 184:
|
Feb 3 01:35 UTC 2004 |
Actually the precedent seems to be someone does something, and if another one
finds out, then the action is voted on after the fact. But if the GreXers
have it their way, they get away with whatever happened and act as if nothing
changed.
|
mary
|
|
response 109 of 184:
|
Feb 3 01:35 UTC 2004 |
I think posting credit card numbers to facilitate theft is
quite illegal. The police might want to know about that one.
But first let me try it out on ebay. ;-)
The rest have pretty much been done to death here, with slight
variations. They rate a yawn.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 110 of 184:
|
Feb 3 02:28 UTC 2004 |
So Mike, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 111 of 184:
|
Feb 3 02:31 UTC 2004 |
Re 99: Grex is in the process of determining whether it is appropriate to
remove other people's text _at all_ (except for certain obvious exceptions
mentioned above, like credit card numbers).
The arguments presented above and elsewhere are interesting and useful,
but the real answer is going to be in the vote. If, as I expect, jp2's
proposal passes and jep's fails, then the precedent will be established
that what Valerie did should not be repeated. If jp2's proposal fails,
then and only then will there be a precedent for removing items. If jep's
proposal passes, there _may_ be a precedent for special favours. However,
the special circumstances that allowed the removal in the first place
aren't likely to be repeated: 'twould require a staff member with the
knowledge to act as she did but without the knowledge of this discussion.
As jep has noted, a public discussion of his request would have made
his request moot: it would have guaranteed the items' preservation and
could conceivably have resulted in their reposting in entirety, under
somebody else's name. Retiring the items first would not have helped:
"set noforget" overrules "retire". So there will never again be the
opportunity to do this special favour.
|
jp2
|
|
response 112 of 184:
|
Feb 3 02:50 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 113 of 184:
|
Feb 3 03:04 UTC 2004 |
I disagree: 'staff' won't delete items on request. If staff _would_ delete
items on request, Item 39 would have been long gone from this conference.
That it has NOT been removed is evidence that your premise is false.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 114 of 184:
|
Feb 3 03:32 UTC 2004 |
"So there will never again be the opportunity to do this special favour."
Regardless. The favor should not be done for the reasons I've stated
previously. The mere fact the opportunity to do the WRONG thing is unique
in no way justifies the harm of granting the favor. Jep will be allowed to
remove his words. That is all he is entitled to. Anything more is just a
personal favor for a favored person., without any justification other than
"my son might see it." What a lame and immature excuse.
|
jp2
|
|
response 115 of 184:
|
Feb 3 11:14 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 116 of 184:
|
Feb 3 12:27 UTC 2004 |
Re: Joe's #111
"As jep has noted, a public discussion of his request would have made
his request moot: it would have guaranteed the items' preservation and
could conceivably have resulted in their reposting in entirety, under
somebody else's name."
That's not correct. Jep could have at any time gone into the divorce
items and removed all of his comments. So the worst that could have
happened is someone could have read or reposted comments made by others.
This whole debate isn't over what Jep and Valerie posted - it's about what
the other participants in those forums posted and who "owns" those
comments.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 117 of 184:
|
Feb 3 12:34 UTC 2004 |
Right, Mary; but jep's request was for the removal of _all_ of the text,
his as well as others'. Had he simply wanted his own text removed,
there would have been no need for public discussion at all.
|
mary
|
|
response 118 of 184:
|
Feb 3 12:41 UTC 2004 |
Right, and imagine this: Jep quietly goes in and deletes all of his own
comments *then* goes to staff and asks for everyone else's text to be
deleted. I suspect even Valerie would have given that one a little more
thought.
|
mary
|
|
response 119 of 184:
|
Feb 3 12:43 UTC 2004 |
Or maybe not. ;-)
|
jp2
|
|
response 120 of 184:
|
Feb 3 13:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 121 of 184:
|
Feb 3 14:31 UTC 2004 |
Yup. Gelinas seems to miss the point. He also calls jep's situation a
unique one-time only deal. However, there is already a proposal to allow
others to *voluntarily* remove their posts before any wholesale copying is
done (if I am understanding the proposed mechanism correctly). In fact, if
Grex is going to entertain the notion of doing personal favors for favored
persons, then that strikes me as the appropriate method. Item owner makes
request to staff, staff temporarily bars access immediately. User makes
pitch for voluntary deletions and mass deletes own posts. Others who agree
go in and make deletions. What is left is re-posted. It's really quite
simple. Jep's situation is thus in no way unique and it is disingenuous
for gelinas to suggest otherwise.
What is unique is that some on grex are seriously advocating the removal
of the words of others for NO OTHER REASON than the item in which they
appeared. I find that position appalling and unprincipled.
|
jp2
|
|
response 122 of 184:
|
Feb 3 15:07 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 123 of 184:
|
Feb 3 15:39 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:98: The fact that it's a public forum in no way means I have to
*welcome* those people. Tolerate them, maybe. It doesn't mean I have
to believe them when they say they're acting for the good of Grex. I
don't believe that's true of jp2 any more than I believe polytarp was
trying to get people to read the classics by posting lots of Project
Gutenberg texts in Agora. This is amusing to them in the same way that
chucking rocks at people's windows is amusing to schoolkids.
Re resp:101: Hacking into someone else's account would violate clearly
defined policy. There was no policy about what valerie did.
Re resp:103: "So far all I am seeing is an adhocracy in which anyone can
make a proposal and allow a vote, no matter how ridiculous the requests."
Well, yes. Is there a problem with that? mnet seems to be the same
way. (I remember seeing a proposal there recently on whether to prohibit
jp2 from making any further proposals. I found that an intriguing idea.
I have no idea if it passed.)
Re resp:110: Mary's probably gonna try to get Mike arrested, now. ;>
|
anderyn
|
|
response 124 of 184:
|
Feb 3 15:43 UTC 2004 |
jp2, did you respond in any of the items that were deleted? I'm just curious
about whether your outrage is about actual deletion of your words or
theoretical deletion of them. (As someone whose words were in fact deleted
in both cases (I posted heavily to the baby diaries and jep's divorce items),
I can't say that I feel censored in particular, since what I said was said
and had its effect at the time I said it, and that was all that I desired and
expected from those postings, that they be part of the conversation at the
time. I don't have any particular attachment to them now, years later, in
terms of being aghast that they were deleted. I'm not happy that they were
without my being asked, but I'm also not feeling censored in any way. I was
allowed to speak at the time it was relevant. I can always add my two cents
to any future discussion about similar topics. That doesn't seem like
censorship to me.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 125 of 184:
|
Feb 3 16:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 126 of 184:
|
Feb 3 16:53 UTC 2004 |
re resp:103: Follow this link for just about all that I have said about
deleting my two divorce items:
item:76
If you read it, I think you will be quite surprised (based on your
comments) about what I have said and what I haven't. Hint: you won't
find anything I've written, there or anywhere, saying what you keep
saying I wrote, about wanting to keep a discussion from my son.
But I've pointed *that* out several times before. You keep bringing up
the same thing, over and over and over again, in item after item,
knowing it's incorrect. And accusing me of not answering you, and of
being deceitful. Why is that? Why?
|
jp2
|
|
response 127 of 184:
|
Feb 3 16:58 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 128 of 184:
|
Feb 3 17:18 UTC 2004 |
re resp:127: That is indeed my response. Grex will not be deciding,
now or in the future, how I raise my son. Congratulations, Jamie. Now
can you go over that with cyklone?
|