|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
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?
|
jp2
|
|
response 129 of 184:
|
Feb 3 17:47 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 130 of 184:
|
Feb 3 17:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 131 of 184:
|
Feb 3 18:05 UTC 2004 |
That's pretty judgemental , jp2, about jep. I think that it's also rather
rude. While I'll admit that I know and like jep, I would think it was rude
if he said it about you.
And if people don't feel censored, then is it censorship? That was my implicit
question to you when I said that I didn't consider my words censored by their
removal.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 132 of 184:
|
Feb 3 18:17 UTC 2004 |
Jep sez:
1) They were entered during a time of great stress and despair. During
that time, I was diagnosed as undergoing major depression, and received
presciption medication as well as therapeutic treatment for my illness.
So what's your point. In using my analogy to an addiction item,
your mental state makes the preservation of the item even more compelling
to other desparate people who may need such an item in the same way you
wished such an item was available to you.
2) The material I entered during that time was of a highly personal
nature. I don't believe I would have entered it if I had been in
my "right mind". I just didn't care then that I could be causing a
future problem for myself. I care now.
Grex is full of highly personal material. If that was the criteria
for deletion, you would have a lot of empty space. In any case, when asked
about the "future problems for myself" you denied it was legal. You have
suggested that restoring the item would have some negative effect on your
son. Jp is right, you are the one lying, not me. Please, if these future
problems are that important to you, could you at least spell them out in
some detail? Just point me to your responses if you want, and I will read
them myself. So far, your pointer to 76 has been pretty unpersuasive.
3) Some of the material could potentially be used to harm both myself
and my young son.
Again, that is a conclusory statement. What is your basis for
making it, especially after you said your concerns were not legal? What
SPECIFICALLY do you fear? I have stated before it appears to me you are
uncomfortable allowing your son on grex if your items remain. Is that
your sole reason or one of them? Please be specific. Your calculated
vagueness, which allows your supporters to "fill in the blanks" with their
own awfulizing, is certainly not an effective means of establishing
precedent and good policy.
4) The material contained within them was focused on me, and my own
personal problems, and had very little if any relevance to anyone else.
This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term
relevance. In fact, seeing, reading and hearing about he experiences of
others, no matter how personal to them, can be incredibly relevant. You
yourself admitted you wished there was such an item. Now you would deny it
to someone else. How very very selfish of you. You should be ashamed of
yourself.
5) The items are currently deleted from the system. They were unused
for a period of over a year. I believe they were not being read by
anyone, and am certain they had not been responded to for over a year.
I don't believe there is any compelling reason for these items to be
restored. through my problems of a couple of years ago.
Se my previous response. You cannot predict the future and know
those items will not have value to someone else.
|
jp2
|
|
response 133 of 184:
|
Feb 3 18:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 134 of 184:
|
Feb 3 18:23 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 135 of 184:
|
Feb 3 18:24 UTC 2004 |
BTW, twila, my words (many many of them) will be censored if jep has his
way. I put a lot of thought into them, so I am extrememly offended and
upset that after spending paragraph after paragraph trying to explain to
jep how his attitudes were self-destructive and unproductive he would
resort to such sleazy, underhanded tactics to censor an item he previously
claimed was so helpful. I am also upset because he seems to be reverting
to the same type of judgmental control freak that many of us were
cautioning him against being in the original item.
|
tod
|
|
response 136 of 184:
|
Feb 3 18:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 137 of 184:
|
Feb 3 19:54 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, I don't deny that some (many?) others did see the deletion of their
text as censorship of their words, but I am trying to make the point that
others don't, since no one's words were prevented from appearing AT THE TIME
when they'd be read by the person they were aimed at. I certainly didn't think
that I was writing anything that would apply to anyone except jep in his own
particular case and at that particular time. I aslo doubt that most people
in the kind of emotional pain that he was in at the time would think to troll
through old agoras on grex to find an old item when they could post a new one
and get new and hopefully more apropos advice.
JP2, okay, some people do, But you are saying that everyone does, which is
not true. And I'm sorry that my opinion is meaningless to you, but calling
people liars and implying that this is why their relationship did not work
out is no way to convince anyone that you're worth listening to and that your
point of view is valid. Insults do not make you right.
|
jp2
|
|
response 138 of 184:
|
Feb 3 20:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 139 of 184:
|
Feb 3 21:19 UTC 2004 |
I have never looked at an agora more than about 10 days after the new one
appeared. Has anyone else reading this item done so?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 140 of 184:
|
Feb 3 21:21 UTC 2004 |
I keep oldagora in my cflist.
|