response 126 of 157:

Feb 7 23:10 UTC 2004

Re resp:64, resp:71: Sure.  And we could be like M-Net, where everyone
uses pseudos for fear of becoming personally involved, and discussion
consists mainly of exchanges of insults.  If people can no longer feel
comfortable talking about their own lives here, that's what we'll be
left with.  Shitdicks and half-assed parody.


Re resp:90: "I resent the fact that some people are apparently so
lacking in empathy that they can say "it's only pixels. it's only the
internet" when people do very clearly do find these pixels to be
communication and ways to reach out to other people."

I think it's an attitude born of hanging out places like M-net, where
there's a sense that everyone's just playing a shallow pseudo and no one
is revealing who they really are.  You can beat up on them all you want
because they're not real people and don't feel pain.


Re resp:110: In other words, Valerie is no longer here, so we have to
punish jep in her place?


Re resp:120: I'd like you to explain why you feel free speech means
publishing your words forever.  If a library recycles old copies of the
New York Times, are they therefore censoring everyone who wrote a letter
to the editor?

response 132 of 157:

Feb 8 02:17 UTC 2004

Violent disagreement to cover-up jep's violent crime.

response 134 of 157:

Feb 8 04:12 UTC 2004

While we are at it, let's wipe all of m-net too.

response 138 of 157:

Feb 8 04:41 UTC 2004

What's fucked up is that she revealed that her inner emotions are destroying
her!

response 140 of 157:

Feb 8 15:43 UTC 2004

Polls are closed.  A few corrections.

Valerie did not admit that she knowing did wrong when she deleted 
John's items.  When she deleted her own, she thought some people would 
be dissappointed to see them go, but never expected there to be any 
serious outcry.  She thought it was obviously within her rights and 
expected others to think so too.  By the time Valerie deleted John's 
item she had found out that many people did seriously object and that 
most perceived it to be in violation of a rule she hadn't heard of.  
But she did it anyway because she believed (and still believes) that it 
was right.  She left staff not out of contrition or shame, but because 
it was obvious that her values were no longer in sync with Grex's.

It is also not true that nobody fears the outcome of this vote.  I know 
two who fear it on a rather personal basis, and several who fear it on 
a less personal basis.  Restoration might have a chilling effect on a 
few people, and I can think of at least one person who might be tempted 
to stop posting on Grex in protest if they are not restored.  This is 
not an easy issue.

response 142 of 157:

Feb 8 16:34 UTC 2004

Jerkfaces.

response 144 of 157:

Feb 8 23:29 UTC 2004

Can't execute "cat > /tmp/tr"!
Nasty return from editor: 127
Ok to enter this response? n
Response aborted!  Returning to current item.

response 146 of 157:

Feb 10 12:54 UTC 2004

(Rejoining this discussion after a couple of days' absence...)

Re #131: Well, I am often in strong disagreement with the people I said
that I agree with (on this issue) too.  :)

Re #140: "By the time Valerie deleted John's [jep's] item she had found out
that many people did seriously object and that most perceived it to be in
violation of a rule she hadn't heard of."

Hmm... Well, for what it's worth, when she said "It's longstanding Grex
policy that the person who created an item can delete it," (exact quote,
see resp:68,11) to justify deleting the diary items, *I* was the one
surprised by a rule I never heard of.  There was no such written policy,
nor any pattern of past practice to support it.  It just seemed to come
out of the air, and to contradict to what I thought Grex had stood for
over the past twelve+ years.