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.                               

response 140 of 184:

Feb 3 21:21 UTC 2004

I keep oldagora in my cflist.

response 142 of 184:

Feb 3 21:31 UTC 2004

yeah.  i suggested that already and no-one's done it yet.

response 144 of 184:

Feb 4 04:28 UTC 2004

I apologize to the rest of Grex if anyone is reading the current 
interchange.  It's not usually my style to smear other people, but I 
am getting very tired of deliberate lies being used to attack my 
character.

Resp:143, which cannot be answered, will show that cyklone is a 
determined and deliberate liar on at least one point.  Obviously, I'd 
appreciate it if you took the point that he is capable of attempting 
deception on other points as well, and that I am being very unfairly 
attacked by his remarks.

I have very thoroughly outlined my arguments for why I wanted those 
two items to be deleted.  My arguments are in item:76.  There I 
answered to the best of my ability every point raised against my 
request to leave my two divorce items deleted, as completely and 
honestly and reasonably as I can.

As has been stated, I didn't tell every part of every reason I gave.  
You can read dark and mysterious and evil intent into that if you want 
to.  I'm sorry if you do.  I'm not really like that, you know.  A lot 
of you know.

I think everything I say will be picked apart, and used against me, 
and mis-stated, and held for future attacks by a few people.  They 
care only about "winning", and not about what's right, reasonable, or 
certainly not about any other people.  So, I'm done saying much of 
anything new.

I'll say this, which I haven't said before.  I think the users of Grex 
are picking whether Grex is going to be run by people who are 
interested in developing a community and being part of it, or by a 
different sort of person entirely.  Pick who you follow carefully, you 
might find you're stuck with them for a while.

response 146 of 184:

Feb 4 13:33 UTC 2004

Jep, if I misquoted you, then I apologize. Now let's look at the
impression you've created with your own words. You DO say you think
allowing the item to remain can harm your son. I asked for specific
examples, and you didn't provide any. However, when I mentioned you may
just have to deal with the fact that your son could stumble upon the
items, and perhaps use that as an opportunity to discuss things with your
son, you replied by essentially saying how you raise your son is your
business and you didn't appreciate any interference. So even if you never
said anywhere that you don't "want to have to explain anything to his son" 
your response I just cited clearly implicates just that concern. 

You can play all the word games you want.  I'm man enough to say that
perhaps the exact words I wrote were not exactly what you said. Are you
man enough to admit that you HAVE SAID you believe allowing the items to
remain may have some as yet unspecified impact on your son and/or your
relationship with him?  You know you really could be honest enough with
yourself and the rest of us by just coming out and telling what your
SPECIFIC concerns are regarding your son. It seems you instead prefer to
imply problems and then backpedal and accuse others of lies or
misrepresentations when they try to discern what the exact problems are
that you are unwilling to disclose. So how bout it? Want to be honest with
us and tell us what is REALLY behind you alleged concerns for your son? Or
are you just going to continue to play foolish obfuscation games? If so,
you are being intellectually dishonest and unfair to those of us who want
to debate the merits and not the innuendo of your proposal.

BTW, twila, you said you thought someone in jep's position would be better
starting a new item than going back through an old one. That misses two
points. First, JEP HIMSELF said he wished there was an old item for him to
review. So not everyone thinks the way you do. Second, during the course
of discussion in any new item, it is certainly possible that someone might
post a reply to the effect of "you know, that sounds a lot like what jep
was going through. You should check out ______" That is yet another good
reason to allow the item to remain, along with the fact that deliberately
removing my words without permission is censorship.

response 148 of 184:

Feb 4 14:27 UTC 2004

(While the membership of mailing lists may be limited, what people do with
the messages they receive through the mailing lists cannot be.  As an example,
consider the message from Valerie on the current vote.)

response 150 of 184:

Feb 4 18:10 UTC 2004

Jep, your words would carry a lot more weight if you could respond to my
SPECIFIC statements and questions. Putting aside whether or not I have truly
missed the point before today (and I can assure you I have enough character
and principles to refrain deliberate lying) then now is the chance for YOU
to set the record straight. 

If you re-read #146 you will see I admitted perhaps you did not use the
exact words I ascribed to you. You also say that "I think I've pointed out
that your assertion that your comment along these lines is false at least
5 previous times." Great. Please point me to those items. I will be happy
to respond. 

So far all I have to go on is your speculative and unsupported statement
that you believe that restoring the items could harm you and your son. If
you HONESTLY believe that then please provide some examples of the harm
you fear! Surely that is not too much to ask when you are seeking to
censor the words of others. If you don't provide specific examples, then
accusing me of lying does little more than show you are unable to debate
the merits of your proposal. Saying "I have very little confidence that I
can successfully make even this one point, so I am not going to address
other points just now" is a clever little cop-out. It does nothing to
encourage a discussion of your request on the merits. It is the equivalent
to saying "he was mean to me so I'm excused from continuing this debate
and I should automatically get my way." Nice try. 

Perhaps the confidence you lack is in your ability to make any cogent
arguments in support of your drastic request to impose censorship on the
very people who tried to help you. And when you seek to deny the value of
those words to others who may benefit from them, you are showing what I
can only consider to be extreme selfishness. Perhaps you can explain it
some other way. I'll be happy to hear your explanation.

I'll tell you what, jep, we can start fresh right now. You can set forth
your SPECIFIC reasons for stating you believe restoring the items will
cause you and/or your son harm, and I will respond only what you post from
there on out. Or, as an alternative, if you believe you described them to
your satisfaction in the past, then just point me to your post(s). So, are
you going to cop-out again and whine and name-call, or are you willing to
back up your conclusory and speculative statement with actual examples and
arguments? 

response 152 of 184:

Feb 4 19:40 UTC 2004

re resp:150: You have lied, and done it deliberately, cyklone, as I 
demonstrated.  Go back in all of the items where you used that 
statement (and other misinformation) to try to smear me, and apologize, 
and then perhaps we can put all of this behind us and be more civil 
during the next discussion.

We are not going to "start fresh right now" for this discussion, for 
your benefit.  You can.  I'm not participating, though.

I have said all I'm going to say.  (I've said that before.)  I have 
very thoroughly explained my position.  (I said that, too.  In addition 
to doing it, which is itself a certain sort of self-documentation that 
I have done it.)

Additionally, as a bonus, I've answered all of your comments that you 
made in resp:150 already, previously to resp:150, except the highly 
personal insults, about which I don't care, not coming from you, not at 
this point.

Go read what has already been said.  Then you will know all of that 
stuff.  I shouldn't have to spoon feed it to just you for time #9, just 
because you didn't get it the previous 8 times.  It's all there.  All 
of it.  Item:76 (and I said that before, too, quite recently.)

response 154 of 184:

Feb 4 19:57 UTC 2004

There's only so many hours in the day, Jamie.  There are not enough to 
deal with you just now, particularly given the attitude you expressed 
on M-Net, and which I quoted here, that you will go to any lengths at 
all to get your way.