|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 132 of 255:
| 
Jun 12 14:35 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Marcus' sentiments.
|
remmers
|
|
response 133 of 255:
|
Jun 12 14:36 UTC 2000 |
(Voteadm hat: The vote program is now up. Type "!vote" or "vote",
depending on flavor of prompt. The rest should be self-explanatory.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 134 of 255:
|
Jun 12 14:49 UTC 2000 |
(Additional note: If you vote and then change your mind, you can
always re-vote. So there's no reason why discussion shouldn't
continue over the 10-day voting period.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 135 of 255:
|
Jun 12 14:55 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Marcus and John too.
|
mwg
|
|
response 136 of 255:
|
Jun 12 15:17 UTC 2000 |
Those who favor permanent removal of text, try this: Go around to all the
various usenet archives and tell them you want some of your responses
erased that were once posted to the net. Listen to them laugh.
|
pfv
|
|
response 137 of 255:
|
Jun 12 15:32 UTC 2000 |
Fortunately for everyone, this isn't uselessnet.
Now, for fun: try to find your responses older than a year.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 138 of 255:
|
Jun 12 15:35 UTC 2000 |
What Pete said. (The first part, anyway.) Just because permanent removal
isn't practical in Usenet/Football Stadia/YourHome doesn't mean we can't do
it here.
|
aaron
|
|
response 139 of 255:
|
Jun 12 16:58 UTC 2000 |
So... if you ignore the law, or pretend that heeding the law will somehow
make the laws applicable to email govern conference content, you... what?
Marcus seems to be arguing that following the law constitutes getting
"tied up in lawyer land", while simultaneously arguing that system policy
should be dictated upon what seems to be a bizarre pseudo-legal fantasy.
I'm not sure what people are agreeing with.
|
dpc
|
|
response 140 of 255:
|
Jun 12 18:59 UTC 2000 |
I'm voting "yes".
|
remmers
|
|
response 141 of 255:
|
Jun 12 21:59 UTC 2000 |
I don't think Grex should ignore any laws.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 142 of 255:
|
Jun 13 02:27 UTC 2000 |
(is WebVote available on this? If not, I'll log in, but I'd rather not)
|
janc
|
|
response 143 of 255:
|
Jun 13 02:44 UTC 2000 |
As far as I can tell, the web vote is not set up.
|
gull
|
|
response 144 of 255:
|
Jun 13 04:18 UTC 2000 |
Re #139: So are you saying I could ask DejaNews to remove all my postings
from their archive, and if they don't, I can sue them? You'll excuse me for
being skeptical that that one would fly.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 145 of 255:
|
Jun 13 04:26 UTC 2000 |
I don't know whether anyone's tried it. Since they honor the X-No-Archive
flag, they at least have an argument that you had the option of avoiding
archiving of your posts.
|
krj
|
|
response 146 of 255:
|
Jun 13 04:35 UTC 2000 |
My vague recollection from the Scientology Wars is that when postings
were made which contained Copyrighted Secret Space-Alien Scriptures,
deja pulled the file copies when Scientology sent the lawyers after them.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 147 of 255:
|
Jun 13 04:50 UTC 2000 |
I'm not surprised, and I suspect they would pull an individual's postings if
the individual were willing to push them on it. The law would be against
them, so they'll probably do it if confronted by a serious request. (There's
a way to tell if a request is serious, and a way to weed casual requests out,
though many service providers simply assume copyright claims are always
honest. But I don't want to digress onto that.)
If they are doing it as a matter of policy, they probably also ask people
not to talk about it as a condition of the settlement -- that way both
sides save court fees (though the requester may still have to spend some
money proving seriousness), and most people on the Net assume that Deja
News won't remove stuff, so they aren't deluged with casual requests.
If you want to try it, I can outline the serious approach in an item where
it would be on-topic. I don't feel like going after DejaNews myself,
though someday I might.
|
jp2
|
|
response 148 of 255:
|
Jun 13 11:37 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 149 of 255:
|
Jun 13 14:04 UTC 2000 |
This discussion only reinforces my impression that in balancing
individual privilege vs. the public interest, current copyright law errs
on the side of the former.
(re web voting: There's a web interface for board elections, but I
haven't yet gotten around to doing one for proposal votes. So, sorry,
but you currently have to log in to vote on proposals.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 150 of 255:
|
Jun 13 14:53 UTC 2000 |
It depends on whether you think the public interest includes "encouraging
people to write by assuring them that their individual rights won't be
trampled upon" or not, but that's a discussion for a different venue.
|
mary
|
|
response 151 of 255:
|
Jun 13 17:34 UTC 2000 |
That's certainly one way of looking at it.
I guess where I'm coming from is from a whole other direction.
I can't imagine myself making a public comment then trying to
take it back by censoring it. If I screwed, which I do,
then I own up to it, make apologies as needed, and remember
to maybe not go that route next time around. Now, I know
I'm just speaking for myself here, but removing something
from a public conference because I'd rather not be held
accountable for what I did seems, well, cowardly and has
all the earmarks of avoiding responsibility for my actions.
Your mileage may vary.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 152 of 255:
|
Jun 13 18:00 UTC 2000 |
Mary, I mostly agree with your statement. The area of *dis*agreement is that
I see reasons other than avoiding responsibility and accountability for
retracting a statement. If I say something rude about you, then yes,
apologise and go on. If I cross the line into slander or libel, then IN
ADDITION to apologising, I should make amends as much as possible. Removing
the offending statement, permanently, is the only useful amends I can see.
YMMV.
|
mary
|
|
response 153 of 255:
|
Jun 13 20:58 UTC 2000 |
I agree. You should always leave the door open for when
altruism comes to call. It has been known to happen. ;-)
(I am just being a stinker here, Joe. Pay little attention.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 154 of 255:
|
Jun 14 00:52 UTC 2000 |
I think sending the response to the censored log is enough of an
acknowledgement of retraction, myself. I don't think it matters whether the
log is readable or not.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 155 of 255:
|
Jun 14 01:34 UTC 2000 |
It certainly could.
|
janc
|
|
response 156 of 255:
|
Jun 14 04:40 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Mary that posting an apology and/or correction is probably a
better course in general, and one I personally prefer. I just don't think
it should be the only option available.
|