response 137 of 155:

Feb 18 03:29 UTC 2004

Oh, okay.

response 139 of 155:

Feb 18 04:50 UTC 2004

Why'd you ban my address, putz?

response 141 of 155:

Feb 18 13:35 UTC 2004

so you are saying that you are sorry he is upset/hurt...BUT that
you don't really understand why?

That is the exact same argument the people doing the parody used and
were attacked for not understanding the full scope of the hurt feelings
that were caused because of it.  (gack, run-on sentence)

response 143 of 155:

Feb 18 16:28 UTC 2004

Um. I'm saying that I don't quite get the amount of pain he's claiming. I know
a lot of authors (maybe not a huge amount, but I deal with them every day,
and I talk to others on a regular basis) and only a very few of them are
so attached to one particular expression of their ideas (as in, "oh, you
deleted my file? you've censored my immortal ideas!" rather than "oh, you
deleted my file? I'll have to rewrite this, what a drag. Hope I can get it
close to the cool thing I wrote before.") that they feel it's worth a lot of
complaining and screaming and all of the rest of it. Yes, I know it hurts to
have something you've written disappear, although it hurts worse to have it
mangled by an uninterested editor, ime.  

I don't think that making something disappear en masse without looking to see
who or what was in the stuff disappeared (I don't think Valerie knew or cared
exactly who or what was written in those files at the time she did it, so it
was  not aimed at anyone in particular or at any speech in particular) is the
same at all as making fun of someone else in what seems in the medium of
computers to be a mean spirit (I admit that I could be misreading your words
in the agora conference but it did not seem like "ha-ha, let's laugh together
at how silly everyone one is", but more of a "look what an idiot and a jackass
this person is, let's laugh at what a dolt they are, and how much better we
are..." type of speech). I would hope that I would not perform either action,
since I don't like causing pain, but I'd rather do Valerie's action (which
was not meant to hurt, imo) rather than the parody (which seems meant to hurt,
or at least seriously sting, the persons parodied). YMMV.

response 145 of 155:

Feb 18 18:05 UTC 2004

Why isn't it easy to repost it? You had the ideas, you can have them again.
If they were so inspiring and needed to be saved, then you should be able to
remember the thrust of them well enough to recreate them, or the parts thereof
that you believe are important. The expression is fleeting compared to the
idea. I do not subscribe to the belief that all speech is important and needs
to be archived for all time. Some things need to be. Some things should be
forgotten as soon as they are typed. Are you sure you want to re-read yourself
saying "fuck you" and calling untrue names (I am not "a brutal ruffian or
assassin" as per Merriam-Webster) in twenty years, for example? You may wish
to, but unless you take steps to preserve that expression of yourself for
yourself, you can't expect it to be there. George isn't going to do it for
you. Harry isn't. I'm not. Grex isn't. 

Aren't you using yourself for your yardstick? Everyone does. It's part of
being human, since the only experience you have is your own. Yes, I know many
people and I listen to them telling me their experiences (whether via voice
or electrons), but in the end, I have to filter that through my own mind and
heart and truth, to come to a decision. I didn't make a decision to vote to
"favor favored persons" -- I voted the way I did because (1) what's done is
done, and it would have been wrong to repost things so that those who gawk
and cause trouble could have more fodder,  and (2) as a parent, I could see
why valerie and jep wanted those items gone. I would have wanted them gone
too. I would hope that I'd have done it in a differnt way than Valerie did,
but I can't say that I would have with emotions running high. 

response 147 of 155:

Feb 18 20:06 UTC 2004

... or a cattle prod...      



oh, yeah. -->  ;-)

response 149 of 155:

Feb 18 22:06 UTC 2004

Twila, when I have more time I will explain how far off base you are with
your "yardstick" analysis. However, one recurrent theme can be blown out
of the water right now. The whole "now it's such a big deal we can never
restore it because it would no longer be the status quo" carries a huge
negative implication within that assumption. What you are saying is (a) if
a berserk staffer or a whiner like jep manages to delete text and (b) the
deletion naturally creates controversy, then (c) it cannot be restored
*because* of the controversy (ie "it would have been wrong to repost
things so that those who gawk and cause trouble could have more fodder"). 
This leads to an absurd result: If someone does something outrageous on
grex, like seizing control of the words of another, then that person's
wrongful acts of deletion will not be undone because of the controversy
the *wrongdoer* created. Talk about rewarding inappropriate behavior. That
is just one of the incredibly damaging lessons of the vote not to restore. 

response 151 of 155:

Feb 19 00:16 UTC 2004

AND I"LL SEND YOU A RIBBON EVEN IF YOU SKIP ALL STEPS!!!!

response 153 of 155:

Feb 19 01:57 UTC 2004

EXACTLY! If anyone has a copy of the dbunker posts, I would very much
appreciate my words back.

response 155 of 155:

May 17 02:14 UTC 2006

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE