response 155 of 357:

Jan 14 15:36 UTC 2004

If the item is restored, I would like all of my responses deleted, as well,
just in case anyone is keeping track of who's said so or not.

response 157 of 357:

Jan 14 17:31 UTC 2004

(my $.02:  it appears to me that some of the very people who were so 
helpful to John way back when are some of the same people who want 
their words restored; I don't know because, although I was aware of the 
existence of the items, I never read the items much and likely never 
will.  it also seems to me that, in the event that John's items on 
divorce are restored, even if his responses are removed from said 
items, it's his name and login credited with entering the items.  [as 
such, he's also the one who could, if the items were restored, go 
through Backtalk and change the item titles to "Fluffy Grey Bunnies 
Doing Handstands" or something similarly innocuous.]  I've also seen it 
mentioned that no one's read the items in over a year; I doubt that's 
true, although it's possible that no one had *responded* to the items 
in over a year.  that's a nitpick on my part, but, as someone who 
regularly reads old items, it's a nit worth picking.)

(I don't know how I would vote on this proposal.  I keep trying to 
apply various paradigms such as "freedom versus virtue" and "free 
speech versus community" and "compassion versus law," but none of them 
seem to apply in a way that I would like.)

response 159 of 357:

Jan 14 23:56 UTC 2004

Thank you for mentioning that again.  I'm sure it has been missed somewhere.

response 161 of 357:

Jan 15 02:00 UTC 2004

In my case, I simply had more invested in jep's item as opposed to
valerie's.  I also thought jep's item was one of the better ones on grex
and generated lots of good comments.

response 163 of 357:

Jan 15 09:13 UTC 2004

resp:153 Read it again, John.  I said that the actions taken were 
considered unethical... namely, the controversy has been actions that 
led to having the entire items deleted.  I have perceived that some 
folks have believed it unethical, if you will, unfair, restricting 
free speech.

It seems a jump to me to therefore assume that I will therefore 
associate your name with scandalous accusations.  I tried to state 
things as I saw them, without making any such connection.  I'm sorry 
you don't see it that way, because I'm not out to be your enemy at all 
or make your life miserable.  I feel you are mistaken.

response 165 of 357:

Jan 15 17:25 UTC 2004

I'm baffled by the attempt to blame JEP for all this.  The only thing he ever
did was express a desire to have those two items removed.  He never heard
anything about what the board was thinking.  He didn't know about the idea
of temporarily deleting the item and bringing it up for public discussion (I
meant to clear that with him - as it would potentially subject him to some
pain and he might have prefered to leave the items quietly forgotten - but
I never got around to it, since we never even had board agree to consider
that option - some board members opposed it strongly).  JEP did not talk
Valerie in to this.  Valerie felt strongly that it was proper for her items
to be deleted.  She saw the similarity of circumstances between her and John,
and chose to apply her own ethical standards in a uniform way, although in
open defiance of Grex's rules.  She did not tell anyone, not me, not JEP,
that she was planning to do so.  It makes no sense to beat JEP for her
actions.  The only thing JEP ever did was tell people how he felt, not yet
a crime on Grex (though it may be on M-Net).

response 167 of 357:

Jan 15 18:29 UTC 2004

This may help you with your baffledness, Jan.  Here is mail 
jep sent to Valerie, staff and board, on January 7th, 4:30 p.m.

 "Additionally, I feel strongly that, since you were allowed to delete
  your items, I should be allowed to have mine deleted.  You said you
  acted as two people.  User Valerie asked Staffer Valerie to delete the
  items, and without much ado, it was done.  I have now asked the staff
  of Grex to delete a couple of items for me.  User Jep has made the
  same request, which has clearly reached Staffer Valerie.  No debate is
  needed.  Please just delete the items.  You can discuss it later.

  I can justify my second thoughts and request to delete my item quite
  easily, but I should not need to do so.  Just, please, delete the items
  and do it now."


I don't think Valerie would have killed the divorce items
had John not demanded it be done.  So, he was part of this 
action, by his own emphatic request.

Not that it matters much.  This isn't about punishing John.
It's about users censoring other users.

response 169 of 357:

Jan 15 18:52 UTC 2004

I don't know if mary betrayed any confidences by posting that.  But jep it
seems pretty clear to me from that, as I said earlier, that you just wanted
what you wanted because you wanted it.  I can understand that, even if I
wouldn't support granting it to you.  So please just cut the crap about it
being important stuff, blah-blah-blah-Blah-BLAH!

response 171 of 357:

Jan 15 19:21 UTC 2004

(oh, for fuck's sake, Mary...)

(that was wholly inappropriate.  within your rights, maybe, but still 
inappropriate.)

response 175 of 357:

Jan 15 21:02 UTC 2004

Jep already put all of the jep/board/staff email into the 
public discussion.  It's in this item, response #105.  He 
explained in #107 why it's hidden (due to length) but intends
it to be read by anyone interested.

response 177 of 357:

Jan 15 22:04 UTC 2004

Drift re: this excerpt from a jep e-mail:

> the fw of Agora, where my items are, is Katie.  
> She doesn't log on that often.

If true, given that agora is heavily "traveled", are there other people
available / willing to fw for agora who grex regularly?