|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 172 of 357:
| 
Jan 15 19:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 173 of 357:
|
Jan 15 19:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 174 of 357:
|
Jan 15 20:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 176 of 357:
|
Jan 15 21:24 UTC 2004 |
re resp:171: I have also said that anyone who received it can post
anything I sent to the staff, Board, or valerie, regarding the deletion
of my two divorce items. Mary can post whatever she has on the
subject, as far as I am concerned, either from me or from anyone else.
I am not trying to hide anything.
All of the messages I sent or received are posted in resp:105, censored
because of length as Mary said, but readable.
If you're in Picospan, at the "Respond or Pass?" prompt, type:
set noforget
then
only 105
to see the e-mails I posted. They're complete (except for two small
parts of comments which I believe are irrelevant to the discussion),
and intended to be read by anyone interested.
There was, I am told, much discussion among "baff" in which I was not
included. If there's anything there which isn't already in the
conference somewhere, by all means, post that, too.
|
albaugh
|
|
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?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 178 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:11 UTC 2004 |
This things one sees, again from what jep posted:
Message 1/1 Jan Wolter Jan 9, 2004 01:14:13 am -0500
X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: jan@unixpapa.com via ratbert
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:14:13 -0500
To: jep@grex.org
Subject: Your Item
Are you a Grex member? If so, I suggest that you enter a member
proposal in Coop, proposing that your item not be restored.
Make the proposal specific to your item, not a general policy.
Although that is generic, accurate advice for a wide variety of grex things,
I find myself feeling uncomfortable that a grex "pillar" got involved with
"furthering / expanding the controversy", or whatever it is. jep was a
beneficiary of an act most people consider wholly inappropriate, and was then
being advised as to how to hold onto that "ill-gotten" benefit. Dunno...
|
jp2
|
|
response 179 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:18 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 180 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 181 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:30 UTC 2004 |
I assume she did it either because it was her duty as a nurse - or human being
- or because she was being a busybody. Only the Shadow knows...
|
tod
|
|
response 182 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 183 of 357:
|
Jan 15 23:42 UTC 2004 |
OTOH, if she did indeed make such reports, the "legal liability" argument some
have been making in support of keeping the items deleted is weakened. If there
were no repercussions back then, in the heat of the divorce and jep's anger,
then I certainly see no risks at this point.
|
gull
|
|
response 184 of 357:
|
Jan 16 00:46 UTC 2004 |
It's not clear whether she did or not. The response in which she apparently
admitted to doing so was scribbled. All we have to go by is what jp2 has
said.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 185 of 357:
|
Jan 16 00:58 UTC 2004 |
She acknowledged it.
|
naftee
|
|
response 186 of 357:
|
Jan 16 02:48 UTC 2004 |
Where would we be without the 'usual troublemakers' of GreX.
|
jep
|
|
response 187 of 357:
|
Jan 16 19:54 UTC 2004 |
re resp:180: She did? I had never heard that. Mary, is that true?
|
jep
|
|
response 188 of 357:
|
Jan 16 21:29 UTC 2004 |
As I write this, I haven't seen any responses after resp:187.
I guess I have to regard it as true. Mary posted some things and then
censored them, but some people were able to see what she said.
I guess I'll view it that she thought it was her duty; as a nurse, as a
citizen, whatever. It's an evaluation of what Mary thinks of me,
clearly.
I can't blame anyone for doing what they thought right; trying to
protect someone's life or well-being; or anything like that. If I
thought I was doing that, I'd call the police, too, or do anything else
I thought I had to do.
On the other hand, when I think of the effects Mary could have had, and
from my perspective, *tried* to have, it's pretty chilling. I wasn't
even made aware of that until now, and got it 3rd hand. That's, um,
not very friendly. I got it by accident at that (Mary didn't intend
for me to know about it).
All together, I'd have to say it's the most hostile thing anyone has
ever done to me except for the divorce itself.
I'll have to think about it some more before I decide what it all means.
I think it's obvious I'll never be able to post about a real problem
again, not under my own name. What else it means, I'll decide that
later.
Wow.
|
gull
|
|
response 189 of 357:
|
Jan 16 21:52 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:188: Yeah, that's pretty much my reaction, too. I'll think
twice before talking about my personal life on Grex, from now on. I'd
always kind of assumed that people would have the courtesy not to pass
around Grex items to non-Grexers, but in hindsight that seems like a
stupid thing to have assumed.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 190 of 357:
|
Jan 16 22:21 UTC 2004 |
As someone has said several times, "This is a _public_access_ unix system"
(emphasis added).
Personally, I consider that a far more quelling thought than any "censorship"
that has yet been practiced or discussed. But that's just me.
|
willcome
|
|
response 191 of 357:
|
Jan 16 23:19 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, and you ARE pretty stupid.
|
jep
|
|
response 192 of 357:
|
Jan 17 03:08 UTC 2004 |
After what I've just read, I am not sure there's anything on Grex for
me any more. I am as shocked, and saddened, and disgusted, by
information I've received today as I've ever been by anything I've
ever seen on-line.
I have many other feelings, too. I would have discussed them once,
but it's clear to me now that I can't do that here, not any more.
I guess I'll try to see this proposal through. It's what I'm logged
on for right now, and that's pretty much all I'm logged on for. After
that, after it's voted on, I don't know.
The bad eggs... you just don't know who all of them are.
|
mary
|
|
response 193 of 357:
|
Jan 17 03:24 UTC 2004 |
Please enter the mail I sent you, Jep.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 194 of 357:
|
Jan 17 03:53 UTC 2004 |
You could post it yourself.
|
mary
|
|
response 195 of 357:
|
Jan 17 05:31 UTC 2004 |
Nope. Instead I'll do what I should have done in the first
place - make my point by using a fictional example.
The example: One morning we log on, coffee in hand, to find one of our
regular users, an old friend to many, reports he's depressed and can't
seem to find a reason for living.. He details fantasies about how he
could kill himself. You know, from his comments, that his family has no
clue of his suicidal thoughts.
If I cared what happened here, and was worried he was a credible threat to
himself, I'd probably ask someone who could read such behavior better than
I, for advice, if I knew doing so would be casual and off the record. So
I show the expert the item, without additional information or identifying
information.
The advice comes back that it's scary stuff, to be sure, and, "A really
hard call", but it could be benign venting.
So I ponder what to do and decide to wait it out a bit longer. But I'm
watching and ready to intervene if the threats persist. But low and
behold, time and professional help, and community support seems to be be
helping enough that the threats slow and cease. In the end pointing his
family to the discussion wasn't necessary and I'm relieved to not be
involved.
But it was a gamble. If I'd decided to let the family know of his
suicidal statements, would that have been wrong? I'm still not sure.
When someone makes such provocative statements it's usually a call for
help. Usually. But how much help is appropriate when the threats are
made in a public forum where we encourage people to tell all? Would going
to the family have been the right thing to do no matter how clear it was
he was in deep trouble?
To be honest, in the situation I faced, I decided to do nothing. Some of
my inaction was due to the fact I didn't have to intervene, legally. Had
this been a child, yes, the law requires a nurse to inform the parent.
But I can simply watch when it's an adult and I'm off duty. That sounds
so cold, but it's true.
So this is a powerful thing we've got going. We encourage anyone to share
their most personal problems, but on a public access system, where items
live forever, and all that help you got will live on and on, helping
others whether you want it there or not.
Is it any wonder that every once in a while we get confused about the
priorities? Which is it? Open access? No censorship? Control of
private information? That's what we have to find out.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 196 of 357:
|
Jan 17 07:13 UTC 2004 |
resp:190 et al... such is the reality... although there may be a sense
of community and some trust, we see information shared here is still
fairly open and vulnerable. It's not secure and it can be exploited.
|