|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 177 of 424:
| 
Jan 15 17:13 UTC 2004 |
The proposal in #0 specifically says that individuals should be given
control over their own posts.
from resp:0 -
"...these items be restored from back up tapes and individual posters
be presented with the opportunity to decide for themselves if they wish
to scribble their posts."
I am merely asking cyklone to scribble his own posts in the jep divorce
item. Not only that though, I am also asking him to save his posts and
enter them as a seperate item because I agree with him that what he
wrote very well may be helpful to someone else.
|
naftee
|
|
response 178 of 424:
|
Jan 16 02:43 UTC 2004 |
Wait, if you can't get a staff member to write a simple script, how the hell
do you expect a user of GreX to go through all that work?
|
remmers
|
|
response 179 of 424:
|
Jan 19 15:40 UTC 2004 |
<donning my voteadm hat...>
Since this proposal was made 10 days ago, it's appropriate to review
the timelines and procedures regarding voting on it.
There's a two-week discussion period prior to any vote. After that,
the proposer may post a final wording and ask that it be voted on,
or may elect not to bring it to a vote. The vote takes place over
a period of 10 days. The proposal passes if a majority of those
members who vote cast a ballot in favor.
The earliest that voting could begin on this proposal is January 23.
|
krj
|
|
response 180 of 424:
|
Jan 19 23:41 UTC 2004 |
Does allowing a book to go out of print promote censorship?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 181 of 424:
|
Jan 20 00:40 UTC 2004 |
Bad analogy. What is going on here is more a case of a collected work
where some authors would like it to go out of print and the remaining
authors wish to continue printing with the unwilling authors' works
removed.
|
krj
|
|
response 182 of 424:
|
Jan 20 01:30 UTC 2004 |
So where's the censorship? No one has stopped you from writing anything.
If what you wrote a year or more ago had any enduring value to you,
why didn't you keep a file copy of your comments?
There are large warnings in various places that
Grex is not to be relied upon for safe file keeping.
I think the "censorship!" charge is way overblown in this situation.
|
naftee
|
|
response 183 of 424:
|
Jan 20 01:44 UTC 2004 |
Sir, the staff worked extremely hard to bring back GreX's email, which could
have been lost. It seems to me they would work hard if one of GreX's hard
disks failed and some of the content on the bbs was removed. But like we said
before, this is not a hardware issue. A GreX staffer removed text from the
bbs that wasn't hers. How would you like it if the staff removed your mail?
Surely, they aren't responsible for it.
But the staff won't do this, and for good reason. Just as they won't remove
items at random from the bbs.
I think the censorship charge is justified in this situation.
|
willcome
|
|
response 184 of 424:
|
Jan 20 01:58 UTC 2004 |
Re. 182: It's rather cynical, I think, to delete someone's work because of
content years after it was posted and not call it censorship. Do you really
think it's reasonable to expect people to keep everything they write and be
prepared to republish it when it's deleted? And, of course, censorship isn't
reliant on content being of any value, let alone important enough to do what
you sugeST.!!
|
cyklone
|
|
response 185 of 424:
|
Jan 20 02:27 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, krj is ducking an obvious issue by throwing up red herrings. The value
of a post does not depend on whether or not the poster chooses to save it.
I could have all my items posts saved yet deletion still removes them from
the original context which others may find beneficial.
|
aruba
|
|
response 186 of 424:
|
Jan 20 23:46 UTC 2004 |
I think Ken's points are very good ones. The fact that some authors of a
collected work want some organization to publish it doesn't oblige that
organization to comply, nor does letting it go out of print constitute
censorship.
|
tod
|
|
response 187 of 424:
|
Jan 20 23:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 188 of 424:
|
Jan 21 00:06 UTC 2004 |
Re #186: It depends on what the practices have been up to that point, and
what the expectations are. I think you'd agree that there was
an expectation here that items stick around.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 189 of 424:
|
Jan 21 00:56 UTC 2004 |
Even more blatantly disingenuous is to equate allowing staff to violate a
professed policy in favor of free and uncensored free speech (while
granting a "personal favor to a favored person") with a system crash or
other inadvertent loss of text. I also like how suddenly grex is being
described as some anonymous "organization" which may or may not have
policies about censorship.
It's one thing if the New York Times sells out all its back issues and
declines to make copies. It is a much different thing if the editor sneaks
into the warehouse late at night and torches all the back issues. Guess
which analogy more closely fits Grex? Just come clean folks. Quit the
mental masturbation and intellectual gymnastics and admit your want to do
a personal favor for a favored person.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 190 of 424:
|
Jan 21 03:12 UTC 2004 |
Don't make the mistake of believing that all the Grexers you're talking to
are in agreement on this issue. I might be remembering wrong, but my
recollection is that aruba does not think that what Valerie did was okay.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 191 of 424:
|
Jan 21 03:28 UTC 2004 |
(And others have changed their minds.)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 192 of 424:
|
Jan 21 03:56 UTC 2004 |
Of course I do not mean to generalize, and I do hope more level heads on
grex prevail. I am responding to those who are twisting logic into shapes
not even a pretzel would recognize. Unfortunately, some of those posters
are people I expect better from . . . .
Re #190: But I get the feeling he doesn't want to reinstate jep's item. I
strongly believe those items should not get a pass just because he is once
removed from the acts of valerie. Again, it's like getting too much money
from the teller. I may not have any legal liability but I still give the
money back. Jep should not be trying to benefit from valerie's wrongful
acts at the expense of free and uncensored speech. The items should be
returned to grex.
|
naftee
|
|
response 193 of 424:
|
Jan 21 04:29 UTC 2004 |
Yeah I agree. It's actually an insult to the staff to say that if there's
a disk failure, they're not responsible for any lost content and won't do
anything about it, tough shit, etc. etc., when they worked EXTREMELY hard to
recover mail from the failed mail disk. They could have just forgotten about
that now, couldn't they?
But of course, saying that someone willfully deleting files is the same as
a hardware failure is patently ridiculous.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 194 of 424:
|
Jan 21 06:50 UTC 2004 |
Re#192 and others: Briefly digressing from festivities...
Ultimately, the heads that will prevail in this matter are those of the
members who bother to vote on the current proposals. Whether they are
level will depend on your view of things and on which way the votes go.
You amongst several others seem hell-bent on browbeating jep into
admitting he is wrong and that all of this is his fault. In the
processing of doing so, I think you are confusing the fact that you
disagree with his view and the fact that you don't like that he even
asked that they be removed with some notion that jep had any authority
in this matter or responsibility for them having actually been deleted.
jep can ask until he's blue in the face but he is not responsible for
them having been removed in any way relevant to official procedures
on grex. Valerie made the call, deleted the items and in doing so
assumed responsibility for the act.
Staff receive ridiculous threats, requests, commands and demands everyday.
Part of their job is to try sorting through all of that and make
judgement calls on which should be actioned, which should be ignored,
and what should deferred to the membership or board for resolution.
Now if you are arguing that jep had some moral responsibility to not make
the request, he might counter that he has a greater moral responsibility
to protect what he sees as a threat to his family. Fine, whatever.
Pick your priorities, chose a side and argue away but that's his opinion
versus yours and the results of such a debate still in no way makes jep
responsible for Valerie's actions.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 195 of 424:
|
Jan 21 13:22 UTC 2004 |
You are missing the point, then. I do understand the difference between jep's
request and valerie's actions. What I would like made clear to voters is that
they are participating in an ad hoc process in which a user such as jep can
make a request, the granting of which directly contradicts grex's professed
dedication to free and uncensored speech. In such cases I would submit the
person making the request has a very high burden to show harm that outweighs
the harms to grex's professed principles. Jep has not even remotely met that
burden. And the "personal favors for favored persons" crowd has been offering
up justifications that are contradicted BY JEP'S OWN WORDS!
|
jp2
|
|
response 196 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:17 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 197 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 198 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 199 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 200 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 201 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:45 UTC 2004 |
I'm impressed with how official-looking it is, at least...
|