|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 197 of 357:
|
Jan 17 13:00 UTC 2004 |
Mary has accomplished making my "ignore" list, which has one occupant
now. I've asked her not to e-mail me. I'm not interested in
discussing her any more. Let's stick to something relevant; the
deletion of my two divorce items.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 198 of 357:
|
Jan 17 14:23 UTC 2004 |
Re #195: Thanks Mary. I had similar concerns myself, although I did not act
on them other than to post more in the items. And I think having a
professional double-check your concerns is often a good thing to do in many
areas of life.
|
richard
|
|
response 199 of 357:
|
Jan 18 03:41 UTC 2004 |
I think mary has a valid point. When you post to a public access system
like Grex about your problems, would you not want and even hope that
others can also benefit from the advice you are soliciting? JEP is not
the only person on this board who has gone through a painful divorce or
separation from a loved one. Yet he doesn't seem to understand that the
possibility existed that his items might have meant something to other
people, that others might have been personally benefitting from the
discussion. I have stated in one way or another many times my belief that
on grex, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Grex should
exist for the betterment of the community. If one enters an item here, it
should be with the idea that it will be to the benefit of everyone, or as
many people as possible, and not just to the person posting.
I would argue that JEP could have done a mass email to a bunch of people
if his intent was purely to seek personal advice and not to open a
discussion that belonged to anyone and everyone who read it. I think
there has to be the sense that the discussions and conferences, and the
posts within those conferences on Grex, belong to everyone. Otherwise you
create the inevitable impression that grex is just a collection of
individuals posting for their personal benefit, and not a group of users
who come here because they want to be part of a community and want to be
part of such a shared experience.
|
richard
|
|
response 200 of 357:
|
Jan 18 03:55 UTC 2004 |
And I'd also say that I was disturbed by what Valerie did for similar reasons,
because by doing so, Valerie seemed to show that all along she was only
interested in the community she helped build so long as she was a part of it.
Here in Brooklyn, we have what are called "community gardens", big gardens
that everyone on a given block or neighborhood shares and works on. This is
because many of us don't have individual yards. So people on my block for
instance all contribute to the community garden at the end of the street.
Its a nice garden and people plant things there and water the garden and it
is owned by everyone and helps beautify the neighborhood.
What Valerie did to Grex is akin to what would happen if I left my community
garden, and decided that since I don't want to work on it anymore, I'm going
to go down there and rip out all the plants I personally put in and undo any
landscaping or anything else I did over the years there. Would it be fair
to the other neighbors? No. I mean I guess I can say these plants in this
corner are mine and .etc, and assert my right to take them out, but why would
I want to mess up a nice garden that I put time in to developing? In a case
like that, even if I decided I hated my neighbors, I'd think that the
collective enterprise that is that garden should outweigh my personal gripes
with anybody. Think of Grex like such a garden. Something that is alive and
growing, and should be allowed to own itself as much as possible. Why do we
always have to retain ownership of everything we put into a project?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 201 of 357:
|
Jan 18 04:24 UTC 2004 |
How about if you saw that someone was defacing the garden, Richard? Wouldn't
you pull out your plants before they were destroyed, too?
|
naftee
|
|
response 202 of 357:
|
Jan 18 05:55 UTC 2004 |
What valerie did to GreX is akin to bombing the whole freakin' garden.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 203 of 357:
|
Jan 18 07:21 UTC 2004 |
Re #201: Don't you mean "how about if you heard someone from another block
making fun of your garden"? That's a better analogy.
|
jp2
|
|
response 204 of 357:
|
Jan 18 16:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 205 of 357:
|
Jan 18 18:14 UTC 2004 |
haha, it's the right analogy.
|
remmers
|
|
response 206 of 357:
|
Jan 19 15:43 UTC 2004 |
<donning voteadm hat...>
I've posted a summary of the rules regarding voting in item 75,
response 179 (resp:75,179). The earliest voting could begin,
should John elect to bring it to a vote, is January 23.
|