|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
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.
|
naftee
|
|
response 207 of 357:
|
Jan 20 01:36 UTC 2004 |
Thanks remmers!
|
other
|
|
response 208 of 357:
|
Jan 21 17:01 UTC 2004 |
jep, if you feel you have to ignore mary and refuse to read and
consider the actions she describes in resp:195 as those of a
reasonable and caring friend who is bound by both professional and
legal responsibility, then you are letting an out-of-control
emotional reaction rob you of both your reason and a valuable
friend, and the only response I can muster to that is to pity you.
I seriously hope you will step back a bit and consider this a little
more objectively.
|
jep
|
|
response 209 of 357:
|
Jan 21 17:32 UTC 2004 |
As far as I am concerned, the discussion between Mary and myself is
closed. I have no interest in continuing it with her.
I have no intention of discussing it with anyone else, either. This is
not the appropriate place to do so in any case.
I suggest two things to you:
1) take it to e-mail
2) please leave me out of it
Thank you.
|
jp2
|
|
response 210 of 357:
|
Jan 21 17:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 211 of 357:
|
Jan 21 17:50 UTC 2004 |
I've said my piece.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 212 of 357:
|
Jan 21 17:58 UTC 2004 |
And you said it very well. I share your views.
|
gull
|
|
response 213 of 357:
|
Jan 21 21:24 UTC 2004 |
I'm not convinced that mary had any 'professional and legal
responsibility' to do what she did. I accept that she felt she had a
moral responsibility to do so, though. I think it's regrettable that
she didn't also feel she had a responsibility to express her concerns to
jep before going over his head.
If I were him, I'd be pretty annoyed with her, too.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 214 of 357:
|
Jan 21 21:38 UTC 2004 |
I'm curious why she didn't express such concerns with jep.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 215 of 357:
|
Jan 21 21:50 UTC 2004 |
I believe Mary did express just such concerns to jep. Of course with the
item now deleted no one can say for sure. However, I seem to recall
several posts of hers stating words to the effect of "jep, what you are
writing sounds like threats and you should be aware that experience
teaches that such words must be taken seriously in the context in which
you have used them." Jep also admitted to stalking behavior, let's not
forget.
I *know* I warned jep (using a pseudo) when I said his words were
chillingly similar to those of a domestic violence assailant. I also
warned him about the stalking type behavior. If Mary did make a formal
report to the police, then in my opinion she went too far, although I am
not going to hold that against her. For all any of us know she has
personal knowledge of domestic violence and felt a line was crossed. I
certainly can't fault her for informally consulting with an expert to get
a second opinion.
|
mary
|
|
response 216 of 357:
|
Jan 21 21:51 UTC 2004 |
But I did express my concerns to jep. Multiple times.
Participating in the conferences with an expectation of
privacy is a topic ripe for discussion. That was my
intent with #195. But what probably shouldn't happen
is dragging specifics about John's divorce into that
conversation. That's unnecessary.
|
mary
|
|
response 217 of 357:
|
Jan 21 21:51 UTC 2004 |
cyklone slipped in without my permission. ;-)
|
slynne
|
|
response 218 of 357:
|
Jan 21 22:00 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, I remember mary warning jep in those items too. She found his
behavior much more scary than I did but I have to admit that if I
actually thought he was a threat to someone, I would have gone to
someone with the item.
FWIW, I have made hard copies of items in the past and then shown them
to people for various reasons. Usually because someone wrote something
very interesting or expressed a point well.
|
tod
|
|
response 219 of 357:
|
Jan 21 22:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 220 of 357:
|
Jan 21 23:36 UTC 2004 |
I have printed out items too. Don't remember why.
|
mary
|
|
response 221 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:02 UTC 2004 |
Sure, tod. Read respone #195 in this item. Then tell me what you
think would be the best response in that scenario. But the given is
that you are pretty sure the person is so out of control that he
could harm himself. Do you tell his partner or parents? Do you ask
for advice from someone who can read such threats better than you
can? Are you supportive in the item and cross your fingers that is
enough? Do you just read the item and do nothing?
Would it make any difference if the person talking suicide is a
minor? What if the behavior being discussed is instead child abuse?
What's the expectation of this community when a discussion discloses
a potentially life threatening danger?
|
tod
|
|
response 222 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:15 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 223 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:27 UTC 2004 |
mary's a nurse? I thought she was retired...
|
mary
|
|
response 224 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:44 UTC 2004 |
You get to set the threshold for your criteria. The assumption is
*you* see the person as dangerous to himself or others. Now what?
It's a hard place to be.
From your question it almost seems like you are looking to be sure
that the risk is genuine. And that is exactly why I'd be seeking a
second opinion before doing anything dramatic. Being supportive and
seeking more information happens concurrently.
John won't let me retire. ;-)
|