|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 236 of 357:
| 
Jan 22 19:00 UTC 2004 |
I'd say it shows his concerns are very real, if belated.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 237 of 357:
|
Jan 22 20:52 UTC 2004 |
Hence his reference to the red herring, I suspect. If jep was not harmed
by Mary's actions, it seems far-fetched for anyone to assume that
restoration at this point could cause any harm.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 238 of 357:
|
Jan 22 21:07 UTC 2004 |
That Mary's (limited) actions had no ill effect is NOT proof that someone
else's actions would be similarly harmless. Right now, the possibility
for such action is limited. Restoring the items restores the possibility
for adverse action. In my opinion, the current controversy increases
the likelihood of such adverse action.
|
tod
|
|
response 239 of 357:
|
Jan 22 22:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 240 of 357:
|
Jan 22 23:29 UTC 2004 |
Re #238: Please identify some *rational* basis for your belief that an
adverse action could occur. Remember, the issue should be weighing the
potential harm to jep v. the *established* harm to grex's professed values
of free and uncensored speech (with the resultant harm of denying access
to someone else in the future who may need such an item much as jep
himself said he wished such an item already existed). "Awfulizing" is a
form of distorted thinking and not a good basis for rational
decision-making. Speculation that has *some* basis in reality is OK, so
please share some details. So far though, you have simply made a hollow
statement empty of any real meaning. Here's another hint: Jep himself
stated his request to keep the items deleted was *not* based on legal
concerns.
|
jep
|
|
response 241 of 357:
|
Jan 23 00:34 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, please illustrate the harm that will be done to
Grex's "professed values" by not restoring those two items from backup
media. While you keep throwing out the phrase, "free and uncensored
speech", you haven't established in any way that this action limits
that.
Those two items aren't going to be left intact and available to future
users. That's not a possibility. Even if you are granted what you
want, most of the responses aren't going to be there. I, and at least
several others, will have our responses removed. What future readers
would be left with, at the very most, is a few scattered comments which
used to be part of a discussion.
You're completely free to post a new item, and to create something
which would be useful to anyone else who happens upon it while stressed
out over a divorce. If your concern is helping others, as you keep
stating, that could be a good way to do it. It would be a lot more
productive use of energy than the politicking you're doing in the
discussions over the deleted items.
It is even possible I would help with such an item. As I've said
before, I was helped a lot by people responding in those items. I
can't be as open and personal now as I was before because of other
factors, but I would be willing to give back if I ever can.
What's happening instead is something entirely different, and in no way
productive. No new divorcee is going to be helped by reading the
pitted remains of my divorce items.
No censorship is being fended off. No one was ever censored. No one
was denied any right to speak out (and be heard/read by others), and no
one is going to be denied that now.
Opposing this proposal isn't doing any good. None. At all. And
won't, whether you succeed or whether I do.
|
jp2
|
|
response 242 of 357:
|
Jan 23 00:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 243 of 357:
|
Jan 23 00:57 UTC 2004 |
Ahaha, "no censorship is being fended off". Boy, you sure love to obfuscate
and distort facts, don't you?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 244 of 357:
|
Jan 23 03:34 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, that self-serving logic is laughable. Just because someone is free
to speak out later does not negate the existence of censorship when a
person's previous words are no longer available. Of course, if jep
believes this logic, then I suggest he authorize staff to provide me
access to all the dbunker posts. Put your money where your mouth is. I
*will* use those posts to start a new item if jep's proposal passes. I am
hereby requesting a grex member in good standing make a proposal to permit
all posters to jep's item be given a chance to retrieve their text. This
includes those of us who's pseudos have been reaped.
There is also an insidious argument being circulated in a very underhanded
way. It is the "most of the responses aren't going to be there. I, and at
least several others, would be left with, at the very most, is a few
scattered comments which used to be part of a discussion." I anticipated
this little argument about two weeks ago. The "hidden agenda" here is to
play the "poor me" card and get enough people to agree to delete their
posts. That means now jep can argue that the item itself has lost its
value. Apparently he believes this justifies censorship on the groungs
that what is being censored has little present value. Of course I think Ku
Klux Klan literature has little value, yet should not be censored. While
this should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of principles and
intelligence, I see jep's "logic" as yet another means for the feel-good
crowd to do a personal favor for a favored person. The intellectual
dishonesty displayed by jep and his supporters is stunning and
disgraceful.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 245 of 357:
|
Jan 23 03:51 UTC 2004 |
Nice words, but not at all convincing, cyklone.
I've been convinced that Valerie's action in removing the items was wrong.
I have NOT been convinced that that removal is "censorhsip," nor have I
been convinced that it did violence to grex's principles of free speech.
As I remember the item, the divorce and custody battle were quite
acrimonious. It seems to me quite likely that the evidence there of
stalking could be used in a future custody battle. The general tone of the
item could easily be used to call in to question jep's fitness as a parent.
I'm somewhat surprised that it was not used in such a fashion, especially
since jep's former wife had been using grex. (I stumbled across a
response from her in the music conference, in an item that came to my
attention because one of Valerie's responses had been removed.) That it
was not used before is no indication that it wouldn't be in future. As I
said before, I think the acrimony surrounding _this_ debate has made it
even more likely that the item will be delivered to someone who _could_
(and *would*) make use of it, to jep's detriment.
You wish to consider this "hypothetical." That's fine; your privilege.
Just as it is my privilege to consider your claims of "censorship" and
"violence to grex's principles of free speech" to be hyperbole.
|
willcome
|
|
response 246 of 357:
|
Jan 23 04:40 UTC 2004 |
Wait, you don't want to restore the items because you WANT to help jep -- a
stalker -- skirt the law?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 247 of 357:
|
Jan 23 04:48 UTC 2004 |
Re #246: Unless you are a family law attorney, I consider your opinion
speculation. I have offered to contribute money to jep to get a legal
opinion. *HE* said his concerns were not legal. So you are stretching to
justify what you want to do rather than come up with any principled
justification or reasoning. Hell, I'll kick in fifty bucks for *you* to
get a legal opinion. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. How about
you?
If you can't see how removing posts of people who posted on Grex believing
they had sole control over their posts is censorship then you are ignorant
as well as unprincipled.
|
jp2
|
|
response 248 of 357:
|
Jan 23 13:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 249 of 357:
|
Jan 23 13:40 UTC 2004 |
The divorce system does not follow the legal rules, or at least that was the
case 20 years ago. Friend of the Court does what it feels like and tends to
favor the mother. In Jim's case he was paying child support to someone
earning twice what he was (because he had worked while she went to school)
while taking care of the kids half the time, on her schedule.
|
gull
|
|
response 250 of 357:
|
Jan 23 14:35 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:240: I think you're doing a lot of "awfulizing" yourself. Any
damage to Grex's values is already done, and restoring the item won't
reverse it. It won't undo all the debate that's occurred over the last
few weeks. It's not going to do anything except satisfy some people who
want to see jep punished. Resp:242 is revealing; if you read between
the lines, it says that valerie was the problem...but since she's no
longer here, we're supposed to take this out on jep instead.
I originally wasn't going to vote for this proposal, but I've been so
disgusted with the amount of abuse directed at jep over the last couple
of weeks that I'm starting to reconsider.
|
jp2
|
|
response 251 of 357:
|
Jan 23 15:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 252 of 357:
|
Jan 23 15:17 UTC 2004 |
There is no guarantee that any items will remain on grex forever.
However, usually items are removed with notice. That didnt happen in
this case because of a staff member intentionally deleting this item. I
agree that the items should not have been removed without notice.
However, I cant buy cyklone's argument that we shouldnt remove the
items because of some potential future benefit to someone. If those
items are restored, they will be essentially useless since the majority
of posts will have been removed.
The only reason I can see for the items to be restored is that people's
posts were removed without notice. I think that as a system policy,
that should be frowned upon. But, I also think it should be ok to make
exceptions to the rules. Luckily grex has a method (member votes) to do
this. Yes, if this passes, it would be a situation where a favored user
has been granted special treatment.
FWIW, I havent yet decided how I am going to vote on this. I dont think
any great harm will come to jep if the items are restored since most
people (myself included) will be deleting our comments anyway which
will leave the items pretty bare. I also dont think it will ruin grex
to leave them deleted. They were good items, sure. But there is no way
that they will be restored in any usuable way. For me, I guess it all
boils down to if I consider it more important to protect every users
words no matter who they are or to allow someone I like to use proper
channels to make an exception to the rules.
|
jep
|
|
response 253 of 357:
|
Jan 23 15:58 UTC 2004 |
I still don't have any clue as to how Grex will be damaged if those two
items are not restored. I assert there won't be much effect on anyone
but me as a result of this proposal passing. This is a simple and
straightforward request on my part.
|
jp2
|
|
response 254 of 357:
|
Jan 23 16:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 255 of 357:
|
Jan 23 16:14 UTC 2004 |
My proposal should be phrased in this way, if this meets the policy
requirements of Grex:
---
Shall the staff be directed to leave these two items as permanently
deleted?
The two items were entered by John Perry (jep) to discuss his divorce,
and were deleted on January 8 in response to his request to the staff.
The items were:
agora40, item 63 (Winter 2001-2002)
agora41, item 11 (Spring 2002)
|
tod
|
|
response 256 of 357:
|
Jan 23 16:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 257 of 357:
|
Jan 23 17:44 UTC 2004 |
(I don't have time to talk to a lawyer before responding to other parts
of the responses to my comments. As soon as I can, I'll report back as
much of the conversation as I am allowed.)
Evidence Tampering: destroying records that have not been requested is not
a crime, last I heard. We are always free to destroy our own coments, and
jep's are the only ones that really provide any 'evidence' of wrong-doing.
Censorship: Is an emotional term. It is being used for its emotional
value, not for its description of what happened. Words were removed,
without regard to what they were or who said them, but simply because of
where they were said. That is not censorship by any definition I know.
People don't like that they were removed, so they cry "Censorship!"
The claim does not make it censorship.
Free Speech: Words were written. These words had their desired effect, or
as much of it as possible, at the time. That's free speech. Removing the
words later does not diminish their original, and intended, effect.
The real question is, who owns the item? The person who entered it,
or the people who responded to it? Who owns the responses to the item?
Is it absolute ownership, on the part of the responder, or is it shared
ownership, between the responder and the item-author, who gave the responder
something to respond to? If shared ownership, is the persmission/desire of
both owners required to continue "publication" (for lack of a better word)?
Or is one owner's desire to make the shared work disappear sufficient?
Lots of people have said that the item-author owns the item text and
the individual responders own their responses. I've not really seen
any reasons to accept that view, except "People expected their words
to be preserved." My counter is that "People expected their words to
be preserved _in context_." If (or when) the context disappears, their
words should disappear as well.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 258 of 357:
|
Jan 23 18:32 UTC 2004 |
> My counter is that "People expected their words to
be preserved _in context_." If (or when) the context disappears, their
words should disappear as well. <
Sorry, I don't buy that one bit. It is true that without the prior reponses,
some / many responses become nonsensicle. But that is not a reason to delete
them, a justification. So let's not go there.
As for the "censorship" notion, I certainly do not believe that valerie
deleted items for the express purpose of censoring others' words. The net
effect of that action may be seen as "censorship", until/unless the items are
restored and individual posters are allowed to decide for themselves.
|
jp2
|
|
response 259 of 357:
|
Jan 23 19:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 260 of 357:
|
Jan 23 22:15 UTC 2004 |
Re #257: "Evidence Tampering: destroying records that have not been
requested is not a crime, last I heard. We are always free to destroy our
own coments, and jep's are the only ones that really provide any
'evidence' of wrong-doing."
Great. So now you ADMIT that removing jep's words removes the harm to him.
In that case, what is your basis for deleting the words of others?
My dictionary defines censorship as the act of removing things that are
objectionable. Jep apparently feels that at least some of the posts in his
item were objectionable, on the grounds his son might become aware of
them. Care to try again?
"Free Speech: Words were written. These words had their desired effect,
or as much of it as possible, at the time. That's free speech. Removing
the words later does not diminish their original, and intended, effect."
Now you are really stretching. Words only have effect for as long as they
are there to be seen and heard. No one posted with any intent of an
expiration date being applied. I intended my words to have an effect for
all who read them, WHENEVER THEY READ THEM. Deleting them prevents this
and my words *are* diminished.
Your argument about who owns the words is utterly specious. Point me to a
single written policy or even a staff decision that implies a person on
grex does not "own" his words. Your failure to do so will show your
argument has no merit whatsoever. Indeed, the vote to allow permanent
scribbling shows a recent affirmation by grex to allow the poster ultimate
control over his or her words.
To those who think I am "awfulizing" by saying deletions undermine grex's
professed dedication to free and uncensored speech, I would simply note
the obvious: when you are perceived as hypocrites who toss away your
professed values to do personal favors for favored persons, then your
reputation is damaged. What I am picking up from some posters is that you
care more about your "feel-good" reputation rather than any principled
commitment to free and uncensored speech and having a reputation for
supporting same. Fine, ya'll have to live with yourselves. Just don't
presnt a different face to the ACLU next time it needs a plaintiff.
Finally, the argument that restoration is not "feasible" if many people
delete their posts volunatorily begs a number of questions. How do you
know this? Does your crystal ball tell you that Joe Divorce Candidate will
come looking for the item jep wished was here at the beginning of his
divorce and will get NOTHING AT ALL out of what remains? Do you even know
for sure what will remain?
The theory of the marketplace of ideas suggests that indviduals must
decide for themselves what words have value and which do not. Yet you now
claim to make that decision for people you don't know and haven't even
met. How very paternalistic of you. BTW, that attitude backs you right
into proving my claim of censorship, since you are now deciding that "Item
A minus X% of content" is not worthy of disemmination. You are now
appointing yourselves de facto editors and making decisions on content
that others should be free to make themselves by reading or not reading
what posts remain. How very Big Brotherish of you.
|