|
Grex > Coop > #301: Move to remove TS from Grex staff. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 22 new of 46 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 46:
| 
Dec 15 22:38 UTC 2010 |
What damage?
|
unicorn
|
|
response 26 of 46:
|
Dec 16 04:09 UTC 2010 |
Dan, out of curiosity, might the government block your access to Grex
due to those postings?
|
cross
|
|
response 27 of 46:
|
Dec 16 09:59 UTC 2010 |
resp:26 Yup.
|
jep
|
|
response 28 of 46:
|
Dec 16 16:22 UTC 2010 |
I'm sorry, Dan, but that is a risk you assume by using Grex. TS could
have posted porn, and I would then run the risk of running afoul of my
company's policies. I would find it annoying of him to do so, as it
could be damaging to me, but that would be my problem.
People can post what they want on Grex. It's not going to change based
on whether TS is on the staff or not on the staff. There's no point and
nothing to be gained by penalizing him for this.
You said there were other reasons why TS should be removed, namely,
looking at private files. That seems more serious to me as it is a
violation of trust. It may be inappropriate to discuss it if it would
involve violating people's privacy further. I don't know if that is
true. I suggest limiting the discussion to that and deciding whether TS
should be removed for that. If there's a problem in that area, I hope
it can be resolved short of removing TS. He's the only treasurer Grex
has, for one thing
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 29 of 46:
|
Dec 16 16:40 UTC 2010 |
You don't have to be on staff to be the Treasurer.
|
jep
|
|
response 30 of 46:
|
Dec 16 16:58 UTC 2010 |
Okay, so that point doesn't need to be important.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 46:
|
Dec 16 18:53 UTC 2010 |
No one has to read anything they don't want to on Grex. That's the other side
of being able to post anything one wants.
|
richard
|
|
response 32 of 46:
|
Dec 16 19:52 UTC 2010 |
You can't have universal root access as a concept unless you accept that
files will or could be read. The honor system usually works but when it
doesn't there's no other way to enforce it. I mean how do you know that
other staffers with root haven't gotten bored and went snooping around
here.
|
krj
|
|
response 33 of 46:
|
Dec 16 20:50 UTC 2010 |
I think we should ask the court to reopen "Cyberspace vs. Engler."
We'd like to change our position. :-)
|
tsty
|
|
response 34 of 46:
|
Dec 17 14:57 UTC 2010 |
re 26 27
#121 of 137: by TS Taylor (tsty) on Wed, Dec 15, 2010 (10:44):
further .. on the remote off-chance that some activie duty american military
members -could be- somehow 'nicked' for having on their screens soemting
untoward, i have erased two resps. some hyper-hyper-vigilant fsckoff could
go ballistic in teh barracks. [ed: good grief, charlie borown]
note this wa paosted about 13 hours before 26 /27 ...
|
jep
|
|
response 35 of 46:
|
Dec 17 18:20 UTC 2010 |
TS, please say you're sorry.
Once we have protected the system from a staffer posting such material,
we will have saved Grex, because surely every other user will see that
it causes a tizzy and thus will avoid doing anything of the sort in the
future.
|
veek
|
|
response 36 of 46:
|
Dec 18 04:48 UTC 2010 |
is that how you think dalten would react?? this is silly :)
|
tstest
|
|
response 37 of 46:
|
Dec 18 07:43 UTC 2010 |
hey!
#21 of 36: by Dan Cross (cross) on Wed, Dec 15, 2010 (13:17):
So, these restrictions and the classification stuff extends to
servicemembers' personal computers as well. TS did what he did
just to prove an obnoxious point. In fact, it was in the context
of discussing my restrictions with seeing that data that TS posted
it; that's something of a personal afront.
#22 of 36: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Wed, Dec 15, 2010 (13:39):
Dan, I think it was impolite to post that right after you said it would
be a problem for you. I think TS saw that point and censored his responses.
=====================
#121 of 137: by TS Taylor (tsty) on Wed, Dec 15, 2010 (10:44):
further .. on the remote off-chance that some activie duty american military
.....
back off! H O U R S before the spurious accuasatoins, they were gone!
i thoguht it thorugh way before being keelhuauled by his majhisty.
"just to prove an obnoxious point." ... " something of a personal afront."
protecting you was the sole rationale' --- quit pisisng into the wind.
|
cross
|
|
response 38 of 46:
|
Dec 19 04:16 UTC 2010 |
It doesn't matter whether you deleted it. It's the fact that you posted it
at all.
|
tsty
|
|
response 39 of 46:
|
Dec 20 05:06 UTC 2010 |
we can diasagree, peacefully.
|
cross
|
|
response 40 of 46:
|
Dec 20 14:01 UTC 2010 |
Not really.
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 46:
|
Dec 20 21:29 UTC 2010 |
Yes you can. If the U.S. and the Chinese can disagree peacefully, then
so can TS and Cross. Shake hands guys.
|
veek
|
|
response 42 of 46:
|
Dec 21 04:38 UTC 2010 |
yeah, TS did delete the posts - that's what matters.. in the sense
that, it may not count in terms of the army, but he did try to fix
things!
|
lar
|
|
response 43 of 46:
|
Dec 27 21:29 UTC 2010 |
tsty has also invaded user privacy...how can he fix that?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 44 of 46:
|
Dec 27 21:30 UTC 2010 |
First, define what invasion of privacy is not allowed. Without that, I
don't think you can really make accusations.
|
lar
|
|
response 45 of 46:
|
Mar 6 00:15 UTC 2012 |
no need to remove tsty,he vanished
|
kentn
|
|
response 46 of 46:
|
Mar 6 02:41 UTC 2012 |
He won't call us, you need to call him.
|