|
Grex > Oldcoop > #145: Member Resolution: Undead the Kilt | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 109 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 25 of 109:
| 
Mar 26 17:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 26 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:17 UTC 2004 |
/sigh.
|
edina
|
|
response 27 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:21 UTC 2004 |
Twila, I can understand not being personally attached - and sometimes I'm not.
In the divorce item, I was. There is nothing more personal to me than what
was going on in my life. And I've thought a lot about your comments on
editing, and as much as I (and I know you do too) love to read, it made total
sense and I was appreciative of editors and their work.
I think my issue is this: In my eyes, an infraction was committed. I don't
understand why people had to vote on whether to keep the items deleted. IMO,
they should have been restored and the authors should have scribbled their
responses/contributions. Imploring other people to do the same in those items
is, in mind, fair, but I can honestly say I wouldn't have done it. As I've
said before, the divorce item was very pertinent to me. They meant something.
And it is my error that I did not save copies. I will not be so blind next
time. But, IMO, it is Grex's error (and when I say this, I mean the staff
and the membership) to allow them to be taken from me. And that's what I
don't understand.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 28 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:23 UTC 2004 |
"I have said in the past that I think it's really how they argued their points
and said what they did that polarized people more than the actual issue."
That demonstrates *exactly* what is wrong with Grex. If you can't look
beyond the style of argument to analyze its substance then you have no
right to claim adherence to the principles grex allegedly represented.
Many of ya'll don't seem to understand the point that free speech means
allowing people to present their ideas in their own words. And FWIW, I
think twila's statement is a cop out, since even before the arguments
heated up there was clearly a group of people predisposed to doing
personal favors for favored persons. I didn't ramp up my insults until
certain users repeatedly insulted my intelligence with arguments a middle
schooler could have picked apart.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 29 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:25 UTC 2004 |
Wow, lots of slippage. I agree with Todd and Brooke.
|
edina
|
|
response 30 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:38 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, remember - you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
|
tod
|
|
response 31 of 109:
|
Mar 26 18:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
edina
|
|
response 32 of 109:
|
Mar 26 18:39 UTC 2004 |
Sure. Me too.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 33 of 109:
|
Mar 26 19:03 UTC 2004 |
What I'm the most sick of is the name-calling and ascribing of motives behind
words or actions. There was a disagreement about how to handle what was done.
A vote was held. Some / many were unhappy over the outcome. Deal with it.
Bring it up for a vote again, if it amuses you.
Here's a radical idea: How about another rogue staff carrying out the
"unauthorized" restoration of the items from tape???
|
edina
|
|
response 34 of 109:
|
Mar 26 19:09 UTC 2004 |
I've been doing tons of reading today on the 9/11 Commission/Clarke Testimony,
and I came across a quote in an Op-Ed piece by E.J. Dionne Jr.
"One great thing about democraciesis that they make it very hard for secrets
to be kept forever, for claims to go unchallenged indefinitely and for those
in power to escape responsibility."
There is a lot of name-calling going on and I hate it, as I think all it does
is add to the lack of credibility. I will look past what I'm being called
to see what's being said, but it is just one more needless hurdle.
Here is my request of those on the other side of the issue: Why was it right,
in your eyes, to allow the continued deletion of the items?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 35 of 109:
|
Mar 26 23:09 UTC 2004 |
Re #30: I tried rationality and I got bullshit.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 36 of 109:
|
Mar 27 01:38 UTC 2004 |
(cyklone, I recommend to your attention Gerry Spence's book "How to Argue
and Win Every Time." I think you would find it useful. I know that I
am finding it so.)
edina, as I said at the time, I think item *authors*, the people who enter
the item into the conferencing system, have the right and should have the
power to remove their item at any time, no matter who has responded to it,
and when the item is removed, the responses should be removed as well.
Therefore, I had no problem with valerie removing her 'baby diary' items.
The outrage over her action convinced me that things were different here.
So I waited to see what the membership wanted. I also argued for accepting
her actions.
BTW, I felt that her decision NOT to remove Item 39, when jp2 requested
it, demonstrated that my view was not as generally accepted as I expected.
The recently approved proposal on item deletions will, in my opinion,
forestall a recurrence because it has made explicit what many implicitly
accepted and expected.
|
lowclass
|
|
response 37 of 109:
|
Mar 27 02:16 UTC 2004 |
So, seeing as Grex has been around for a while the original FOunders own
everything that's been written here?
THat's farcical, and deliberately so. THe iten entry might belong to
the intiiating poster, but nothing past that point that the origionator hasn't
contributed would EVER belong to the, in any case. USage, in the form of
posting an item is one thing, but ownership is a totally diffent concept.
Ownership and use were confused, or worse, and tend result was the erasure
of total line of conversation. At NO time did I or do i EVER, transfer
ownership of whatever I write here to the styaff or board. If THAT is non
profit practice or worse, bylaw, please inform me here.
If that's the case ,i'll be out of here so fast you'll hear the somic
boom.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 38 of 109:
|
Mar 27 02:25 UTC 2004 |
No, it's not the case, lowclass. I thought it was, but I've since learned
I was wrong.
|
parcel
|
|
response 39 of 109:
|
Mar 27 03:30 UTC 2004 |
When you gonna learn you're wrong about /etc/passwd, chump?
|
soup
|
|
response 40 of 109:
|
Mar 27 04:05 UTC 2004 |
re 33 I volunteered gelinas for that job.
|
coopcf
|
|
response 41 of 109:
|
Mar 27 04:08 UTC 2004 |
Hey guys:
Item 7 in the agora40 conference contains a lot of content that eventually
migrated to the divorce item created by jep. Is there evidence that this
conference has had increased activity due to people attempting to find
out more about the situation?
|
aruba
|
|
response 42 of 109:
|
Mar 27 05:53 UTC 2004 |
Re #37: The issue has never been ownership, Carl. Grex stopped publishing
some text, but at no point did anyone asserted that had anything to do
with who owned it.
Brooke: as I said, I'm utterly sick of this whole thing. Everyone has
already stated their opinions many times here. (I hope you realized that
the discussion took place in many, many items in coop? Dunno if you read
them all. If you did read them all in a day, God help you.) So I don't
feel like starting the argument all over again by stating mine again.
Email me if you really want to know.
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 109:
|
Mar 27 06:07 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 44 of 109:
|
Mar 27 13:13 UTC 2004 |
Question is, if *gelinas* is an idiot, WHAT does that make polytwerp?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 45 of 109:
|
Mar 27 13:52 UTC 2004 |
"The issue has never been ownership, Carl. Grex stopped publishing
some text, but at no point did anyone asserted that had anything to do
with who owned it."
BULLSHIT! That is *EXACTLY* what this was all about. The
anti-restorationists voted to strip non-favored users of their rights to
control their posts in order to do personal favors for favored persons.
The problem is that feeble-minded people started making specious arguments
about how the users never lost any rights because they could repost their
words. I very patiently (at first) explained the fallacy of that argument.
Sadly, a bunch of unprincipled fools either didn't have the brain-power or
didn't want to use what they had to understand this very obvious point.
If the anti-restorationists really believe this is NOT about ownership,
then here is my proposal:
RETURN MY DAMN POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
parcel
|
|
response 46 of 109:
|
Mar 27 16:42 UTC 2004 |
YEAH< ANTI_RESTORATIONISTS!
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 47 of 109:
|
Mar 28 10:55 UTC 2004 |
resp:29 I do too. (I like the way Brooke put things.)
resp:36 if I understand it right, responses to an item should be
controlled by those who write them... because they have merit and worth
of their *own*. I'm not an expert on copyright law or any sort of that
precedence, but I think the argument that has been put forth is valid.
An item author should *not* delete responses even if he/she decides to
delete the original item-- I think the rights belong to those who wrote
the responses. At least, it would seem to be that way with the
precedence of the scribble command (and how freeze and retire now
stand). Scribble seems to point to a response by response, post by
post, ownership.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 48 of 109:
|
Mar 28 11:38 UTC 2004 |
Arguing against response 36 is unnecessary. The recently approved proposal
on item deletion contradicts that response.
|
parcel
|
|
response 49 of 109:
|
Mar 28 18:14 UTC 2004 |
Contradict isn't the right word.
|