|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 250 of 393:
| 
Jan 9 17:16 UTC 2004 |
I'm sure mynxcat is not the only overweight member of grex. I am underweight,
can I delete all my items too? There is one about eating off dishes and
someone might think eating off dishes makes you lose weight.
|
other
|
|
response 251 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:18 UTC 2004 |
Sindi, are you sure you're not trying to parody yourself?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 252 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:23 UTC 2004 |
From #235: >> Oh yeah, I'm completely opposed to any policy that says the item
author can always kill an item with responses from others in it.
That Valerie and Jep were the ones who started these items is pretty
much incidental. The thing that distinguishes those items is that they
were the effective leaders of the discussions and the primary subjects
of the discussion. The fact that they entered the original item is the
very least part of what made the items "theirs".<<
That's very interesting, because consider this: What if someone entered an
item to discuss another person, perhaps in a very mean-spirited way.
Would the "victim" of that item, who is not the one who entered it, be able
to have a fw or staff kill that item at the victim's request?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 253 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:25 UTC 2004 |
In case you were wondering:
help kill
**** KILL ****
kill (f-w and item author) -- delete the entire item.
help retire
**** RETIRE ****
retire -- mark this item as "retired" so it won't appear in
future "all" item-ranges. (f-w and item author only)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 254 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:38 UTC 2004 |
resp:252 I guess it depends, doesn't it. Several years ago, someone
went onto my account as me (i know who they are) and had a conversation
with another individual that revealed some very sensitive information.
The other user was so annyoed at what the person said, thinking it was
me, that they copied the material, posted it in agora and left grex.
That item was killed per my request.
|
gull
|
|
response 255 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:35 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:246: I don't know. I think mynxcat is right. So far it looks
like the policy is "if you're jep or valerie, you can have your items
deleted. Otherwise you can't." Or maybe, "if you can find a burned-out
staff member who doesn't care anymore, you can have your items deleted."
Re resp:247: I agree with you. I think valerie deleted all her items as
a petty slap in the face to the rest of Grex. An "I'm taking my ball
and going home" sort of action.
|
gull
|
|
response 256 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:37 UTC 2004 |
Err, all her comments, rather. She didn't delete all her items,
thankfully.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 257 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:43 UTC 2004 |
222 newresponse items in info - how......"delightful".
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 258 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:55 UTC 2004 |
Re 250> Sindi, I'm not overweight, just trying to make a point. I
think you're joking or trying to make a point too, but I'm not sure.
Re 252>"The thing that distinguishes those items is that they
were the effective leaders of the discussions and the primary subjects
of the discussion."
I was the effective leader and the primary subject of the "mynxcat
wants to be svelte" item. I'd like it to be killed, because people
could have the mistaken impression that I'm horribly obese (and
possibly parody it on *the other system*). I would not like my friends
to ever stumble upon this.
|
jp2
|
|
response 259 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:58 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 260 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:06 UTC 2004 |
I can understand why people would be upset with me. What I did was not
blameless. I requested items be deleted which contained other people's
responses.
It was not fair. I was able to convince someone to take an action for
me which is not available to everyone.
I think it was justified in the case of my two items. I recognize that
many people will disagree, either that it should ever be possible to
get an item deleted, or that mine should have received an exception to
a general prohibition against removing items.
I also think I caught a break. There have not been that many times in
the last two years that circumstances would have allowed me to get my
items removed. The chance came along, and I grabbed it, and it was
done.
Greg, you can call me a vandal if you'd like. I think no one had read
those items in over a year. I *know* no one had responded to either of
them in that time. I can assure you I had no intent to cause harm to
anyone. I wasn't trying to make a point, or get a thrill from damaging
Grex, or cause a discussion to put myself into the spotlight, or
anything of the sort. I wasn't trying to get back at anyone. I was
trying to protect myself and my son from possible negative consequences
of things I did a couple of years ago, at a difficult time of my life.
I don't think I'm a vandal. My motives certainly weren't what I would
expect a vandal's to be. I am very sorry if you can't respect the
reasons for what I did, or the way I went about doing it, but there's
my explanation.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 261 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:43 UTC 2004 |
Jep, I understand why you did what you did. flem is being a little
harsh terming it vandalism (The image of you sitting at your computer
rubbing your hands in glee and cackling comes to mind, and it makes me
laugh) I'm glad that you found a break, and got those items that could
have caused you potential harm deleted.
However, Grex did have a rule. Either you make it cut-and-dried -
there will be no deleting, you may only use retire, or come to the
realisation that if we think it ok for your situation, you have to let
other people be able to do it too. Your divorce could be a highly
stressful subject for you to have on agora, in someone else's case it
could be something else. Who is to judge how much concern an
individual has about an item that is out there, that they may have
started in a moment of vulnerability.
(And while we're at it, I'd like that item I entered about the piano
in the music cf to be deleted. People might read it and make fun of my
piano playing skills, or lack thereof ;) )
|
keesan
|
|
response 262 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:55 UTC 2004 |
Mynxcat, you are obviously joking about people thinking you are obese,
considering you posted your original weight and we all admired you for sticking
to an exercise program. Plus I doubt you are thin-skinned enough to care if
mnet decides to use your item for a parody. And yes, of course I was joking.
If I were going to get embarrased about anything I posted, it is not my weight.
|
flem
|
|
response 263 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:57 UTC 2004 |
I'll confess that my anger over what you and valerie have done is
somewhat mitigated by circumstances. If you stole a loaf of bread to
feed your starving son, I'd be sympathetic -- but you'd still be a thief.
Insofar as Grex has any policy covering events like this, it's that no
permanent action will be taken until public discussion has taken place
and either consensus or a member vote occurs. We empower staff and
board to act in emergencies and other situations where lengthy public
debate would have a detrimental effect, but we expect that they will
come up with temporary solutions that can be removed once the lengthy
public discussion has taken place.
As I understand it (I no longer have access to the mailing lists where
I understand the discussions took place, so I may be wrong about
sequence of events), Jan proposed a temporary solution, that your items
be removed from public view while a discussion was held over whether or
not you could delete the whole item. Instead of accepting this
proposal, which would have addressed your (understandable) concerns
about someone posting an archive of the items, you took matters into
your own hands.
I can understand and accept that you felt it necessary to take steps to
make sure no one could read your own comments in those items. I don't
really care why; it's none of my business. It is for your decision that
the rest of us had no say in what was to be done with *our* responses
taht you have lost my respect, and that I consider you a vandal.
|
gull
|
|
response 264 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:13 UTC 2004 |
jep, I somehow got the impression that you had done this in an attempt
to force Grex towards a policy of deleting items. I seem to have
misunderstood your motives, and I apologize for that. I still wonder if
that was valerie's goal, though.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 265 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:18 UTC 2004 |
When you say that you wonder if was valerie's goal, do you mean when
she deleted her own items, or when she deleted jep's items. I don't
think that was her goal either case. But I guess, only she and people
she's confided in would know what she hoped to accomplish.
|
jep
|
|
response 266 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:29 UTC 2004 |
re resp:263: Greg, no one told me of Jan's proposal of temporarily
deleting the items. At first, when I made my request, I heard
nothing. I sent a second request. That time time, Valerie told me
there was a discussion among Board and staff. That's when I pressed
for immediate removal. She sent me another e-mail after I'd gone to
bed, asking if scribbling all my responses would sufficiently resolve
the situation, then later that night, before I'd responded again to
her, she told me she deleted my item. No one else communicated with me
at all until after the item was deleted.
Whups, one other person did e-mail me. Mark Conger apologized for
going outside the bounds of his role as a recipient of baff e-mail, but
asked me to save the items before they were deleted in case I ever
wanted to show them to my son. Administratively speaking, he shouldn't
have said that, and he acknowledged it. However, he was so kind and
thoughtful, and was so clearly only trying to help me out, I wouldn't
dream of criticizing him for what he did.
Before anyone asks, you will have to conjecture on what I did with
regard to his suggestion. I prefer not to say.
|
krj
|
|
response 267 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:34 UTC 2004 |
(( I was expressing support for the concept of "vandalism" as ripping
out everything a person had ever written on Grex, everywhere,
covering a period of years. The removal of the baby diary and
divorce items have quite understandable motivations for me and
while I'm not happy with how it was done, I don't consider it
POINTLESS damage to the conferences, nor is the damage
widespread. ))
|
jep
|
|
response 268 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:38 UTC 2004 |
re resp:264: I expressly did *not* ask for my items to be deleted in
order to change system policy. I knew I might be causing changes in
policy, but asked for my items to be deleted despite that. I did so
solely because of the harm I believe could have come from those items,
and because an unexpected, unsought-for opportunity arose for me to get
them removed.
I regret any policy changes that occur because of anything I did. I
liked it for Grex better before any items were deleted.
I made some remarks about the consequences of Valerie's actions in this
item before I asked for my items to be deleted. Those were because I
was preparing my position, trying to establish that my items should be
removed when I requested that be done. I didn't want to change
policy. I just didn't want a public debate before my items got deleted.
|
cross
|
|
response 269 of 393:
|
Jan 9 21:43 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #234; I don't think I got that email.
|
mary
|
|
response 270 of 393:
|
Jan 9 21:46 UTC 2004 |
John, quite honestly, do you really believe there aren't
copies of your items out there? Get realistic. For one,
I'd be shocked if your wife wasn't holding a hard copy of
the entire discussion. Nothing entered here is private
or safe from being archived. It's a public system. A
very public system.
|
jep
|
|
response 271 of 393:
|
Jan 9 21:51 UTC 2004 |
I am aware that it's possible someone has a copy of my items. It's
also possible there are no other copies. I can't be sure, now, that
there are no copies, but I can be sure if the items are restored, then
there certainly will be copies.
|
jep
|
|
response 272 of 393:
|
Jan 9 21:56 UTC 2004 |
(I don't believe my ex-wife ever read them.)
|
flem
|
|
response 273 of 393:
|
Jan 9 22:04 UTC 2004 |
re #266: Ah, interesting. That does make it seem that the matter was
much less under your control than you had made it seem previously. So
maybe vandal isn't quite the right word for you.
But I'm currently unable to think of any reason not to call Valerie a
vandal.
|
gull
|
|
response 274 of 393:
|
Jan 9 22:23 UTC 2004 |
While it's possible there are copies out there, I doubt most people
would have found them personally interesting enough to keep. It also
sounds like jep might have squeezed in before this became enough of an
issue for people to start copying whole conferences on general
principle.
|