|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 335 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 257 of 335:
| 
Oct 30 18:29 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 258 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:34 UTC 2001 |
I don't believe his views are the matter, but his approach which includes
legal threats including what I perceived to be implied legal threats against
members.
|
jp2
|
|
response 259 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:36 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 260 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:37 UTC 2001 |
Yes, because Grex has violated his rights under Federal law.
|
jp2
|
|
response 261 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:39 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 262 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:42 UTC 2001 |
Show of hands: who cares if Jamie is being oppressed? Didn't think
so. (Democracy in action!)
|
jp2
|
|
response 263 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:43 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 264 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:47 UTC 2001 |
Are you eternally grateful on each such day? I mean, that's a *lot* of
grateful. Oh, wait! This is the Mandelbrot thingie you were talking
about, isn't it?
|
jp2
|
|
response 265 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:50 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 266 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:58 UTC 2001 |
I think we should leave it for a courtroom to decide if rights have been
violated. It would make me wonder why anyone would wish to join a BBS they
are making veiled threats to, but if Jamie wants to join and he doesn't
actually sue or otherwise damage Grex, I don't personally have a problem with
it.
|
krj
|
|
response 267 of 335:
|
Oct 30 19:46 UTC 2001 |
You realize, brighn, that your resp:266 is totally incoherent,
because the first and second sentence contradict each other?
|
krj
|
|
response 268 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:11 UTC 2001 |
pthomas in resp:256 :: Free speech is a political goal.
(Just ask any number of people in less fortunate countries.)
So Grex is a political organization, even if it is a wimpy and
non-partisan one, in much the same way that the EFF and the NRA are.
A large number of people in the computer community, including me,
believe strongly that the DMCA is the most anti-free-speech law
to come down in decades.
I would not require the NRA to take me as a member, since I advocate
strict gun control; I would not require the Young Americans
for Freedom to accept an avowed Stalinist.
I do not believe Grex is obligated to accept
a member who, by his own actions over the last few months, demonstrates
his belief that copyright claims should be adjudicated summarily over
any free speech concerns.
|
jp2
|
|
response 269 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 270 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:29 UTC 2001 |
Revision of my last paragraph in resp:268 ::
"I do not believe Grex is obligated to accept a member
who acts to summarily adjudicate copyright claims overriding
clear free speech concerns."
Resp:269 :: *exactly* what the Scientologists say.
|
slynne
|
|
response 271 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:37 UTC 2001 |
I dont think it would be good for grex to bar someone from getting a
membership because they dont like their views unless you guys really are
ready to admit that grex really does have "insiders" who get treated
differently than everyone else.
Just curious. What would you guys do if a bunch of jp2 types really
started becoming the majority here?
|
jp2
|
|
response 272 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:38 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 273 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:39 UTC 2001 |
268: Grex is a political organisation? Whoa, better call the IRS...Grex
has 501(c)(3) unlike those other groups are mentioned. They have a duty to
not engage on political issues that do not pertain to their survival, and
a duty not to discriminate against individuals because they believe in
following the law.
The DMCA lays out a mechanism for dealing with disputes regarding
copyrighted material without going to the courts. It goes something like
this: the complainant has to ask for his materials to be removed before he
can sue. Mr Howard has done that. If Grex insists on violating the law, it
will pay the consequences of violating the law.
|
krj
|
|
response 274 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:40 UTC 2001 |
My revision in resp:270 was to clarify the distinction between
belief and action.
|
brighn
|
|
response 275 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:45 UTC 2001 |
How do I contradict myself, Ken? Maybe you misunderstood. Rephrase:
(1) Rather than claiming that Jamie's rights have or have not been violated,
why don't we just let Jamie decide whether or not to sue (yeah, right), and
then leave it to the courts to decide.
(2) I do wonder why Jamie (or anyone) would want to stay somewhere that they
feel is violating their rights, to the degree that they feel compelled to
make strong demands about what staff MUST do.
(3) So far, all Jamie has done is huff and puff. If he were to vandalize Grex,
or sue it, then by all means, block his membership. Until then, big whoop.
Where's the contradiction? I don't care if Jamie *is* in the right, I don't
see how his suing Grex wouldn't be grounds for blocking his membership.
|
brighn
|
|
response 276 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:47 UTC 2001 |
#271> I concur entirely. The only criterion for whether Grex should block
membership is if the applicant is creating obvious harm to Grex, either by
vandalizing equipment, hacking security, or bringing suit. Defamation and
idiocy have been rights of Grex users for a long time; I've enjoyed them
myself. ;}
|
jp2
|
|
response 277 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:51 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 278 of 335:
|
Oct 30 21:28 UTC 2001 |
Geez, I mean if you are going to kick *anyone* off for being an asshole
it should be russ.
|
jp2
|
|
response 279 of 335:
|
Oct 30 21:32 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
senna
|
|
response 280 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:34 UTC 2001 |
I have no opinion in this whole stupid chip shot conversation that has been
going on, but isn't firing someone who sues grex sort of like Ford firing a
woman for suing them for sexual harrassment?
It's not like blocking him would stop him or anything.
|
danr
|
|
response 281 of 335:
|
Oct 30 22:37 UTC 2001 |
Here's a scenario for you:
- jp2 sues Cyberspace Communications.
- Cyberspace goes out of business.
- Grexers move over to MNet, taking over because we have way more
paying members than MNet.
- Grexers vote jp2 out of office yet again.
|
