response 28 of 157:

Feb 5 22:00 UTC 2004

I agree completely with that last sentence. Very well put.

response 30 of 157:

Feb 5 23:19 UTC 2004

People are sometimes under so much stress that they are unable to think
straight and they act in such a way that they regret it later.

response 32 of 157:

Feb 6 00:09 UTC 2004

well, it is nice to know you were willing to look up the law and explain it
to those of us that did not have the time nor inclination.  I am not nor was
I a public figure.  I was never elected to any office.  I did hold a position
in law enforcement, but what was posted here was not done in my professional
employment.

Perhaps you need to go and explain this to thos on M-net who you say violated
the law.

response 34 of 157:

Feb 6 00:16 UTC 2004

re 26 It's odd, isn't it, that people who either a) filter out responses in
the coop conference [keesan] or b) choose not to participate actively in it
[valerie], still try to write about their opinions and influence other users
even though they're missing half the story.

Actually, it's pretty childish.  Ergo, their responses deserve to be ignored.

response 36 of 157:

Feb 6 00:17 UTC 2004

But, you know, when you act like an asshole toward someone you tend to 
not like them *because* of that.  Otherwise, you have to admit that 
you're an asshole, right?  

response 38 of 157:

Feb 6 02:52 UTC 2004

resp:0 "But in the wake of this vote, many people will stream
  over to read them anyway, guessing accurately or inaccurately at what
  exactly John and Valerie said about their personal lives years ago."
Such is the possibility with restoration... some people are petty and 
drama-hungry.  I think we'd established that earlier.  But in that 
lies the case for care in discretion.  Read on.

resp:29 Ahhh... back to the heart of the matter.  I don't know why we 
aren't discussing this subject more, actually-- but maybe it shouldn't 
be beat to death like we have some previous topics.

response 40 of 157:

Feb 6 03:40 UTC 2004

If you really think you've never been an asshole then I would suggest you
simply lack sufficient self-awareness. Or maybe you're admitting you've
been an asshole but disagree with how to handle it ;) 

response 42 of 157:

Feb 6 04:04 UTC 2004

That's an interesting idea.  An ensign is a commissioned officer, and so
a "public figure", e'en though just graduated from the Academy, but the
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy is not.

I find myself once again marveling at jp2's ability to blow smoke.

response 44 of 157:

Feb 6 04:15 UTC 2004

Right now, logging on to Grex either costs me money or sleep, as
work time and sleep time are the most compressible things I've got.
I'm behind on work and I'm averaging five hours of sleep a night.
This is an important issue to me, but that doesn't mean I have time to
post anywhere near as much as some other people do.  I hope people won't
weigh people's sincerity by their free time.

What is valuable on Grex is active discussions.  I know some people do
read agoras from years ago, but I can't imagine why, unless it's fierce
boredom.  The best items are active items, where you can interact with
other people.  These two sets of items are among the rare items that
retain any interest at all when no longer active, but that interest is
much less than it was at the time.  Further mangle them by deleting key
posts, and I think they can fairly be described as nearly worthless.
Yes, there might be a few sterling words left that were posted by other
people to Valerie's baby diary, but who is going to read through six
years of people responding to deleted responses to find them?  The
damage is done.

I don't know what JEP fears.  I don't remember his items well.
I don't know him well.  I think I've met him two, maybe three times.
If I ran into him on the street, he'd have to introduce himself,
assuming he remembers what I look like.  I respect him as much as it
is possible to respect someone whose fundamental values are frequently
in absolute opposition to mine.  Many of his opinions make my jaw drop.
Doesn't matter.  He's one of ours, and I'm willing to stand up for him.
Heck, I've recently argued against blocking polytarp's IP addresses.
John is much easier.

I wouldn't dare speculate about what he's worried about.  However,
I find it perfectly plausible that a person might be unhappy about
having something like those items lingering around in public.  I don't
need anyone to map out precise risks in gory detail for me to be able
to recognize that this is a more serious and plausible concern than,
say, Jamie's desire to have item 37 deleted.  The shear amount of abuse
John has stood up to here might be taken as a measure of his sincerity.
Does he appear to you to be doing this for fun?

Cyclone (does he have a name?) thinks I should argue with him point
for point for weeks.  Probably he thinks Valerie should be doing that.
Valerie left coop years ago because she was sick and tired of doing that.
She now thinks that was a mistake - she should have left Grex entirely
rather than pretending she could disengage from this endless circular
debate.  Do you really have to sink as much time as John has, and take
as much abuse as John has to be counted as sincere?  Do you have to
restate your position over and over again everytime someone thinks they
have refuted it?

As it happens, nobody has.  My point is that to me, people matter.
I have done a lot of work for Grex and M-Net over the years.  I did
about 1% of it for lofty ideals - really just the ACLU thing, and that
wasn't really for Grex.  I do it for the people here.  For Mark and
Mary and Michael and Joe and John and Larry and Ken and Steve and Eric.
The names have changed over the years.  I did party mostly for Meg and
lots of stuff for Mike.  There's a huge number of software modifications
I could put individual names on, features I implemented because they
would be enjoyed by particular people.  This is what it all means to me.

Probably some response to this is going to say something about
cliquishness.  When you do so, please define the difference between a
clique and a community.

I won't do anything inethical for them, but that's rarely a real issue.
Caring about people *IS* ethical.  To steal a lovely turn of phrase from
Anna Quindlan, an ideology that does not have care for our fellow humans
at its core is like the discarded skin of a cicada - an appearance of the
actual thing with the living being lost from within it.

The claim is being made that the principle of "never delete" is so
important that John and Valerie's feelings must take second place.
To further strengthen this claim attempts are being made to portray them
both as evil people, deserving of any harm they might suffer.  Or if
not that, then to argue that their feelings make no sense - they haven't
presented formal proofs of the validity of their feelings, now have they?
Or if not that, to blame them - they were stupid to ever post this stuff
and if they've gotten smart now, well, it's too late.  When have those
kinds of arguments ever been missing from this kind of debate?

By the way, many of the same people were putting forth the exact same
arguments for why Valerie's feelings can be legitimately ignored when I
challenged the appropriateness of the parody of Valerie's items on M-Net.
The issue has changed but the self defensive dismissal of people's
feelings remains.

I've been arguing that, in fact, feelings are worthy of respect.
That these two sets of items are not so precious as they are being
made out to be, or at least not nearly as infinitely precious as
real live human beings.

The suggestion has been made that my judgement is clouded because I'm
biased.  The notion is that since I care for some people involved my
opinions are tainted, whereas if I only cared about high principles
they would be pure.  That is precisely the point of view that I am
disagreeing with.

response 46 of 157:

Feb 6 04:37 UTC 2004

It's a little tough to decide whether or not jep cares more aobut GreX
than valerie.  I'm inclined to lean towards jep because he does have more
guts.

response 50 of 157:

Feb 6 15:35 UTC 2004

Hmm.  A few days ago, I think, I heard a news snippet on the news about the
lawsuit against Snoop Dogg.  A man claimed that his rights were violated
because Dogg used, in a track on a CD, a message left on his answering
machine.  (An earlier decision that the man had no claim was upheld.)

I don't know what planet jp2 lives on, to claim that no one may quote,
without his permission, material he posted in a public forum.  His normal
strategy of argument seems to be that saying something often enough makes
it true, & that citing sections of the law by number makes them somehow
applicable to his claims.  (He's been known to do this in Jellyware, citing
things he himself wrote as evidence supporting himself, of all things.)