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.

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.

response 285 of 335:

Oct 30 22:52 UTC 2001

"The scenario danr outlined in resp:281..."   ack
 
In light of Phil's comments about Grex's obligation to take all 
membership applicants, for which I would not mind a citation, 
I withdraw my proposal to bar jp2 from Grex membership.
 
My proposal to bar the further entry of all text authored by 
James Howard, simply to avoid further lawsuits, still stands. :)

response 289 of 335:

Oct 31 01:02 UTC 2001

I see no reason not to accept a membership from jp2.  If he wanted some kind
of special terms - like joining without showing id or something, that'd be
different.  I have no problem with members who threaten Grex.  In some cases,
a threat might be perceived by a person as the best way to induce Grex to do
something that they think needs to be done for Grex's own good.

response 291 of 335:

Oct 31 02:07 UTC 2001

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the concept of barring people from donating
or posting to Grex completely what we've been trying to work against?????

response 293 of 335:

Oct 31 06:03 UTC 2001

Re 219:  I actually didn't get the sense at all that the belief that board
meetings should be ftf comes from a belief that "those of us in other
places don't have much to contribute."  I, at least, feel like my
contributions are quite welcome here.  I think if I were serving on a
board, particularly for something like Grex, I'd want to meet with my
fellow board members in person, simply because I think I work better with
people I can see and interact with in person.  To me it seemed like a
concern for group dynamics, not parochialism.  (I did think janc's
comments on experimenting more with other types of meetings made some good
points, though.)

Re 156 (md) and 160 (scott):
(Just as long as we're all bitching about what irritates us about Grex and
about one another...)  Um, I've played Grammar Police on occasion,
usually when people had particular questions about something or said they
weren't sure how to spell something, or whatever.  But I don't get this
trend toward correcting others' spelling unasked.  Is it to prove that
you're smarter than they are?  Is it because you're afraid that if you
don't point out the error they'll corrupt everyone else reading it with
their poor spelling?  Is it simply some obsessive need to correct poor
spelling when you see it?  (I do that too, mentally, but don't feel the
need to type the correctly spelled word each time.)  You two aren't the
only ones I've seen doing this, but it's irritating.  I tend to be quite a
good speller, but I don't generally think better of people because they're
good spellers.  If they start correcting other people's spelling right and
left, I tend to have quite the opposite impression.  It seems rude, and
increasingly common here.  Anyone have any thoughts on why?  I'm genuinely
puzzled.

(This is probably not the best place for this question, but this item
seems to be full of tangents, so what the hell.)

response 295 of 335:

Oct 31 07:35 UTC 2001

re 293:
        I should apologize for the way I said some things in #219, I think.
I've been sick, and wanting to go do stuff but having no energy to do anything
other than sitting here on Grex, so I ended up venting a bunch of frustration
in this item.  I still believe what I said was true, but I should have phrased
it a lot less harshly, and been more clear.  I don't think anybody in this
discussion really believes people who don't live near Ann Arbor don't have
much to contribute, but it certainly seemed to me that there was a strong
sense (who knows, maybe it's even right, but I find him entertaining) that
Jamie didn't have much to contribute.  It seemed to me that Jamie's
location was being attacked unfairly, by people who were really upset about
something unrelated.

I'll certainly agree that, all other things being equal, in person meetings
do have advantages.  When meeting in person is easy, I'll usually choose to
meet in person rather than over the phone.  Still, I don't think it's the most
important factor.  I think Grex, with its worldwide user base, would lose a
lot more by restricting its board to Ann Arbor area people than it would by
allowing board members to phone into board meetings.

response 299 of 335:

Nov 1 05:26 UTC 2001

I just make fun of the people that I know about spelling from time to time.
I expect them to do the same for me.  (I rarely am let down!  :)