|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 284 of 357:
| 
Jan 24 18:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 285 of 357:
|
Jan 24 18:57 UTC 2004 |
Yeah response 282 shows clearly that the users should not be allowed to
arbitrarily delete content of other users, within reasonable bounds, of
course.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 286 of 357:
|
Jan 24 19:37 UTC 2004 |
Gelinas is also making a huge intellectual blunder in assuming all words
in a given item require context to be understood. I do not accept such a
faulty premise. I can guarantee that certain posts in jep's items stand on
their own, and are full of meaning that do not require anything beyond the
ability to read the actual post. I would also submit that even where
context would make certain words more" meaningful", they may still contain
meaning in the absence of context.
The premise that the context for a given post is dependant on the item's
author is absolutely absurd. In many cases, the only context required is
that provided by the post immediately preceding.
"Words have meaning only in context."
This is why "out of context quotes" are generally condemned in
news reports, scholarly articles and informal discourse.
Out of context quotes are condemned by those quoted out of context. The
issue regarding restoring posts does not implicate that concern. Whoever
is willing to allow their posts to remain implicitly accepts the resulting
context or lack thereof. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest
and/or evidence of a seriously feeble mind. Gelinas, you can't seriously
be saying *OTHER PEOPLE* beside the poster should be entitled to make
"out-of-context" complaints are you? If so, that again sets up the issue
of a user who wishes his/her words to remain regardless of context and a
group of voters saying "we think these words are sufficiently out of
context that no one else should be permitted to read them." Guess what?
THAT IS CENSORSHIP, PURE AND SIMPLE! Get a fucking clue, dude.
I won't even talk about deconstructionist viewpoints right now. We need
leland to join this item, as I am sure he would spot even more flaws in
gelinas' "logic."
|
gelinas
|
|
response 287 of 357:
|
Jan 24 19:47 UTC 2004 |
Except for the use of emotion-laden terms, which are the tools of
demogogues, you actually have some good points, cyklone. Nice job.
This disagreement is NOT an example of "feeble-mindedness" or "not having
a clue." There are real issues here, with real effects. Stop screaming
so much and start thinking a little more, eh?
Oh, jp2, #282 boils down to, "It's Just Wrong!" #282 contains no
counter-arguments.
|
naftee
|
|
response 288 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:01 UTC 2004 |
Sometimes screaming and hand-waving is the only way to get people to think.
We really do need leland here.
You're right, gelinas, response 282 delivers its message loud and clear.
Which, I'm guessing, it was meant to do.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 289 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:04 UTC 2004 |
Point me to a post where I *haven't* been thinking. I'm "screaming"
because the censorship is so obvious I cannot believe grex's collective IQ
(which I previously had thought to be fairly high) fails to see it. That
leaves at least two possibilities: The collective IQ is no where near as
high as I originally thought (ie. a bunch of feebs are pulling the numbers
way down) or the feel-gooders have no rational way to prevail except to
obfuscate and/or rely on emotion rather than logic. Pointing out that I am
sprinkling my rational arguments with a few insults hardly makes your
argument rational and mine emotional.
I am more than willing to argue rationally. No one in suppoprt of jep's
proposal seem willing to do so, however. The reason is that no rational
arguments can be made that do not ultimately support censorship. Some of
you are trying to do a personal favor for a favored person without
admitting to yourselves and to grex that in so doing you are inevitably
and unavoidably striking a blow against free and uncensored speech.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 290 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:06 UTC 2004 |
<naftee snuck>
|
gelinas
|
|
response 291 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:11 UTC 2004 |
I would be arguing the same way no matter who had made the original
proposal. So I'm not going to take your "some of you" personally. :)
Claiming it is censorship does not make it censorship. I disagree that
it *is* censorship. Please present, without insults, your thoughts on
what makes it censorship. If you cannot, perhaps you should spend some
thinking instead of writing.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 292 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:20 UTC 2004 |
Perhaps you should check my previous posts or read a dictionary that states
censorship is barring objectionable statements. You claim that it is OK to
remove the words of others because you object to the lack of context that
would result from partial scribbling. Is that clear enough?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 293 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:49 UTC 2004 |
Better. However, I do not find the words themselves objectionable.
So your claim of "censorship" does not apply.
Nor do I really object to the lack of context. I do think that, as a
whole, we would be better off with items removed all at once rather than
little by little. It's more an aesthetic thing than anything else: it's
cleaner and results in less confusion: it's all there, or it's all not.
In the disccusion of closing the 'censor log, I argued that the removal
of a response that leaves another response context-less is something for
the responder to deal with. I see the removal of a response as different
from the removal of an item.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 294 of 357:
|
Jan 24 21:59 UTC 2004 |
On what basis are you making that distinction? It seems to me to be a
distinction without a difference. And for someone who doesn't "really
object to the lack of context" you certainly made a big deal of it in
#279.
BTW, opposing something on the grounds of aesthetics is just another form
of censorship. You are confusing the specific form of content-based
censorship with the larger set of censorship for *all* objectionable
reasons. That you seek to bar restoration because you find the aesthetics
objectionable in no way minimizes the fact that what you propose *is*
still censorship.
Even more to the point, how can you seriously advocate a right to remove
someone's words on aesthetic grounds? Grex is full of inartfully written
material that offends my sense of aesthetics. What you are suggesting
leads to an absurd result. And since people already have right to remove
their posts, your "all or nothing" argument is unsupported by existing
policy.
I can just see the next proposal in which one of the polyboys proposes a
vote to remove all of klg's items on the grounds his use of the royal "we"
offends their sense of aesthetics. In the end, you have no real
justification for denying posters the right to post and then control what
happens to those posts. By posting your long diatribe about context, and
then denying it is really important to you, followed by your new
aesthetics angle, you are simply confirming my previous assertions that
some grexers will do anything to justify doing a personal favor for a
favored person.
|
naftee
|
|
response 295 of 357:
|
Jan 24 22:19 UTC 2004 |
I really can't believe the attitude that staff (especially gelinas) is taking
on this matter. The GreX BBS is *supposed* to be a forum _supporting_ free
speech on the Internet. One would think the staff members would be biased
towards any person arguing to restore something that has been censored.
Instead, users have to write pages and pages of text to convince the staff
and users that an event that has come to pass was indeed an act of censorship!
I think the content of the webpage and bylaws should be changed, since the
GreX staff cannot clearly decide what is or isn't censorship and refuse to
stand up for violated users.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 296 of 357:
|
Jan 24 22:21 UTC 2004 |
I'm sorry that I'm not being clear, cyklone.
I _do_ think the lack of context is sufficient cause to remove the entirety
of an item. Similarly, I think it more aesthetic to remove the entirety
of an item rather than just pieces of it. But I don't really object to
context-less posts, I just think that we (writers and readers) are usually
better off without them.
I do NOT think that is censorship, but apparently you can't make fine
distinctions. No big deal.
|
jp2
|
|
response 297 of 357:
|
Jan 24 23:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 298 of 357:
|
Jan 25 00:40 UTC 2004 |
The funny thing is, now he's only posting what he thinks is right. The funny
thing is, gelinas was complaining that cyklone was doing the same thing
naught twenty responses ago. The funny thing is, cyklone always had facts,
but gelinas never did.
|
mary
|
|
response 299 of 357:
|
Jan 25 01:14 UTC 2004 |
There is certainly room for different opinions here. Really, there
is. And you can disagree with someone having a different take on it
without going to DEFCOM ONE.
I'm looking forward to this vote being over. I miss Grex.
|
mary
|
|
response 300 of 357:
|
Jan 25 01:15 UTC 2004 |
Er, DEFCON, I think.
|
scott
|
|
response 301 of 357:
|
Jan 25 02:07 UTC 2004 |
Is it "making up lies about your opposition" to falsely accuse your opposition
of doing so?
|
bhoward
|
|
response 302 of 357:
|
Jan 25 03:06 UTC 2004 |
(defcon; defcon = defense condition)
|
slynne
|
|
response 303 of 357:
|
Jan 25 15:35 UTC 2004 |
Thanks Bruce, I honestly never knew what defcon meant before.
|
remmers
|
|
response 304 of 357:
|
Jan 25 17:27 UTC 2004 |
<voteadm_request>
This is a member proposal. Discussion is spinning off into other
issues which I don't really want to take the time to follow in
detail right now, although maybe I'll catch up later when I have
more time to spare. So jep, if and when you want this brought to a
vote and have posted a final wording here, could you please email me?
Thanks.
</voteadm_request>
|
naftee
|
|
response 305 of 357:
|
Jan 25 19:34 UTC 2004 |
We should make this into a discussion about defcon
|
gull
|
|
response 306 of 357:
|
Jan 25 22:14 UTC 2004 |
Summary of resp:289:
"I'm always right, my logic is infallible, therefore whoever disagrees
with me must either be stupid or have evil motives."
(I see this method of argument a lot on conservative talk shows.)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 307 of 357:
|
Jan 25 23:39 UTC 2004 |
Cyclone, I must say one thing (sorry this is so late) -- not ALL users
expected their words to be on forever. I certainly thought that old agoras
were weeded after a period of time (say a year). I have no problem with
anything I've ever said on here being zapped after the conversation is over,
whether I explicitly am asked or not. If I wanted a copy, I'd keep one.
|
naftee
|
|
response 308 of 357:
|
Jan 26 00:59 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, but who will decide when the conversation is over?
It's never "over", and you just demonstrated that perfectly.
|