|
Grex > Coop12 > #57: Proposal: Users shall be able to withdraw their text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 168 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 38 of 168:
| 
Nov 1 17:50 UTC 2001 |
OooOOooo Scott. You are getting the hang of the short mean little
response. Are you sure you dont want to join us over on Mnet? ;)
|
jp2
|
|
response 39 of 168:
|
Nov 1 17:53 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 40 of 168:
|
Nov 1 17:58 UTC 2001 |
If it's not vigilante justice you're after (I take your word for it), then
is all the fuss you've been making just about getting attention? Is there
nothing more to it?
|
jp2
|
|
response 41 of 168:
|
Nov 1 18:01 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 42 of 168:
|
Nov 1 18:26 UTC 2001 |
What's the larger goal?
|
janc
|
|
response 43 of 168:
|
Nov 1 21:09 UTC 2001 |
I think Grex has functioned with it's current policies for over ten years
without doing anyone any substantial harm. I think the policies could bear
improvement, but if one wishes to build one's reputation as a superhero,
there are other issues on the planet that more urgently need to be addressed.
I think the rule suggested in this motion would be an improvement.
|
jp2
|
|
response 44 of 168:
|
Nov 1 21:27 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 45 of 168:
|
Nov 1 23:24 UTC 2001 |
I'm against the bar to removing text. I would _like_ to be able to edit
responses, but I can live without that ability. I _really_ want the censored
log linked to /dev/null, but I can live with it being permitted only to staff
(with the definition of "staff" left open).
I intend to vote for Ken's original proposal. Whether it passes or fails,
I will vote against Mary's, should it be put to a vote.
My arguments have not changed since last summer. Feel free to go read them
as referenced above. :)
|
aruba
|
|
response 46 of 168:
|
Nov 2 02:38 UTC 2001 |
Jamie: What's your larger goal?
|
jp2
|
|
response 47 of 168:
|
Nov 2 02:46 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 48 of 168:
|
Nov 2 02:52 UTC 2001 |
Well, how about trying?
|
gull
|
|
response 49 of 168:
|
Nov 2 18:18 UTC 2001 |
Re #45: I think having staff able to read the log is probably a
necessary evil.
|
other
|
|
response 50 of 168:
|
Nov 2 23:25 UTC 2001 |
I think it is absolutely and unforgivably foolish for us to even consider
not keeping the log. Keeping it root-only readable is fine.
|
aruba
|
|
response 51 of 168:
|
Nov 3 05:37 UTC 2001 |
Jamie, I'd still like to hear what your larger goal is. I think a lot of
people are assuming it's a destructive goal, but I'd like to hear it from
you.
|
mwg
|
|
response 52 of 168:
|
Nov 3 23:49 UTC 2001 |
Well, he quotes revisions and interpretations to copyright law that are
generally destructive unless you are a large media corporation. He then
quotes a law that is destructive to the interests of everybody, even if
the giant media companies are too stupid to realize that this
bought-and-paid for law will hit them too.
If he is not pursuing a destructive goal, I'll be *VERY* interested in
what he thinks he is doing. Pointing out absurdities in law can generally
be done with less subtlety.
More damage is done by the well-intentioned than by the truly evil. Could
this apply here?
|
jp2
|
|
response 53 of 168:
|
Nov 3 23:53 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 54 of 168:
|
Nov 4 03:00 UTC 2001 |
It's quite obvious Grex never had the budget to buy legislation, so I don't
see how Jamie wins anything by attacking Grex with the DMCA.
|
mwg
|
|
response 55 of 168:
|
Nov 4 03:10 UTC 2001 |
Funny kind of obvious, that. Taking a law that can only be used
destructively, and using it just that way. As for corporations, the
little ones knew going that they were on the wrong end of this, much of
what the DMCA does for "protection" is not accessible to people who think
in numbers smaller than millions as a matter of course.
|
jp2
|
|
response 56 of 168:
|
Nov 4 06:55 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 57 of 168:
|
Nov 4 15:08 UTC 2001 |
Jamie - the reason I keep asking what your larger goal is, is that I am
trying hard not to jump to conclusions. But you're not giving me much to
work with when you never answer the question.
|
mdw
|
|
response 58 of 168:
|
Nov 5 03:34 UTC 2001 |
I don't think there's any mystery concerning his larger goal.
|
richard
|
|
response 59 of 168:
|
Nov 5 04:52 UTC 2001 |
#57..I think we'll know jp2's larger goals on election day. just watch to
see how many members nobody's ever heard of start showing up on the
members list and just happen to vote that day.
|
aruba
|
|
response 60 of 168:
|
Nov 5 05:21 UTC 2001 |
Well, Jamie's goal is a mystery to me. He says it's not al about getting
attention. I'd prefer to hear from him what it is, but if he won't say (as
it appears he won't), then we are left to speculate.
My best guess is that there is no larger goal, and that it was just a
bluff. That it really is all about getting attention.
|
jp2
|
|
response 61 of 168:
|
Nov 5 16:41 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 62 of 168:
|
Nov 5 16:46 UTC 2001 |
BTW, the reason I've been asking Jamie about his larger goal instead of just
assuming something about it, is that I have observed that he acts more like
an adult when people talk straight to him and don't play games. I was
hoping that by asking a straightforward question, in a polite way, I could
get a straight answer.
|