response 4 of 157:

Feb 5 13:52 UTC 2004

Jan, if you read resp:3, you have a pretty good idea of what you've 
missed by not actively following the other 8 or 10 items in which the 
proposals have been discussed.  There has been a great deal of personal 
attack against me from cyklone and jp2.  The statements you see in 
resp:3 are pretty well polished by this point; they've been repeated a 
lot of times; several times per day without any note paid to my 
replies.  I think the rest of Grex is pretty tired of it and has 
stopped reading for the most part.

Except the "golden words" argument; that one is new.  That there was so 
much of great and unduplicable value that we don't dare to delete those 
items; not because of the circumstances, but because future Grexers 
probably won't be as wise as we were a couple of years ago.  We need to 
teach those future Grexers.  Heh.

response 6 of 157:

Feb 5 14:43 UTC 2004

Yeah, #4 was one of the lowest things yet he has said. It is interesting
how he managed to twist my statement about the value of old posts into a
criticism of new grexers. Especially when JEP HIMSELF commented on the
value of the old posts. 

Jep, I am paying plenty of attention to your replies. I note when you
avoid answering questions. I note when you belatedly answer them and then
claim you thought you answered them before (but hadn't). I note when you
claim I haven't apologized when I have. I note the increase in your claims
of personal attacks the more we press you to be honest and answer the
questions we are asking. I note the way you twist the words of others to
try to make yourself appear more sympathetic. I note the way you sidestep
the issue of censorship by claiming the words of others have no value,
even after you yourself once said they did. I note the hypocrisy in your
statements and I note the utter childishness with which you have conducted
yourself in this discussion. I note your approach, at its core, appears to
be "please do a personal favor for Jep the Victim." 

response 10 of 157:

Feb 5 16:00 UTC 2004

I would like to know what criminal activity you're speaking about. I didn't
notice anything in item 75 that could be construed as criminal. Not answering
your questions in the explicit mannner you may wish is annoying, but I only
saw "personal attacks" after someone (I think it was you, though I apologize
if I'm wrong here) called him a liar and implied that this was what broke up
his marriage, etc. 

And while I may not be a member right this very minute, did it ever occur to
you that I could wire some money to aruba and become a member before the vote
was over? My vote could very well count if I wished to make it do so. Ticking
off potential voters is not good strategy. Ticking off people in general is
not the best way to come off as the one in the right.  All you have managed
to do is annoy people who might have agreed with you if you hadn't been so
abrasive. Sometimes the medium does matter as much as the message. 

response 12 of 157:

Feb 5 16:35 UTC 2004

So those people who reposted verbatim comments in the "agora" conference on
m-net are also criminal? In-ter-esting. And yet Bruce was mocked and told he
was being an idiot when he mentioned that he might speak to a lawyer about
it. How fascinating this all is. In a sick train-wreck sort of way.

response 14 of 157:

Feb 5 16:50 UTC 2004

You know what? I hate to say it but I am finding the attacks on jep to 
be kind of mean. Does it really matter exactly why he doesnt want 
personal sensitive information about himself online? I am thinking 
about changing my vote for that reason alone. I mean, unlike a lot of 
people, I dont think it matters much if the items or restored or not 
since the restored items will be useless after having most of the posts 
in them taken out.  I like the idea of people keeping control of their 
own words even if those words are about someone else. But this business 
is getting on my nerves. 

response 16 of 157:

Feb 5 16:58 UTC 2004

I don't want jep to worry about losing his kid because of what he posted, even
if deleting everyone's responses does tread on a few toes.  Jim lost his kids
through divorce because the legal system is not fair and does not even follow
its own rules.  I think it is appropriate to make an exception to free speech
in order to protect jep and little jep from the divorce courts.  Or even to
keep him from worrying about whether postings made by other people about his
state of mind during the divorce might be used against him.  

response 18 of 157:

Feb 5 17:50 UTC 2004

re resp:14: Lynne, I'd appreciate your "yes" vote on my proposal, very 
much.  It may not matter to you (or anyone else) whether those items 
are restored, but it matters a whole lot to me.

response 22 of 157:

Feb 5 18:28 UTC 2004

Cool!

response 28 of 157:

Feb 5 22:00 UTC 2004

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