response 52 of 109:

Feb 11 20:46 UTC 2004

Yeah.  You guys are being cruel.

response 54 of 109:

Feb 11 21:25 UTC 2004

And BTW, valerie's decision to kill the items does not speak for grex.

response 56 of 109:

Feb 11 22:27 UTC 2004

re 54 No, but the vote does.

response 58 of 109:

Feb 12 00:31 UTC 2004

"My point is that if Grex purports to be a bastion of free speech in 
the face of government attempts to supress same, then its current 
stance is hypocritical (criticising the government for behavior you 
engage in yourself is not very persuasive even if legal)."

It is unreasonable to say that a bbs can't oppose government attempts 
to control Internet content unless it lets itself be ass-fucked by 
every troll in the neighborhood.  And there is nothing hypocritical 
about a private bbs supporting the broadest interpretation of the First 
Amendment while at the same time allowing selective deletion of 
material.  Call it personal favors for favored people, if you like, 
because that's what it is.  I understand you'd kick Anna Kournikova out 
of bed if she didn't demonstrate the strictest principles, but you're 
probably a minority of one there.  ;-)

response 64 of 109:

Feb 12 01:14 UTC 2004

By the way:  it's wrong to say the EFF (an ACLU member corporation) is only
concerned with govermental infringement of God-given rights.  You know for
a fact that, as just one example, they helped stop Scientology from ruining
everything.

response 66 of 109:

Feb 12 01:50 UTC 2004

Let's play....SPOT THE JEW.

response 68 of 109:

Feb 12 04:00 UTC 2004

Re #58: Bless you, md. You are are one of the few people honest enough to
admit this was about personal favors for favored persons. Many others
twist themselves in knots to avoid that admission. From what I read
earlier today, some even get nauseous contemplating the phrase . . . .

Re #67: I disagree with the distinction you are trying to make. Even if
you convince yourself the side effect of your personal favor for the
favored person was merely "incidental" removal of speech, it nevertheless
has the reek of censorship. Of course, I think you are arguing definitions
and I am arguing effect. Call it whatever you want, define it however you
want, but MY WORDS were removed without my permission. The fact jep was
too much of a weasel to even tell me specifically why he felt the need to
control my words only added insult to injury. Like md, though, I give you
credit for being honest enough to admit this was about personal favors for
favored persons. 

Like I said before (and take note this is not directed at you personally,
gelinas) all you "personal favorers" may have won the battle, but you lost
the war. You killed the patient to save it. You may think I'm
exaggerating, but in fact grex will never again be the same. EVER.

response 70 of 109:

Feb 12 12:12 UTC 2004

Btw, the population of people who find a personal favor for a favored 
person to be acceptable includes the parties involved, those who like 
one or both parties involved, those who don't give a rat's ass, those 
who are thinking they might want such a favor themselves some day, 
those who dislike the people who oppose the favor even more than they 
dislike the parties to it, and I'm sure many others.  

The people who find it offensive -- and *boy* do they find it 
offensive -- are people who have what they imagine to be principles 
about such favors (obviously not as silly to them as it seems to the 
rest of us), and those who have issues with the parties involved.  
Those two are interrelated.  For example, if you thought valerie's baby 
diary was a self-indulgent pile of crap, or if you thought valerie 
herself was an obnoxious microparenter or a "Laleche fascist" or 
whatever, any principles you had on the subject are likely to have a 
sudden growth spurt (le mot juste!).

Anyway, in the case at hand, the second category is certainly much 
smaller than the first, so I don't see the vote changing in the 
foreseeable future.  As to Grex "never being the same again" -- dude, 
this happened because Grex *is* the same. 

response 72 of 109:

Feb 12 14:17 UTC 2004

Only if they took all their pseudos with them, though, right?

response 74 of 109:

Feb 12 15:19 UTC 2004

scott, are you implying that jep and valerie REALLY left?  I'm skeptical.
I've read too many responses from the vanished after they reportedly have 
gone for good.