|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 138 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 50 of 138:
| 
Jan 17 17:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 51 of 138:
|
Jan 17 20:25 UTC 2004 |
Let me try another approach. Jep, you say "There is nothing more I know of
that I can say to explain my actions. I think I've said it all. I doubt
if there has ever been an action taken on Grex which was so thoroughly
documented, explained and justified; right down to the minute by minute
timing and the thoughts behind all of my actions.
First of all, if you think I am mistaken about what follows, please feel
free to direct me to your item and post numbers rather than reposting it
yourself. What I do recall, without such a review, is that you wished in
hindsight you had never entered the ites. You also expressed concern your
son might learn of those items. You then went on to discount the
possibility that such a discovery could have a net positive value and
also, I think, mentioned you'd simply prefer not to deal with it.
Here's the problem: even if you get your way, the cat is out of the bag.
The *gist* of much of your text is now present here for all to see. In
other words, if your son uses the same diligence you suppose it will take
for him to find your divorce items, he will stumble across these in the
coop cf. What is next? Will you be proposing to delete all such items in
this cf?
If you fear the polyboys will call his attention to the divorce item in
much the same way they informed hera's son of her "sex with hubby" mnet
items, guess what? They will just point him to these discussions instead
(which I'm fairly certain have already been saved by someone on the
system). Frankly, in terms of gaining perspective, your son would be
better off, IMNSHO, reading the originals, which have far more context, as
opposed to reading coop.
It still seems to me that rather than engaging in some sort of vintage
Soviet Russian rewrite (or "unwrite") of history, you would be better off
figuring out how to deal with that inevitable day when you and your son
come face to face with just how distraught you were over the divorce. You
can discount my opinion as that of a "know-it-all." But I speak as a human
being who knows most secrets cannot be buried and most certainly not
yours. I'm sorry you can't see this or accept it as FACT. I am also sorry
you are causing such problems for grex, and at least some of its users, in
your pursuit of what is ultimately unobtainable.
|
jep
|
|
response 52 of 138:
|
Jan 18 00:28 UTC 2004 |
re resp:51: Cyklone, now you're trying to run Grex from afar *and*
telling me how to raise my son. Do you do this kind of stuff a lot?
|
willcome
|
|
response 53 of 138:
|
Jan 18 00:39 UTC 2004 |
Now I'm going to reread these items. I can't imagine it'll be boring,
even if it's Saturday night.
|
willcome
|
|
response 54 of 138:
|
Jan 18 00:40 UTC 2004 |
(wow, uh oh! You didn't use enough noun
specifiers! You'll confuse the girls.)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 55 of 138:
|
Jan 18 00:46 UTC 2004 |
Neither of those statements are true so I can't very well answer your
question. My saying you can't hide your feelings from your son (unless he
stays off of grex and mnet and avoid grexers and mnetters) is not advice
on raising him. You may wish my words weren't true, but you can't wish
away the reality. At best you can hope he stays off mnet and grex and
doesn't learn any other way. I'm sorry you can't accept that. And if you
can't understand that you are merely confirming my belief you are slipping
back into the same unproductive obstinance and willful refusal to deal
with reality that marked your early posts in the divorce item.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 56 of 138:
|
Jan 18 00:47 UTC 2004 |
<willcome snuck>
|
naftee
|
|
response 57 of 138:
|
Jan 18 06:06 UTC 2004 |
I don't get it. People like jep should thank us, for being custodians of
GreX.
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 138:
|
Jan 18 14:18 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, I don't need your advice on how to raise my son.
Okay?
How I raise him, and what I tell him, and my son in general, is
outside of the debate.
Okay?
There will be no votes on Grex which will direct anything I do with
regard to him.
Got all that?
I'm not suggesting or asking that these things be that way. I am
telling you. Pick another direction; this one isn't productive. If
you want to discuss raising children, go to the parenting conference.
Which, by the way, I am not currently reading.
|
kip
|
|
response 59 of 138:
|
Jan 18 14:31 UTC 2004 |
You know, Grex could use a good game of Nomic to serve as an outlet for
certain folks.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 60 of 138:
|
Jan 18 15:41 UTC 2004 |
Jep, your capacity for rational thought is clearly diminished if you
perceive my statements as advice on how to raise your son. Pointing out
the truth is not advice on raising your son. Obviously, this whole matter
has hit a nerve with you, which is why I suggest you return to counseling
for at least a short time. You are again displaying the same
self-centered, petty, over-emotional behavior that characterized your
early divorce item posts.
What I am opposing is your misguided belief that your efforts to do what
you feel is right for your son, in terms of limiting his access to grex
items involving your divorce, should somehow prevail over grex's professed
dedication to free and uncensored speech. A lot of damage is done in the
name "for the children" and it appears to me you are willing to see grex
suffer that damage to satisfy your notions of protecting your child. I do
not feel that is a fair price for grex to pay.
A vote in your favor would also be an incredibly damaging precedent for
grex. As I have mentioned before, a favorable vote on your proposal would
open the door for virtually any parent to come back to grex and say "as a
parent it is my prerogative to remove entire items that I now feel would
impair my ability to make parental decisions and/or relationship with my
child." That simply cannot be permitted on a system that claims to support
free and uncensored speech. The cat is out of the bag. You cannot unring
the bell. Grex should restore the items and permit you and others to
delete their posts. Deal with it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 61 of 138:
|
Jan 18 16:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 62 of 138:
|
Jan 18 17:07 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:57: If by "custodian", you mean "someone who repeatedly creates
trouble in the hope of driving away staff members."
Re resp:61: A vote for jep's proposal would not set any precident worth
talking about, except perhaps that if people want an item deleted they
can take it to a member vote. It's pretty specific. As far as I can
tell there's never been anything preventing this, and in most cases it'd
be counterproductive anyway because it's too slow. Besides, we already
have a more general proposal on the table about item removal.
Also, telling your opponent that they need to see a shrink is rarely an
effective debating technique.
|
naftee
|
|
response 63 of 138:
|
Jan 18 18:18 UTC 2004 |
No, that's not at all what I meant by custodian. It's never my intention to
drive away staff members; they run off themselves. Look at the last two
examples, dipshit.
|
naftee
|
|
response 64 of 138:
|
Jan 18 18:37 UTC 2004 |
Fine, I did the work for you.
#83 of 125: by Dan Cross (cross) on Mon, Nov 10, 2003 (21:08):
Oh, screw it.
I'm actually so disgusted by Mary's comments on my action, that you don't
have to prepare any legistlation, polytarp. I resign from staff as it is.
And from Valerie Mates:
it did cross my mind that if I get kicked off staff for
this, I don't care.
HEY GUESS WHAT, WE DON"T TRY TO KICK PEOPLE OFF STAFF.
|
ryan
|
|
response 65 of 138:
|
Jan 18 19:10 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 66 of 138:
|
Jan 18 21:01 UTC 2004 |
Re #62: "Also, telling your opponent that they need to see a shrink is rarely
an effective debating technique."
Then perhaps my purpose is not clear. I'm not entering my posts as an
intellectual exercise in debate, although I do recognize that is what many
grexers like to do. I post for two reasons. The first is to make clear my
belief that grex would abdicate its professed support of free and
uncensored speech if the deleted items are not reinstated, and that no
good reasons have been offered in support of deletion.
My second reason is the same reason I posted to jep's divorce item. I
thought I could provide insight that would help him and others in his
position. I see him repeating the same behaviors I saw early in his
divorce items. He sought professional help then and he said it was
worthwhile. I am suggesting he consider that option again. This discussion
appears to have hit an emotional nerve with him that I suspect has little
or nothing to do with the merits of the deletion debate. Hence my
suggestion.
|
aruba
|
|
response 67 of 138:
|
Jan 18 23:45 UTC 2004 |
I think that kind of advice really belongs somewhere other than the coop
conference, Kurt. I'm not trying to prevent you from saying it, but I don't
think it is apropos of a policy debate.
As to your first purpose, you have made your point, and your position is
clear now.
|
naftee
|
|
response 68 of 138:
|
Jan 19 04:07 UTC 2004 |
re 65 Damn! Now all I need to do is cause enough bullshit for YOU to quit.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 69 of 138:
|
Jan 19 10:43 UTC 2004 |
resp:59 I'm not familiar with Nomic; care to enlighten me?
|
kip
|
|
response 70 of 138:
|
Jan 19 11:52 UTC 2004 |
My apologies, I first read about Nomic in Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical
Themas" column in Scientific American in 1982. Basically it is a game about
law. You start with an initial set of rules which contain laws about how you
can create new laws. The point of the game is to game the system by creating
laws favorable to you and get the other players to pass those laws.
Anyway, Peter Suber is the actual creator of the game, he maintains a webpage
at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm
|
remmers
|
|
response 71 of 138:
|
Jan 19 15:48 UTC 2004 |
<donning voteadm hat...>
I've posted a summary of the rules regarding voting in item 75,
response 179 (resp:75,179). The earliest voting could begin,
should Jamie elect to bring it to a vote, is January 25.
|
jp2
|
|
response 72 of 138:
|
Jan 19 18:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 73 of 138:
|
Jan 19 20:50 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 74 of 138:
|
Jan 19 23:58 UTC 2004 |
Mary's a stupid bitch.
|