|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 138 responses total. |
kip
|
|
response 6 of 138:
| 
Jan 12 01:17 UTC 2004 |
I'm sorry Jamie, I'll learn to speak more clearly than I did in item 68,
response 241.
I, as a member of staff, am opposed to removing item 39.
Valerie was not "The staff", she was one of several staff members.
|
janc
|
|
response 7 of 138:
|
Jan 12 02:31 UTC 2004 |
If M-Net's treasurer embezzles the full contents of M-Net's bank account
and loses it in a slot machine, would you then declare that people
shouldn't give money to M-Net because it is the demonstrated policy of
M-net to gamble away it's funds?
|
jp2
|
|
response 8 of 138:
|
Jan 12 02:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 9 of 138:
|
Jan 12 02:45 UTC 2004 |
Good God.
|
kip
|
|
response 10 of 138:
|
Jan 12 05:21 UTC 2004 |
Ah Jamie, I'm quickly learning why you're so loved here for your understanding
of the English language.
When someone is accused of a crime and undergoes a trial, do we assume that
the law broken is suddenly broken and null for all until the trial is done?
No.
|
naftee
|
|
response 11 of 138:
|
Jan 12 06:03 UTC 2004 |
heh
|
naftee
|
|
response 12 of 138:
|
Jan 12 06:04 UTC 2004 |
Nicely phrased, kip!
|
other
|
|
response 13 of 138:
|
Jan 12 06:57 UTC 2004 |
As long as we're on the legal analogy, I'd like to point out that
not all rulings which contravene previously standard practice
actually establish valid precedent.
|
gull
|
|
response 14 of 138:
|
Jan 12 16:11 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:5: The current policy is staff will only remove items if your
name is jep.
|
naftee
|
|
response 15 of 138:
|
Jan 12 16:27 UTC 2004 |
Or, as they prefer, JEP.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 16 of 138:
|
Jan 12 18:23 UTC 2004 |
(The current policy, as much as there is one, is that staff will not remove
items.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 17 of 138:
|
Jan 12 23:09 UTC 2004 |
Re #13: Remarkable how few people seem to understand that.
|
jlamb
|
|
response 18 of 138:
|
Jan 12 23:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 19 of 138:
|
Jan 15 03:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 20 of 138:
|
Jan 15 15:59 UTC 2004 |
Umm, to which address did you send that? I only have the Jan 6th request in
my staff email account.
|
jp2
|
|
response 21 of 138:
|
Jan 15 16:35 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 22 of 138:
|
Jan 15 17:04 UTC 2004 |
>> So, it's been like a week since I requested that coop:39 be killed
>> because I don't like it. I have received no response at all from the
>> staff and the item is still there. Could I again request that it be
>> killed?
> As you know, it is not possible to delete the item in accordance to
> Grex policy, so staff cannot act on this request. If compelling reasons
> were shown why it needs to be deleted, then it is theoretically possible
> that either the board or membership might vote you a special exception
> which would enable staff to act.
>
> My guess as a non-board member is that unless the circumstances were far,
> far more compelling than any case now under consideration, it would be the
> preference of the board to defer that decision to the membership. This
> seems to be possible in this instance, because having publically announced
> that you wish this item deleted, you clearly are not concerned that people
> might save copies before the item can be deleted if your desire to have it
> deleted was publicized.
>
> As such, the most effective way for you to waste as many people's times
> as possible while further burdening Grex's already cumbersome and
> overloaded administrative processes with an idiotic attempt to make an
> imaginary point might be to enter a member proposal.
>
> I wish you all the luck in your endeaver that you deserve.
>
> - Jan Wolter
|
jp2
|
|
response 23 of 138:
|
Jan 15 17:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 24 of 138:
|
Jan 15 18:19 UTC 2004 |
> As you know, it is not possible to delete the item in accordance to
> Grex policy, so staff cannot act on this request.
And just what *is* that policy, pray tell?! If there were such a policy,
surely it was documented, and could be dragged out and posted for all to read.
And there would therefore be no need for the proposal on the subject now
alive in coop.
Either there is (was!) a policy or there isn't. If there is, let's see it,
please.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 25 of 138:
|
Jan 15 18:55 UTC 2004 |
The "personal favors for favored persons" policy has not been written
anywhere as it directly contradicts grex's professed dedication to free
and uncensored speech.
|
carson
|
|
response 26 of 138:
|
Jan 15 19:14 UTC 2004 |
(resp:24 there isn't a policy, and the item can't be deleted in
accordance with a policy that doesn't exist. that's my take on what
Jan meant, although he's certainly more qualified to clarify his
comments than I am.)
(I also think Jan's response was amusing, although it doesn't please me
that he had to write it.) :P
|
albaugh
|
|
response 27 of 138:
|
Jan 15 22:17 UTC 2004 |
Not that I support jp2's call to have item #39 deleted, but if there truly
is no policy, then it certainly can't be used to explain why the item can't
be deleted *because* of policy. If I am missing obvious sarcasm in the
response, then I plead guilty.
A "better" response IMO would be something like "C'mon jp2, gimme a break,
you know there is no policy on this yet, so we are under no obligation to act
on your request. We are going to do what should have been done before jep's
items were deleted: Have grex reach consensus or see a policy established."
|
jp2
|
|
response 28 of 138:
|
Jan 15 22:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 29 of 138:
|
Jan 16 01:37 UTC 2004 |
Seems a fair trade.
|
naftee
|
|
response 30 of 138:
|
Jan 16 02:50 UTC 2004 |
Just like the board election.
|