|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 163 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 75 of 163:
| 
Mar 4 02:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 76 of 163:
|
Mar 4 02:15 UTC 2004 |
Sorry, Jamie, you can't get off that easy. As the prime mover behind a lot
of wasted bandwidth and member votes you've got a lot to explain.
|
jp2
|
|
response 77 of 163:
|
Mar 4 02:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 78 of 163:
|
Mar 4 02:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 79 of 163:
|
Mar 4 03:55 UTC 2004 |
re 73 It's a tough deal in his case. Since he sometimes doesn't log on in the
span of a couple days, we can't really be sure if he's lying when he said that
he'd publically announce valerie's item deletions were I not to have entered
those items.
|
scott
|
|
response 80 of 163:
|
Mar 4 14:11 UTC 2004 |
Re 78: Oh yes, one of your other unfounded, unproven, wild accusations.
|
polygon
|
|
response 81 of 163:
|
Mar 4 18:06 UTC 2004 |
Maybe this is irrelevant to the hubbub, but I still fail to "get" the
concept that free speech requires that one's words be preserved on the
system forever.
In the course of ordinary maintenance, restart and deletion of
conferences, etc., I'm sure hundreds of thousands of my words have been
deleted from M-Net and Grex (not to mention other systems) over the years.
And there are certainly some of those I wish I could have back. But it
would be ludicrous for me to charge either system with violating my rights
because it was time to repaint the wall I scrawled my name on.
The items shouldn't have been deleted. But they were written months or
years ago; Grex doesn't (and shouldn't) promise a permanent archiving
service. If your words are so important to you, download and archive them
yourself!
|
jp2
|
|
response 82 of 163:
|
Mar 4 18:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 83 of 163:
|
Mar 4 19:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 84 of 163:
|
Mar 4 19:12 UTC 2004 |
Re 82. I was just making the point that the free speech argument was
nonsense.
|
tod
|
|
response 85 of 163:
|
Mar 4 20:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 86 of 163:
|
Mar 4 23:08 UTC 2004 |
Re #84: Putting aside the private v. government distinction, do you honestly
believe the ACLU would sit idly by if the Congress passed a law requiring all
newspapers to destroy back issues from the Nixon era?
|
tod
|
|
response 87 of 163:
|
Mar 4 23:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 88 of 163:
|
Mar 5 00:57 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 89 of 163:
|
Mar 5 14:31 UTC 2004 |
The definition of censorship as a concept depends on the act being
performed before the information being censored has the opportunity
to propagate to the society. The information in question here was
patently NOT censored, because it was available to be read copied
and distributed (without regard to the legality of that activity)
for a very extended period before it was made unavailable.
If you choose not to read a book before the publisher stops
printing and distributing it, then it is up to you to locate a copy
of it on your own if you still wish to read it, and if you can't do
that, then too bad, but it isn't censorship.
|
rational
|
|
response 90 of 163:
|
Mar 5 15:41 UTC 2004 |
Regardless of whether or not you call it censorship, it was wrong.
|
rational
|
|
response 91 of 163:
|
Mar 5 15:49 UTC 2004 |
I agree, rational. I don't see the point in constantly arguing about
definitions, when what something is called has nothing to do with
whether it's right or wrong, and doing so is almost like suggesting
people who don't have words for a certain thing would be unable to
argue whether or not it was right, or that a dictionary would somehow
be an arbiter of morality. I wonder if this habit of arguing
definitions might be related to our common legal system, where strict
definitions rule. But, regardless of that, we don't need to argue
formal definitions. Simply use intuition to understand what people
mean, and consider this in relation to what actually happened, instead
of running abstractedly around censorship.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 92 of 163:
|
Mar 5 16:59 UTC 2004 |
But, you see, it's the people running around screaming censorship who get
other people's backs up. I've said all along that it's prior restraint (if
that's the correct legal term?) that makes it censorship -- if Valerie had
prevented you from posting because she didn't like your words, for exampl,e
that would have been censorship. But deleting something that has been read
and around for a while so that everyone who was reading that particular thread
had been able to read it doesn't equal censorship. It may be something else,
and wrong, but it's not censorship. So calling it that prejudices your case.
I do think that people have very strong feelings about their words on here
and that a lot of this is a clash of visceral impressions about how and what
the system is.
To me, and to a lot of people like me, it was a not-quite-real-time
conversation, so the words I type are not "published" per se, but simply
written as part of the conversation. It's not expected that one would keep
a conversation around forever.
To others, it was being "published" and they expected it to be kept. And for
others to read it, even years after the conversation that had sparked it had
gone.
I admit, I have a hard time understanding the other point of view, because
it is so alien to the way I relate to the computer. But I can see that if you
expected it to be around and archived, that would be frustrating. Of course,
given the typos, etc. that are endemic to on-line communication, I'm not sure
*why* anyone would want them around forever and as a public record of what
you were thinking on any given day. :-)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 93 of 163:
|
Mar 5 17:10 UTC 2004 |
For me censorship implies a primary intent to keep someone elses' ideas
out of public discourse. As I saw it, Valerie's actions were primarily
intended to remove her own ideas from public discourse (and later, at
jep's request, jep's ideas). A secondary effect was that other peoples
commentary on valerie and jep's ideas were also removed.
|
tod
|
|
response 94 of 163:
|
Mar 5 17:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
rational
|
|
response 95 of 163:
|
Mar 5 20:21 UTC 2004 |
God dammit. Didn't you guys read what I wrote?
|
davel
|
|
response 96 of 163:
|
Mar 5 20:36 UTC 2004 |
Why bother?
|
rational
|
|
response 97 of 163:
|
Mar 5 20:47 UTC 2004 |
Because what I said discounted all the responses between it and what I just
LAST said.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 98 of 163:
|
Mar 5 21:36 UTC 2004 |
Todd, much of what I posted WAS commentary. It was only in response to what
Valerie was talking about -- it wasn't like I suddenly woke up and decided
"oh, I'm going to talk about why I named my kids what I did in Valerie's diary
item today" -- Valerie would muse on names, or whatever, and people would
respond. And there would be repetition, if the subject came up again -- I
would say much the same thing again because, well, if I'm talking about why
I named my kids, there are really only two responses possible for that. (One
for Rhiannon and one for Gareth.) And in JEP's items, it was the same. I
didn't come up with a new theory and just post it. Nor did anyone else in
either item, as far as I can recall. It was response, not initiation.
As well, so freezing an item is censorship? So are we going to ban freezing,
too?
|
salad
|
|
response 99 of 163:
|
Mar 5 22:36 UTC 2004 |
That's a little off the mark. Someone else can always start a new item and
grab text from the old frozen items.
But in the case of these baby diaries or jep's items, there was only one copy,
and it was mercilessily destroyed.
|