|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 80 of 424:
| 
Jan 12 01:04 UTC 2004 |
Whether or not my responses are actually likely to hurt JEP, I would not want
them restored if they are likely to make him fear that he will be hurt.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 81 of 424:
|
Jan 12 01:12 UTC 2004 |
Ah yes. Now we are at the very heart of why grex is becoming a system in
opposition to what it once claimed to be. At this point Grex lacks any
credible claim to support free speech. Drop the "agora" folks; you make a
mockery of the concept.
<Oh yeah, "know" in the first para of #79 sb "no">
|
naftee
|
|
response 82 of 424:
|
Jan 12 01:15 UTC 2004 |
I doubt keesan reads your responses. Your opinions are too strong.
|
janc
|
|
response 83 of 424:
|
Jan 12 01:57 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone: You complain about the injustice of being denied access to
JEPs item so you can decide if it should be deleted. Was that a serious
suggestion? We should put JEP's item back on line so that everyone can
study it while we have this discussion? And incidentally save copies to
post all over the place?
I can't imagine that you actually want think that makes sense. But if
not then what is the point of your complaining about this? Do you have
any suggestion for something practical that could be done to satisfy
your complaint, or are you just complaining because you like the sound?
Yes, JEP was told many times in that item that it was a very bad idea
for him to have such an item. I would guess that having just lost his
wife JEP felt a strong need for a support network and didn't have a lot
to fall back on besides his on-line community. He wasn't "temporarily
insane" but he was way off balance and reaching out for help and not
thinking very hard about the long term. I doubt that he actually
regrets it. At the time I think it was a huge help to him that did a
lot to help him navigate a very difficult time. It was a great item,
one of the best in Grex's history. But there has always been a chance
that it could someday be taken and used against him. Deleting the item
doesn't eliminate the chance. Someone might well have made copies
already and may be storing them away to whip out if ever they want to
use them against JEP. Why should we increase the chance that this item,
which was such a help to John back then, should someday become a weapon
to be used against him?
The idea of free speech you are pushing is a joke. Not only must people
be allowed to talk, but every single thing they said must carefully be
preserved in the public record forever. Suppose I had the last existant
copy of a pamphlet that was passed out on street corners a year ago. Do
you think you could get a court to stop me from destroying it on free
speech grounds?
I think it's pretty likely that John has a copy of these items. Maybe
he'll want to show them to his son some day and maybe he won't. Though
we're obviously all bigger experts on parenting than John is, are you
sure that it is our place to make this decision for him?
You keep talking about what Grex does and what Grex thinks. Have you
noticed that Mary and I, for instance, see this completely differently?
How exactly have you determined that I'm Grex and Mary isn't?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 84 of 424:
|
Jan 12 02:21 UTC 2004 |
Actually, I do notice that and probably should come up with a way of
making my point clearer. I suppose I could always say "some or most on
grex". Again though, the basic point is missed when you say "But there has
always been a chance that it could someday be taken and used against him.'
I am really beginning to see that *some on grex* absolutely cannot see
dysfunctional thinking and behavior when it is staring them in the face.
'Awfulizing" and imaginary harms are NOT a good basis for making any
decisions. Maybe I missed something but so far nobody has pointed out any
concrete example of how the posts of others could be harmful to jep in any
meaningful way. C'mon,janc, tell us exactly what harm we are protecting
jep from.
Surely you don't mean to suggest when you say "Though we're obviously all
bigger experts on parenting than John is, are you sure that it is our
place to make this decision for him?" that any user can use his/her status
as a parent to request such extreme measures solely based on unsupported
claims it *could* harm the children. Otherwise you are saying an addicts
item about drug use could also be deleted simply because an addict was
going through a hard time and now doesn't want his children to know? Even
if the deleted item contained information valuable to other addicts?
Please stop with weak red herrings such as the "last flier." We are
talking specifically about a long-standing policy in which users
understood their posts could not be deleted except under very limited
circumstances. Jep's situation was not one of those exceptions. Stop
trying to complicate what is a very simple issue. If jep can demonstrate a
credible harm I will reconsider my position. However, until then the
"default" has always been permanence and jep, or you or someone has the
burden of showing the harm. No one has done that. All I keep hearing is
bullshit claims something bad might result. I am seeing very little in
terms of credible risks to jep. As I said before, this willingness to take
extreme action in the face of virtually no real risk of harm is classic
dysfunctional behavior (and Bush White House behavior).
|
gelinas
|
|
response 85 of 424:
|
Jan 12 02:28 UTC 2004 |
There have been a lot of books published over the years. A large proportion
of them have been lost. Why should the text here be expected to more
long-lasting?
|
jp2
|
|
response 86 of 424:
|
Jan 12 02:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 87 of 424:
|
Jan 12 02:40 UTC 2004 |
I disagree. Any way this goes, grex will continue. We may loose some people,
we'll probably pick up others. We won't be the same as were a week and a half
ago, though. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
|
jep
|
|
response 88 of 424:
|
Jan 12 02:56 UTC 2004 |
I don't really want to go through details of what happened two years
ago, but I sought help on Grex and I got it. I owe Grexers
enormously. I don't regret what I did then.
I don't regret what I've done now, either, in getting those items
deleted, though I regret some of the ramifications it may have.
re resp:79: Let's just all assume I do what I think is best for my son
to the best of my ability, and leave it at that. Nothing I will say
about my discussions with him will have any influence on this
discussion.
|
janc
|
|
response 89 of 424:
|
Jan 12 03:00 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone: You said yourself that many people at the time cautioned John
against posting this material. There are certainly lots of people who
thought that this item was dangerous to John. One of the people who said
that then and now was Joe Saul. As an attorney he could probably tell
you about the risks better than I can.
As a person who knows next to nothing about divorce, I think that there
is always potential for a joint custody situation to turn nasty in
either a legal or personal sense. My recollection is that there was a
lot in that item that could be thrown in John's face, though not
anything that could be made to stick if he had a good lawyer at his
side. You yourself pointed out the possibility that someone might try
to embarrass him with it by showing it to his son. That can be a harder
situation still, because you can't necessarily hire a lawyer to help you
out in a case like that.
Yeah, its not a certainty that it would ever be used to harm John. It
is also far from a certainty that leaving it deleted will cause any harm
to Grex. Maybe I'm "awfulizing" the risk to John, but folks talking
about Grex not being able to defend itself in a law suit if it were
deleted were doing some rather less plausible "awfulizing".
When you say you don't want to complicate a simple issue, what is the
simple issue you have in mind? "This is the rule, so we should always
follow it?" Oh, yes, it's very important not to think when applying
rules. Civilization would collapse if we ever showed any adaptability
in the applications of rules. Grex is all about rules.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 90 of 424:
|
Jan 12 03:35 UTC 2004 |
You missed my point. I agree with the last paragraph and have specically said
if you are making a new exceptions you damn sure better make sure you have
a good reason. Speculation is not a good reason. If you want to argue law then
here's what I propose: Delete all of jep's posts, print them out and have his
lawyer review them. If in the lawyer's opinion those posts could cause jep
harm, then I would agree to the deletion. Anything less than this is an utter
abdication of any concepts of free speech and principled applications or
exceptions to the rules. I will even kick in $50 to defray the cost to jep.
Feel free to match it.
|
jep
|
|
response 91 of 424:
|
Jan 12 05:40 UTC 2004 |
re resp:90: My lawyer charges $200 per hour. There were maybe 2000
responses in the items. I'm not seeking a lawyer's opinion on the
matter because it is not a legal issue.
A court can order Grex to recover the items. If it is possible, the
staff will then be legally obligated to do so, and I am sure they will
comply. I would encourage them to do so. I am not trying to
influence or avoid the legal system.
Many people cautioned me against saying too much in those items,
including (I believe) at least three lawyers on-line. I've
acknowledged many times that I was told not to post so much. I keep
saying "Yes, I was told" and also "I just didn't care", and also, "I
care now". How many times do we have to go over that?
|
naftee
|
|
response 92 of 424:
|
Jan 12 06:01 UTC 2004 |
Just a side note: Not having the items around for "study" as was pointed out
some time ago, does make it a little hard to discuss legal implications,
albeit rather harshly on jep's part.
|
remmers
|
|
response 93 of 424:
|
Jan 12 11:18 UTC 2004 |
I'm pretty much in agreement with what cyklone has to say about this.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 94 of 424:
|
Jan 12 12:43 UTC 2004 |
I missed posting earlier. So am I.
|
naftee
|
|
response 95 of 424:
|
Jan 12 14:02 UTC 2004 |
Me too!
|
slynne
|
|
response 96 of 424:
|
Jan 12 14:09 UTC 2004 |
jep, if you have copies of these items and thus know who else has
responded to them, you may want to consider writing emails to everyone
who responded asking for their permission to delete their responses.
Then, if the vote goes to restore your items, you can still get most of
them deleted. The few comments that would be left probably wouldnt be
very damaging to you. I imagine that most folks would be willing to
allow you to delete their comments. I know I would.
|
gull
|
|
response 97 of 424:
|
Jan 12 16:04 UTC 2004 |
At this point I'm not sure restoring the items would solve anything. To
me the issue isn't the items themselves, it's the decision to remove
them. Putting them back won't change that that decision was made.
|
naftee
|
|
response 98 of 424:
|
Jan 12 16:25 UTC 2004 |
I still have some copies of valerie's responses, in the cache of my web
browser.
|
slynne
|
|
response 99 of 424:
|
Jan 12 16:32 UTC 2004 |
Resp:97 - Nevertheless, no one is planning on jumping into their way
back machine in order to change that.
|
jep
|
|
response 100 of 424:
|
Jan 12 16:59 UTC 2004 |
re resp:96: If my user proposal to keep the items deleted is turned
down, then maybe I'll have to do that.
I really don't want to go through those items again at this time. I
started to do so, before I requested they be deleted, and I stopped
after not long.
|
cross
|
|
response 101 of 424:
|
Jan 12 17:18 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #96; Hey, that was my suggestions!
Regarding #100; You don't have to go through them one by one; you can
use grep and a sufficiently clever regular expression to pick out who
posted to them, if that's all you want to do.
|
janc
|
|
response 102 of 424:
|
Jan 12 17:19 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone says "Delete all of jep's posts, print them out and have his lawyer
review them. If in the lawyer's opinion those posts could cause jep harm,
then I would agree to the deletion".
I'm not clear what you are proposing to show to the lawyer. Only JEP's
posts? The entire item? The item without JEP's posts?
I'm amazed that you would suggest such a thing, and that John Remmers
would agree with it. I don't think I've ever heard any lawyer say
"don't worry, be happy." I think Joe Saul would find in John's favor,
and he's hardly unbiased.
Are you guys saying that if anyone can get a lawyer to say about a
response by another person "that statement may be harmful to my client"
then it could be deleted? I know my arguments are danged persuasive,
but I hardly expected you two guys to jump headlong into the "anybody
should be able to delete anything" camp.
I'm arguing that if you can convince half the membership of Grex that
something is worth deleting, then maybe it's a good idea. No way would
I agree to deleting something just because one lawyer can be found to say
it. That's setting the bar far too low.
|
jp2
|
|
response 103 of 424:
|
Jan 12 17:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 104 of 424:
|
Jan 12 17:47 UTC 2004 |
resp:101 heh. I probably read it and then it took a while to sift
through my brain. ;)
|