1 new of 424 responses total.
I keep reading comments like "the harm to jep from reinstating his items, even with his posts deleted. is far greater than the harm to others." Yet know one seems to have any real evidence in support of this premise. For those of us who disagree, we have been denied access to the very text that will enable us to make an informed evaluation as to which position is correct. I swear Grex is beginning to look more and more like the Bush administration, with such "trust me when I tell you about that which you cannot be allowed to know" positions. What I seem to recall, and now cannot confirm, is that jep was cautioned more than once about what he was doing in terms of publishing his thoughts and feelings. Now he says " But those items mean something else, too. I wouldn't have entered them, or at least wouldn't have said as much in them, if I'd had appropriate concern for what might come of them some day. I just *didn't care*. It seems to me to be pretty harsh to force someone to have something remain when it was created under those types of circumstances." What jep calls "harsh" others might call "expected results." I guess he is essentially saying that he was temporarily insane and should therefore be allowed to avoid potentially difficult consequences arising from that insanity. I question that premise as well. There is a lot of "awfulizing" going on here, which is a sign of some pretty distorted thinking. So what if his son someday finds out his dad was distraught over his divorce and that he cared very much about his son. This is not about protecting jep from legal liability. This is apparently about making it easier for jep to avoid a difficult talk with his son. I say deal with it. Jep is going to have to have lots of hard talks with his son if he is to truly be a good father. The remote possibility of one more such conversation should not be creating this kind of controversy. So once again we are back to the real issues: grex wants a warm fuzzy amd therefore favors a feel-good approach instead of free speech. This means that faced with a hard choice, Grex decides to give extreme weight to the feelings of a favored user over all others who could possibly benefit from the words people *other than jep* posted. This is total and utter BS. I like jep, and wish him no harm. However, I do not think he is acting maturely when he causes this kind of harm with such weak justification. Again, I see no liability issues. I see a man too cowardly or embarassed to face the *extrememely remote* possibility he may have to tell his son "we all make mistakes. I make them too. Here's what I learned from this one." Please reconsider jep. This does not reflect well upon you at all.
You have several choices: