1 new of 357 responses total.
Re #257: "Evidence Tampering: destroying records that have not been requested is not a crime, last I heard. We are always free to destroy our own coments, and jep's are the only ones that really provide any 'evidence' of wrong-doing." Great. So now you ADMIT that removing jep's words removes the harm to him. In that case, what is your basis for deleting the words of others? My dictionary defines censorship as the act of removing things that are objectionable. Jep apparently feels that at least some of the posts in his item were objectionable, on the grounds his son might become aware of them. Care to try again? "Free Speech: Words were written. These words had their desired effect, or as much of it as possible, at the time. That's free speech. Removing the words later does not diminish their original, and intended, effect." Now you are really stretching. Words only have effect for as long as they are there to be seen and heard. No one posted with any intent of an expiration date being applied. I intended my words to have an effect for all who read them, WHENEVER THEY READ THEM. Deleting them prevents this and my words *are* diminished. Your argument about who owns the words is utterly specious. Point me to a single written policy or even a staff decision that implies a person on grex does not "own" his words. Your failure to do so will show your argument has no merit whatsoever. Indeed, the vote to allow permanent scribbling shows a recent affirmation by grex to allow the poster ultimate control over his or her words. To those who think I am "awfulizing" by saying deletions undermine grex's professed dedication to free and uncensored speech, I would simply note the obvious: when you are perceived as hypocrites who toss away your professed values to do personal favors for favored persons, then your reputation is damaged. What I am picking up from some posters is that you care more about your "feel-good" reputation rather than any principled commitment to free and uncensored speech and having a reputation for supporting same. Fine, ya'll have to live with yourselves. Just don't presnt a different face to the ACLU next time it needs a plaintiff. Finally, the argument that restoration is not "feasible" if many people delete their posts volunatorily begs a number of questions. How do you know this? Does your crystal ball tell you that Joe Divorce Candidate will come looking for the item jep wished was here at the beginning of his divorce and will get NOTHING AT ALL out of what remains? Do you even know for sure what will remain? The theory of the marketplace of ideas suggests that indviduals must decide for themselves what words have value and which do not. Yet you now claim to make that decision for people you don't know and haven't even met. How very paternalistic of you. BTW, that attitude backs you right into proving my claim of censorship, since you are now deciding that "Item A minus X% of content" is not worthy of disemmination. You are now appointing yourselves de facto editors and making decisions on content that others should be free to make themselves by reading or not reading what posts remain. How very Big Brotherish of you.
You have several choices: