Grex Oldcoop Conference

Item 72: Valerie Leaves Discussion Item!

Entered by willcome on Thu Jan 8 07:46:12 2004:

This is the Valerie Leaves Discussion Item!
64 responses total.

#1 of 64 by richard on Thu Jan 8 08:14:55 2004:

Valerie, why are you all of a sudden leaving?  Is it because of that stupid
mnet agora conference item that parodied your baby diary?  Somebody was having
fun and entered responses in a lot of known grexers names.  I for one didn't
even know that item existed until I got your email.

If thats not it, couldn't you at least explain? And why is it necessary to
delete all your posts you've ever made? Suddenly you don't like grex so much
you don't want anyone to know you've ever been here?  what gives?


#2 of 64 by gelinas on Thu Jan 8 12:06:15 2004:

NB:  It looks like her script *is* removing her comments from this conference.
That is a huge loss to us all.  Almost as large as the loss of her.


#3 of 64 by gelinas on Thu Jan 8 12:21:24 2004:

Apparently, it's removing the comments from items linked between this
conference and other conferences. 

Not much sense in reading other conferences until her scripts finish; items
are continually being added to the list of those with "new" responses.


#4 of 64 by willcome on Thu Jan 8 12:31:52 2004:

Yeah, it's basically DoSing the system.  Someone should block the IP address
being used to attack Grex.


#5 of 64 by bhoward on Thu Jan 8 12:39:35 2004:

For once, David, please give it a rest.


#6 of 64 by jep on Thu Jan 8 13:08:16 2004:

I am very sad.


#7 of 64 by scott on Thu Jan 8 13:36:04 2004:

This sucks.


#8 of 64 by gull on Thu Jan 8 14:22:45 2004:

I'm sorry to see valerie leave the system.  I can understand people
getting burned out on being staff, and it sounds like she was feeling
that way long before the recent incident, but I hate to see it progress
to the point where they feel they need to leave the system entirely.


#9 of 64 by cmcgee on Thu Jan 8 15:10:22 2004:

One huge kill for the barbarians.


#10 of 64 by aruba on Thu Jan 8 15:29:34 2004:

I'm sad too.


#11 of 64 by gull on Thu Jan 8 16:01:49 2004:

Re resp:9: I don't think it's all their fault.  Valerie said earlier
that part of the reason she decided to risk killing her own item is that
she no longer cared that much about keeping her staff position.  I think
she was just plain burned out on it.


#12 of 64 by jp2 on Thu Jan 8 16:03:13 2004:

This response has been erased.



#13 of 64 by cross on Thu Jan 8 16:32:33 2004:

It does suck that Valerie has decided to leave grex entirely.


#14 of 64 by naftee on Thu Jan 8 16:38:16 2004:

So sad.


#15 of 64 by krj on Thu Jan 8 17:17:05 2004:

Metaphor: it's like going to the Habitat for Humanity house that you 
were helping to build and pulling out the nails you pounded in.


#16 of 64 by albaugh on Thu Jan 8 17:27:32 2004:

I am sad that valerie felt that she had to / wanted to leave grex, in
apparently every manner.  I know that I have gotten help from her in the past,
as I am sure that others have, and that resource will be missed by all.
And I have to think that deep down, somewhere, valerie is very upset that she
has had to give up grex.

That being said, even though it is her right to scribble everything that she
ever entered, and it is her right not to care what bad effect that will have
on grex, I find that blanket scribble to have been a somewhat childish act.
Especially in fundamentally technical conferences such as info and web.
I think she could have departed with a bit more grace.  However, it was her
right to leave in any manner she wished.


#17 of 64 by cross on Thu Jan 8 18:12:10 2004:

And the garage conference, that was a real loss.


#18 of 64 by mta on Thu Jan 8 19:06:17 2004:

Re resp:11:  I think the reason she was burned out is pretty 
self-evident.  

Still, it is sad.  The end of an era.


#19 of 64 by richard on Thu Jan 8 19:29:28 2004:

I think valerie may be overreacting to that parody item on mnet.  that item
parodied her baby diary.  now maybe she thinks that every thing she ever
posted is ripe for parody so she has to remove them all.  If so, it seems like
a huge overreaction.  

Valerie is one of Grex's founders, and I'm sure Grex would be a different,
lesser, place today had it not had her participation as board and staff
member in its early years. I mean who's been a bigger fan and supporter of
Grex over the years than she has?

Which makes her leaving so publicly, so completely all the more sad and
mystifying.  When you leave that publicly, its like slapping this place in
the face. Like maybe she's hoping other people will follow her example and
abandon the Grex.  She could have left quietly, not even told anyone, but
she didn't.  She left publicly.  She wanted people to know she was
leaving. That implies she's angry and has an agenda. Does she not like
what Grex has become?  Does she wish it was still just a local dialup bbs
for the Ann Arbor community?  

Or is Valerie now saying that she thinks Grex has failed in its purpose,
that Grex can no longer be what she wanted it to be?


#20 of 64 by aruba on Thu Jan 8 19:42:31 2004:

I doubt Grex would exist at all if it weren't for Valerie.  I know I
wouldn't be here.


#21 of 64 by gull on Thu Jan 8 20:06:34 2004:

Re resp:19: I don't know.  Personally, if Grex continues on the current 
path towards allowing users to remove other users' writings that they 
disagree with, I will have considered it a failure.


#22 of 64 by cross on Thu Jan 8 20:23:40 2004:

As will I.


#23 of 64 by jp2 on Thu Jan 8 21:01:52 2004:

This response has been erased.



#24 of 64 by davel on Thu Jan 8 22:13:50 2004:

What cmcgee said.  <SIGH>


#25 of 64 by willcome on Thu Jan 8 22:28:45 2004:

Re. 5:  Valerie's script IS DoSing the system, which has had absurdly high
load averages all day, in addition to being slow.  I don't understand why you
think Valerie should be allowed to attack the resources of a not-for-profit
corporation.


#26 of 64 by naftee on Thu Jan 8 23:02:41 2004:

M-net is older and more mature than GreX, which is clearly populated by
children.


#27 of 64 by willcome on Fri Jan 9 00:43:55 2004:

(and gay fags.)


#28 of 64 by jaklumen on Fri Jan 9 02:49:02 2004:

When you canuckleheads stop jacking off, let me know.

resp:16 I'm seeing the scribbling in the kitchen/cooking conferences.  
I would imagine the mass scribbling is making some past discussions 
look stilted and funny-- and anyone looking back (if they do) will 
never know what she said in those parts.  But I suppose she wished to 
make a complete departure, leaving nothing behind-- with as little 
trace as possible.


#29 of 64 by naftee on Fri Jan 9 05:16:07 2004:

Hey, that's an insult.  THAT"S A COLLECTIVE INSULT. YOU HURT ME WITH THAT
CANADIAN INSULT.


#30 of 64 by bhelliom on Fri Jan 9 15:42:56 2004:

Give a rest folks.  You can discuss policy crap in the item for which it
was intended.

I personally do not think that scribbling everything that she has
written was a childish act.  If I were to leave under such
circumstances, I'd want everything I'd written to be erased.  She wants
a complete break from the syste, and I can't say I blame her.  I doubt
she would have done so if she thought the system would be crippled and
it isn't.  Beyond that I will make no assumptions.  Having said that...

Have some class people, and leave her alone.  She's gone, and she can't
answer for herself.  Speculating about her motives is pointless.


#31 of 64 by mynxcat on Fri Jan 9 15:54:24 2004:

I can see why she would erase all her posts.


#32 of 64 by other on Fri Jan 9 16:27:42 2004:

Personally, I'd rather just erase all the posts of certain other 
users...and then chain those other users into small holes in the 
ground for a few years.


#33 of 64 by bhelliom on Fri Jan 9 17:33:42 2004:

I'm seeing a scene from Monty Python now, Eric.  You meanie!


#34 of 64 by jaklumen on Sat Jan 10 12:38:12 2004:

resp:29 now you notice that I called you canucklehead.  Lots of people 
are canuckleheads.  One's a friend of mine.  Hmm, and I'm an ugly 
American apparently.  But you'll get over it =P


#35 of 64 by naftee on Sat Jan 10 17:07:26 2004:

Just like you'll get over being a GreXer.  Well, you might, but others won't.


#36 of 64 by tod on Sat Jan 10 23:47:00 2004:

This response has been erased.



#37 of 64 by jaklumen on Sun Jan 11 09:56:55 2004:

resp:35 Oh well.


#38 of 64 by tsty on Tue Jan 27 00:12:15 2004:

having caught up, mostly, valerie stated her motives clearly
and concisely in #71.
  
she was no longer willing to leave open the opportunity for her
words to be abused here or elsewhere.
  
in her official capacity/capacities though, (and there are SOOOO many!)
valerie maintained her thoughts. very adult quality, that.
  
i will miss her.


#39 of 64 by albaugh on Tue Jan 27 16:33:26 2004:

It was done childishly, and it was done to grex, which was not where the
dreaded parody items were created.


#40 of 64 by styles on Wed Jan 28 03:39:42 2004:

yes, how dreaded. :(


#41 of 64 by sarahlee on Mon Feb 2 14:58:41 2004:

Valerie has every right to do whatever she likes with her own words.
When I joined Grex, there was nothing saying I would have to give up
rights to my words on Grex. In the absence of such a contract, everyone
here owns what they write. If the majority of Grexers object, then the
rules need to be officially changed to reflect that. 
In Valerie's place, I would have done the exact same thing.


#42 of 64 by tod on Mon Feb 2 18:18:51 2004:

This response has been erased.



#43 of 64 by twinkie on Mon Feb 2 18:52:11 2004:

re: 41

Do you realize you've just argued against yourself?



#44 of 64 by albaugh on Mon Feb 2 19:55:28 2004:

I think the saying "but nobody doesn't like sarahlee" was just proven wrong...


#45 of 64 by jp2 on Mon Feb 2 20:01:50 2004:

This response has been erased.



#46 of 64 by witzbolt on Mon Feb 2 20:37:20 2004:

i'm ejaculating on your tits.


#47 of 64 by twinkie on Mon Feb 2 20:56:20 2004:

Witzbolt, you're invited too. The Twinkie Conference could use more tits and
ejaculation.



#48 of 64 by witzbolt on Mon Feb 2 21:10:46 2004:

You are an observer of this conference.You are an observer of this
conference.You are an observer of this conference.You are an observer of this
conference.You are an observer of this conference.You are an observer of this
conference.You are an observer of this conference.You are an observer of this
conference.You are an observer of this conference.You are an observer of this
conference.You are an observer of this conference.


#49 of 64 by naftee on Mon Feb 2 21:50:32 2004:

jp2 is m-net's AMBER ASS ADORE


#50 of 64 by jmsaul on Wed Feb 4 23:51:58 2004:

Re #41:  The problem was that her items also contained other people's words.
         Nobody here would have objected if she only removed her own words,
         because as you say she has the right to do whatever she wants with
         them.

         However -- other people have the same rights she does, and we didn't
         want our words deleted.


#51 of 64 by sarahlee on Sat Feb 7 21:20:28 2004:

I'm saying that I may do whatever I wish with my own words. I'm also
saying the creator of an item may delete my words if s/he chooses to
delete the entire item. S/he may not selectively go through an item and
delete my posts, and no one else's, without my permission. I think that
is totally reasonable.
Aren't items deleted all the time, or at least with some regularity? Why
weren't they an issue?


#52 of 64 by naftee on Sat Feb 7 21:35:40 2004:

Because they are usually deleted with a warning and with input from the public


#53 of 64 by boltwitz on Sat Feb 7 21:57:10 2004:

And they aren't deleted regularly.


#54 of 64 by jmsaul on Sun Feb 8 07:01:50 2004:

Re #51:  A lot of people don't agree that the person who starts an item
         should have the right to delete the entire item.  Once others have
         posted, the item is a group work, and is not their property any
         more.

         And no, they aren't deleted with any regularity.


#55 of 64 by naftee on Sun Feb 22 23:14:00 2004:

I THINK WE SHOULD START A NEW TREND GUYS ::  SCRIBBLE YOUR OLD RESPONSES_ THEN
RE-POST THEM!   HEREL:  I'LL START IN THE NEXT ITEM.


#56 of 64 by naftee on Sun Feb 22 23:17:50 2004:

GUYS'  SOMEONE TELL ME AN AUTOMATED METHOD


#57 of 64 by rational on Mon Feb 23 00:58:38 2004:

MOIDIFY VALERIE"S SCRIBBLE PROGRAMME


#58 of 64 by naftee on Sun Feb 6 08:52:15 2005:

WHOA> YEAH< DO IT


#59 of 64 by scholar on Sun Feb 6 18:12:18 2005:

UNLUCKY!


#60 of 64 by jesuit on Wed May 17 02:14:33 2006:

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE


#61 of 64 by gelinas on Sat Nov 18 02:19:26 2006:

Looks like it is in fronttalk:

} Ok: part other
} 
} 
}      other Fri Nov 17 12:24:35 2006 Eric the Plush
} 
} 1 participant total.
} 
} Ok: part spooked
} 
}    loginid        last time on      name
} 
}    spooked Fri Nov 17 20:21:23 2006 Michelangelo Giansiracusa
} 
} 1 participant total.
} 
} Ok:


#62 of 64 by spooked on Sat Nov 18 03:01:58 2006:

Another good reason to move to modern, open-source software.



#63 of 64 by kingjon on Sat Nov 18 18:29:46 2006:

My dad (a former staff member) wrote me an email:

> (It's been a few years, but I *think* that the way the part command worked
> in picospan was not by checking whether one had posted, but by scanning
> all users' directories for a participation file for the particular
> conference.
> It was hideously slow, IIRC.  And if the file was in a directory without
> proper permissions, it wouldn't report it.  I could be wrong, but that's
> my memory of how it worked.)



#64 of 64 by spooked on Sat Nov 18 21:56:03 2006:

It's a poor implementation - regardless of its intended purpose.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: