This morning I got a campaign e-mail from Valerie urging me to vote against the pending member proposal to undelete the baby diary item. I don't know how large the target audience for this e-mail was. I vaguely remember a controversy last year over the sending of mass e-mails. I don't know if this one falls into the same category. This e-mail had two senders. One was valerie@unixmama.com. The other was jv@auddo.pair.com. Was sending this e-mail a violation of any Grex policy or practice? Regardless of any policy or practice, would it have been better if Valerie had stuck to posting items for discussion instead?184 responses total.
The message I received was sent to my grex account from outside of grex. So no, this doesn't fall into the category of "mass mail sent from grex", nor was it a violation of Grex policy. I would prefer it not become a regular practice, though. As for your second question, I can only suggest taking that up with her directly.
This response has been erased.
If the email wasn't sent *to* you, it wasn't intended *for* you.
re #0 i got one too, it was not from grex and not to grex. i don't see any problems with it. re #2 heh, from the same person who sent me a campaign e-mail for BoD. like #3 says, it's not for you.
I sent Valerie a campaign E-mail.
I'll post it here:
Oh, wait, I just remembered:
I didn't save a copy.
You're more than welcome to ask Valerie for one.
This response has been erased.
The human known on grex as valerie or popcorn is certainly entitled to lobby whomever she wishes via whatever means she can devise re: this vote. I already expressed my recommendation for a *YES* vote in item #75. I think that knowing about her lobbying reinforces my feelings on why the proposal should be passed.
This response has been erased.
Well, emotional arguments not based on fact, policy or precedent CAN be persuasive. If an argument makes sense to me, I don't have to vote against it just because you tell me that my reasoning doesn't make sense to you.
Her message didn't contain any information that would be new to anyone who reads co-op. It was just a recounting of the personal content of the item and her discovery that it was being parodied on mnet.
"personal favors for favored persons"
(I've yet to see much real logic from jp2. Lots of emtion *claiming* to be logic, but no logic.)
I received a copy of the mail and assumed it was sent to all members. As far as I know, there was no policy violation - "mass mail" is a problem if it taxes systems resources, but I think this was done in such a way as to void that.
This response has been erased.
remmers locked your account?!
(That's the difference a choice in machinery can make.)
> assumed it was sent to all members I am quite certain that is not the case.
Well, the thing was plainly not addressed to me personally. The list of who is a Grex member is public, isn't it?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
My voting was influenced by the fact that Valerie is a nice person who has done a lot for grex, probably much of it beyond the call of duty. I would much rather just have lost the items and not Valerie with them.
*sigh* my vote was influenced by valerie's online personality as well. *sigh*
This response has been erased.
Personal favors for favored persons!
I'm curious as to the "Subject" field of the e-mail sent to at least some of grex's members (it seems).
The subject was "a request"
This response has been erased.
> Date: 29 Jan 2004 05:45:09 -0000 > From: valerie@unixmama.com > To: xxxxxxxxxxxx@cyberspace.org > Subject: a request > Hello. I'm writing with a request that is very important to me. > I deleted my online baby diary from Grex. There is a vote that has > just started, to undelete it, against my wishes. Please, even if > you haven't used Grex in a long time, I urge you to log in and vote > to leave the baby diary deleted. The vote also includes John Perry's > divorce diary, which I deleted at his request, and which he wishes > to also stay deleted. I encourage you to log in and vote to leave all > these items deleted. My baby diary items contain lots of personal > information about me and my children that I no longer wish to be > posted on the Internet. Even if my items are restored without my > postings, my baby diary items are still all about me and my children, > and the other people's postings are full of my personal information > that I no longer wish to have posted. > > Here are the details of what happened: Back in 1997, I started > keeping an online baby diary on Grex, logging many personal details > of pregnancy, the births of my children, and many details of raising > them, and about my personal life. I originally posted it because > I thought people who hadn't experienced pregnancy and childbirth > might be interested to read about these things. I figured that > since it was located in a back corner of Grex, the only people who > would wade through my baby diary were people who were interested > enough in parenting to wade through hundreds of postings about messy > diapers and other topics of interest only to people who were truly > interested in parenting issues, and also to people who were very > patient friends of mine who wanted to keep up with my life. > > A few weeks ago, I discovered that a parody of my baby diary had > been running on M-Net for the past 2 1/2 years, without my knowledge. > (If you would like to see it, it's item 39 in the "Agora" conference > on M-Net.) Some of the postings there are funny, some are nasty. > Finding the parody explained a lot about why the real baby diary > had, in the past 2 1/2 years, acquired a number of people who didn't > really seem to be interested in parenting, as you could tell by > their postings. They were visiting my baby diary to acquire > material to parody on M-Net, or better yet to post my words verbatim > and laugh about how outrageous or personal the information was. > The rules of the parody game in M-Net's Agora conference say that > anything posted anywhere on Grex is open to parodying. There is > no way to opt out of being parodied. That is, if you post anything > on Grex, the people in M-Net's Agora conference take it as an open > invitation to parody you. I wished to opt out. So I deleted my > baby diary. I used my Grex staff access to do it, just as I would > have done for any user of Grex who asked staff to delete an item that > was full of his or her personal information that they no longer wanted > to have online. > > When I deleted the baby diaries, someone started a discussion > in the co-op conference, claiming that my deletion of the baby > diaries was "root abuse". User jp2 started a vote, this vote that > I am writing to you about, to undelete the baby diaries. His > reasoning is that since there were other people's words in the baby > diaries, he claims it was censorship for me to delete their words > without their permission. I find this claim bizarre. The information > in those baby diaries is all about me and my children. If someone > else had posted my credit card numbers, it would clearly be appropriate > to delete that posting, because it contained my personal information. > Most of the postings in the baby diaries are likewise all about my > personal information. I no longer wish to have this personal > information online. > > So, if you would log in to Grex and vote "no" on proposal "A", > I would very much appreciate it. > > To vote, log in to Grex, and, type !vote from a menu, or > vote from a shell prompt. Then follow the menus from there. > > -Valerie
re 19 All campaigning is a form of disinformation. This just happens to be a bitch doing it.
She's basically saying "gee, I really meant to have a vanity conference like the one twinkie has on mnet but I forgot to warn the posters ahead of time that I was the dictator. Please approve my coup." Which is pretty much what jep is doing as well.
I have a vanity conference here, too.
I'm just trying to move past a part of my life it's time to put behind me. At various times in my life, I've wanted to do that. I expect everyone past a certain age has felt that way, some time in their life. I've wished, more than once, I could help someone else to get over something. It's not always possible to do that. This time it is, and I am asking the users of Grex to do that for me.
I've gotten to a point where I've pretty much shrugged my shoulders and said, "whatever" when that's been the case with me. People will think what they want to think-- I cannot change that. I'll turn around and forget the crap in the past as best I can; if they can't, hmm, oh well.
re32: you shudda thought-a that before you posted.
YOU CAN'T TAKE BACK WHAT YOU SAID.
But sometimes, the saying is part of the moving on.
This response has been erased.
Re #33: Very well put. Others could benefit from a similar attitude. Re #32: As long as you are focused on trying to control others, rather than yourself, you are kidding yourself if you think you are putting anything behind you. See #33 and #34. Maturity is accepting your mistakes and moving on. Attempting a cover-up is not. How very Nixonian of you.
I think jep is saying he was suffering from temporary insanity when he posted certain things, and would prefer not to worry about being convicted for them.
I really don't think Grex should be allowing one user to have another user's text removed because of fears that what was said could aid in his being convicted of a crime. Is that what you're suggesting we should do, Sindi?
This response has been erased.
jep committed a crime?! Oh boy
I was not suggesting anything, Mary. I was making guesses as to jep's state of mind.
I'm not trying to control anyone else. I guess it sounds dramatic to you to keep repeating your disinformation, cyklone. I am trying to affect only my own life. There is some small affect on others, but this clearly affects me to a far greater extent than it does everyone else on Grex combined. You hide behind your pseudo, and apparently hid behind another one two years ago. You come from another system, having almost no interest in Grex other than to force your "principles" on me. You then scream inaccurately about how "Nixonian" and "controlling" I am. Uh... a little self-examination might be in order for you. I am controlling my life.
hahaha...'the EEEEEVIL OTHER SYSTEMME'
Re #43: What you call "controlling my life" seems to include controlling others as well. As for my interest in Grex, go read my item in agora and maybe you will know the facts a little better. BTW, the principles you claim I am trying to "force" on you are not just mine but the principles grex professed to be upholding when it agreed to cooperate with the ACLU. I personally don't care if grex wants to do personal favors for favored persons at the expense of free and uncensored speech. Ya'll can have your little sandbox to play in, and I'll join the reindeer games elsewhere. Grex's credibility is at stake, and if ya'll want to be hypocrites, be my guest.
This response has been erased.
Did you steal a page from aaron's "How To Argue With Leeron" book?
No he just asked you..."HOW TO BE AS GAY AS POSSIBLE".
This response has been erased.
Exactly; just like leeron.
re 48 Naftee, nobody is questioning whether you've stolen my act or not.
Stealing one of your acts would be about the stupidest thing someone could do. But then again, that's why you thought of it. If we can even call those actions "thinking" in the traditional sense.
Re resp:45: Grex's claim to the ACLU was that we'd be forced to shut down. It didn't really have much to do with the system's commitment to free speech. Maybe you shouldn't pretend to know better than the rest of us about stuff that happened before you came here. I'm getting really tired of people who come to Grex from other systems just to have fun gaming the system, trolling, and tormenting staff. I wish they'd go back to shitting in their own back yard and stop shitting in ours.
While I was in fact on grex regularly at the time of the ACLU discussion, I admit to not knowing the details. However, I doubt it would have been interested in grex if it was aware of the present policy of personal favors for favored persons at the expense of free and uncensored speech. I could of course be wrong, but that does not make the hypocrisy disappear.
I have some history with M-Net myself, some involvement with it's past, and some concern about it. I certainly don't consider it to be an insult to be an M-Netter. However, I have been an active Grexer, too. I've been involved here, and when I express a concern for Grex, it is on behalf of Grex, in the interest of improving Grex, so that it will be better for myself as well as others. I have pointed out that probably most of the discussion against my proposal is from people who have little other involvement with Grex than trying to control it. Jp2 is one such; a highly unusual case in that he actually ran for the Board without much other involvement here. Naftee and polytarp are two more, and cyklone, you're another. It's wonderful for you to have principles, I am sure. It's puzzling when they extend so far as to areas (Grex, I mean) about which you haven't got much other concern. It's foolish for you to call me "controlling" under the circumstances of this discussion. As far as what you've said in Agora, it is not of interest to me. Is that the Agora on M-Net, or Grex, by the way? As far as personal favoritism... it is true that people here may regard what I say in a different light than what someone says whom they don't know, or have known only recently. I've been here since Grex first came on-line. Most Grexers have had ample opportunity to know me at my best and my worst, and the many stages in between. I have said things that disgust, disappoint, frustrate, horrify and anger many people here. I have also said things that entertain them, contribute to their arguments, or perhaps even enlighten them a little, from time to time. I care about some Grexers, and some of them care about me. I don't think it would be an improvement if they treated me the same way as someone who just ran 'newuser' for the first time today. I think it would be silly. Not that it matters what I think; they are not going to do it. No one in all of human experience treats people they don't know the same as those they do know. I am not asking for a policy change. I am asking for a favor, and asking for recognition of unusual circumstances. I have said exactly that since I asked for the users to authorize my items to remain deleted.
I think it's unfortunate that you'd dismiss valid points out of hand, simply because you're able to produce "street cred". Admittedly, my knowledge of Grex history is mostly anecdotal, but I'm still reasonably sure that a tenet of Grex has been to allow everyone an equal opportunity to direct the system's future. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that was the larger reason Grex came to fruition. At what point does a person earn the right to say that something's wrong, or that change is needed? And at what point does a person gain the right to trump the suggestions of others? Personally, I have little (if any) stake in Grex. I've been a user on and off for probably a decade now, give or take a few months. Does that longevity earn me a place at the table of elders? (Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question) Either way, as something of an outsider looking in, there seems to be varying degrees of hypocrisy on both sides. One side is all but chanting "Do as I say, not as I do." while some of the others who are championing free speech as an absolute are themselves guilty of raising a stink to have their works deleted. I don't think either side is inherently right here. If the items are restored, there's almost certainly going to be some emotional duress to a few users. If they're wiped from the digital ether forever, the concept of speech without censorship is damaged. It really boils down to what you care more about. You're voting for a friend, or you're voting for your principles.
This response has been erased.
Re. 55: I have no interest in controlling Grex, and I think you should appologise for pretending you think I do.
Re. 57: AHAH< YEAH< IF YOU THINK JPTHOMAS IS HALF OF M_NET<> AHAHA.
b&
re 55 What, you're calling me the control freak? You're the one who's making _specific_ requests of GreX users to do _specific_ actions. I have merely demanded action on supposed GreXer principles. re 57 Yeah I have reasonably steady posters on my wall too. Does that count?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:63: There's a certain group of people who have come here with no interest in contributing anything to the system; they're only here to make trouble, by arguing about obscure points of policy, repeatedly posting large amounts of irrelevent text in conferences, and abusing staff members. I see no reason we have to welcome people like that, anymore than a coffeehouse would have to welcome people who came there to shout obscenities at patrons.
What bugs me about this whole "Grex MUST xxx, because that's what it claims to support" argument is that it pretty much would prevent Grex from being a community. One thing a healthy community can do is occasionally cut people a little slack. Places that demand 100% compliance with some set of principles, no matter how well-intentioned, will eventually schism over differences in interpretation or in realization by some that the principles cannot be considered perfect. I don't think a community can be based on "you must assume that EVERYTHING you say will be hoarded in case it becomes useful as evidence against you". Nobody can really live up to that standard. And I would rather not have Grex become like M-Net, where you have a community of people for whom online interaction means creating a persona that isn't real but is instead meant for a game of humorous insults.
re 64 No, we only abuse former staff members. re 65 Your idea of what m-net is like is rather humourous, but completely false.
I agree strongly with scott in #65.
re: 65 Kristallnacht was also cohesive community thinking. Okay, okay, that's more than a little extreme. Honestly though, what's the point of claiming to support something, when you're not prepared to support it? I think a lot of people are surprised to see responses deleted en masse after the somewhat recent debate over whether a person can permanently scribble one of their own responses. It's unconscionable that so many people would object to someone wanting to do something as simple as remove their posts, yet many of the same objectors are willing to write a free pass to friends who want to destry their posts, as well as the contributions of others. Perhaps I'm misreading here, but it seems to me that the objection isn't as much to popcorn and jep wanting to scribble their posts. The objection is to the hundreds (thousands?) of others who were *not* willing to have their writings arbitrarily censored, yet had their contributions forcibly removed. Although you don't want Grex to become another M-Net, allowing this could quite possibly be the most M-Netish thing Grex has ever done. And I'm not talking about M-Net today, but M-Net before 1995. You're sowing the seeds of favoritism, separate classes of users, and blatant staff abuse. If those hallmarks haven't made M-Net what it is today, I don't know what has. Rather than view the handful of M-Netters here as dictating "You must be like M-Net!", try looking at them as people trying to warn you "Don't be like M-Net." If you're a sci-fi fan, pretend they've come from 2014 to tell you what Grex looks like in the future. While I don't necessarily agree with your broad generalization of M-Net's community atmosphere, there is a certain degree of truth there. To some (perhaps many), there is solace in simply knowing that Grex is an alternative. I can't speak for others, but I can say that that's why I've bothered to post about this. You have a community. Don't screw it up.
Re 68: Ignoring your Nazi comparison... "Honestly though, what's the point of claiming to support something, when you're not prepared to support it?" There's a difference between supporting something and rigidly insisting that everything done by everybody must match that something 100%... and on top of that demanding that everything must be documented as official policy.
I think there's a difference between the definition of Grex's principles as seen by Grex non-participants, as opposed to the applied principles of actual Grexers. re resp:56: There's no conflict between having principles, and helping out another person, unless your principles are pretty whacked. If your principles are so rigid that there's no room for any variation, no matter what, then there's something wrong with your principles, and with you. It's like having a principle of self-sufficiency, to the point where you will never assist another person. That's not a principle of self-sufficiency; it's a policy of disassociation. That isn't to say that, if you don't vote for my proposal, your principles are by definition wrong. You might just think my request hasn't got enough merit to be worth supporting, but that someone else's similar request might. Or you might think the remains of those items would still be worth preserving, and oppose my proposal on those grounds. But to oppose my proposal because of a principle that, once entered on Grex, all text must be preserved forever and there must never be any deviation from that, no matter what... which is what a few people have said, directly... that is the sort of view which causes me to put the word "principle" in quotation marks.
My principles are rigid and there's nothing wrong with them.
Nice way to blur the issues, jep. I don't think anyone has said "all text must be preserved forever and there must never be any deviation from that, no matter what" so it is blatantly dishonest for you to says as much. Stolen credit card numbers cannot remain posted forever, for instance. That is far different from what happened in your case. You did not come to the membership and ask people to voluntarily agree to to your request. You sought and suceeded in imposing your will on many people who had no idea what you had done on your behalf could possibly be permitted on a system that claims to support free and uncensored speech. You then failed to justify your extraordinary action with anything other than "the item bothered me and I wanted it to go away." If that is in fact the new standard, at least for favored grexers, then grex should be ashamed to even mention free speech as a core principle or tenet of the system. You've lowered your standards to an ad hoc system with no guiding principles to provide any sort of predictability or understanding in the future. This is also why those ranting about not wanting to have rigid adherence to "principles" miss the point. If you want to have exceptions, fine. Just spell them out ahead of time or at least identify the factors that should be considered when a similar issue arises again. Welcome to Grex: Where some grexers are more equal than others.
re: 69 Ignoring you ignoring where I basically said to ignore the Nazi reference... "There's a difference between supporting something and rigidly insisting everything done by everybody must match that something 100%" And that difference is what, exactly? "I support free speech, unless one of my friends wants to chill it."? "I support the rights bestowed upon others, unless it makes someone with the appropriate history on this system uncomfortable."? "I support the concept of a free and open system, unless someone gets upset about how the freedom and openness is applied in ways they don't expect."? I can understand the various shades of grey in a statement like "Chocolate ice cream is the best. I support chocolate ice cream." But we're really not talking about issues that can be taken so subjectively. How can there be a grey area in "promoting free speech"? Why do you think conferencing software doesn't allow a non-fw to tamper with the responses of others?
Conferencing software does what its _author_ thinks is right, to the best of the author's programming ability. It was not handed down from on high, as the be-all and end-all of human computer-mediated interaction. Or do you _really_ think that it is right and proper that personal computers crash and otherwise lose and destroy their user's work at irregular but frequent intervals? After all, they do it so often that *must* be the way it is supposed to be. twinkie, you *know* there are limits to freedom of speech. You *know* there are limits to the openness of any system. To pretend otherwise is to demean your argument. The question is not, "Are there limits?" The question is, "What are the limits?" By the way, different packages will have different features. For example, IIRC, Confer II _did_ allow the item author to delete the item, at any time.
re 74 Hey guess what? The conferencing systems in use also allow someone else to delete items. That user is.....THE FAIRWITNESS. Yes, that's right, they're people with a special responsibility, and unlike scandalous staff members, are expected to report their actions. That's why it's less likely for them to commit acts of censorship, _and that's why we have them_. It's interesting to note that jep did indeed report valerie's actions on the items he entered, when valerie kept it secret from GreX. Does he deserve something for reporting his crime after the fact? Maybe he thought someone would eventually discover that too. I'd like to know your reasoning, jep.
This response has been erased.
re: 74 The author creates software that people want. Clearly the functionality is designed to reflect what the vast majority of the user base wants. A diatribe about stability is nothing more than a red herring. Sure, there are limits to free speech. The old "yelling 'fire' in a movie theater" comes to mind. But we're not talking about that sort of free speech. We're talking about what's really nothing short of revisionism. I'm not saying the deletion is akin to yelling "fire!" where there's no fire. I'm saying it's like Dr. King deciding that he didn't really mean it when he said he had a dream, and demanding that every reference to August 28th 1963 be wiped from history, along with anyone who ever wrote anything based on or inspired by it. Civil rights activists had a right to say "I quite liked it", Klan members had a right to say "I hated it", et cetera. Obviously, jep and popcorn are not on the same social or literary plateaus as the good Doctor, but I think you can see the point here. And yes, there are limits to the openness of an open system. Nobody's suggesting that Grex pass out root access to people. If anything, people are asking that the openness be limited. They're asking that it be closed to the extent that their contributions not be arbitrarily deleted. They're asking that access be limited to prevent those with enhanced access from chilling their right to post, and have their posts seen. There's so much talk about community, that many are losing sight of what community is. Be it Grex or M-Net, the community is the content. Users come and go from both systems, but the content endures. The content is the foundation of the community, and the content is the basis for newcomers to easily integrate in to the community. Without the content, you have nothing but a handful of people who go on GrexWalk. The instability of the content that exists, and the content that has yet to be posted, is inherently in danger. By allowing the deletions to take place, you're setting precedent. You're saying that years, months, even days from now, Dave can decide that he really didn't like entering this item, because it made people feel bad that they didn't get e-mail from Valerie. The precedent thus far dictates that if Dave has root access (or knows someone who does), he is well within his rights to delete this item (or have it deleted). And at this point, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell him otherwise? Who here is willing to say "That's okay for Valerie Mates and John Perry, but it's not okay for Dave Cahill."? After all, he's just as established here as anyone else. Consider the ramifications of that happening. Consider future members who may want a historical perspective, but would be denied that by the whim of a single user. You can't say "Well, this item carries more weight than Valerie's diary, or John's ordeal, so it must be preserved." without getting on a *very* slippery slope of determining the merit of one's posts. Is that worthwhile to you?
This response has been erased.
We are more in agreement than you might think, twinkie. There is no precedent. Someone did something, yes, but a substantial number of people have agreed that doing that thing was wrong. The membership is deciding whether that thing should be undone. However the vote goes, though, one thing is very clear: people don't like the idea of deleting other people's text. Even if the text is not restored, the sense of the community has been taken: Delete Items At Your Peril. I had occasion to ask Marcus about his philosophy and picospan. He noted that he should eventually drop in and offer his perspective. I don't think it is any where near as deterministic as you seem to.
Oh, so even though you *think* that most of the people (who knows, maybe future members) are in disagreement with what jep/valerie did, you're still going to let a small number of people who happen to have a membership now have the only say in this matter, and then go along and say it don't mean much? Wow, that's messed up.
That's the way voting goes, naftee. Those eligible to make the decsion make it.
At the expense of the bylaws and human rights?!
for this lowlow price.
Next they"ll be selling services!
Gelinas says "The question is not, "Are there limits?" The question is, "What are the limits?"" Could *someone* please answer the last question? Some on grex want to do personal favors for favored persons but no one seems to want to answer the obvious question. There's an elephant in the living room people. Deal with it.
We are in the process of answering that question, cyklone.
re: 79 There most certainly is precedent. Otherwise, the items would have been restored. If polytarp or naftee found a way to start deleting items, would you hold their restoration to a membership vote? Something tells me you'd join a chorus of users decrying them as "vandals". (Apologies to polytarp and naftee, but you're the bad boys du jour here) I didn't mean to suggest that Marcus was the end-all-be-all voice of how conferencing systems operate. Either I wasn't clear about that, or you misinterpreted what I said. Though, I'd be quite interested in his take on it.
This response has been erased.
Re 87: If polytarp or naftee found a way to delete items? First off it would depend on whether it was items they themselves had entered, if there's to be a comparison to Valerie's deletions. But taking a broader case... we would know that polytarp/nagtee are indeed "bad boys", to use your term. There is nothing in our policies or principles that says that Grex cannot have memory, that every single case must assume that the people involved are completely new to Grex. I suppose you'll start making the usual complaint about "favorites" again, but again I think you are trying to prevent Grex from being a community by insisting on rigid interpretation of (in this case) an essential imaginary rule: that no matter how obnoxious a user becomes, they are merely expressing "free speech".
Re resp:68: I'm amused by the claim that "hundreds of people" posted to those items, much less thousands. You make a good argument otherwise, but rein in the hyperbole a bit. ;> Re resp:85: No, people aren't ignoring the question. That's what the vote's for. Also, while it can be argued that the deletion of jep's items set a precident, there's another vote coming up that may totally change that. That's how things work here; we vote on stuff. If you're expecting that if you debate hard enough, you can win by fiat regardless of how the vote comes out, you're wrong. Re resp:87: If naftee or polytarp started deleting items, it'd mean they'd hacked someone else's account. That's a totally different situation.
That's what you think, bad boy.
re resp:76: What I was saying in resp:70 is that principles which are so rigid and inflexible they fail to, or cannot, accommodate varying circumstances are not good principles. The purpose of moral principles is to guide your actions, to provide yourself with guidelines for making better decisions and actions. If your principles force you into taking bad actions, then your principles are wrong. They're dysfunctional. If holding to your principles forces you to taking actions you know to be wrong, then they're not even principles at all. They're rules. Also, they're an inherent problem, not any kind of solution. They may be more or less of a problem, depending on whether they provide you with more good answers or more bad ones. In the case of the deleted items, I think you ought to be looking at the amount of good done overall, versus the amount of harm. It's a value judgement. I tell you there has been great value to me in having my two items deleted. I've cited some of why; I've been misquoted a lot about it but I've given a lot of explanation. So then, is it worth it to Grex to take that away from me? I think that's the question a thoughtful voter has to answer. If your answer is, "I think Grex's principles are that this sort of thing can never be done, period", well, I guess that's your right, but I think you're missing something.
My position on this at the moment is that the items should be restored. It was not an easy decision for me to come by. I guess I just dont think it is ok to give some people control over another person's words here...even if that someone is a little asshole like jp2 and the person who wants to do the deleting is someone I would like to give preferential treatment to like jep. Values dont mean anything unless they get applied to everyone equally. With that said, I also dont think there is a problem with providing special favors for special people so I will agree to allow either valerie or jep to delete/scribble any posts I made in those items. While I dont feel comfortable giving them power over other people's words, I do feel it is appropriate to give up control over my own words in this case.
This response has been erased.
This might've been asked and answered already, but just so I don't have to read the whole thing... Why can't the items be restored, but with valerie's responses all deleted? People delete their own responses all the time and nobody cares.
That's what the vote is on, md: do we restore the items Valerie deleted?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Try to keep up there, Michael. ;-) Valerie doesn't just want her responses removed. She wants everyone's responses gone because they are about her, and her family, and her children. John likewise doesn't want just his comments removed but those of everyone else in the discussion, because what others have said may hurt him in the future. This is going to set some interesting precedent.
This response has been erased.
re: 89 What difference does it make if they hacked someone's account or not? It's not as though Valerie had any more permission to do what she did than anyone else had. Access != permission. re: 90 I should have used "responses" instead of people. I doubt Grex has "hundreds" let alone "thousands" of active BBS participants.
i'm ejaculating on your tits.
Re #86: I see know evidence that grex is in the process of determining when it is appropriate to personal favors for favored persons. So far all I am seeing is an adhocracy in which anyone can make a proposal and allow a vote, no matter how ridiculous the requests. As mary correctly notes, you *are* setting a precedent and I have not seen one substantive discussion of how this will be treated as a precedent and whether future requests will be via the same process. At the very least, it seems to me the standard should be that the "default" is that users control their own words. Certainly that has been the general rule in the past. To create an exception to that principle there should be some sort of criteria to be met to justify the exception. In case ya'll haven't noticed, I have asked for good reasons to jusitify the exceptions. I've asked jep to point me to old posts of his where his thoughts are explained coherently. He hasn't done so. He has said it has nothing to do with legal implications. He says he wished a similar item was available to him. He says he doesn't want to have to explain anything to his son. As I mentioned elsewhere, that cat is out of the bag. His son will end up finding these coop items instead. Nor has *ANYONE* addressed my scenario in which a drug addict, sex addict, etc. could post an extremely helpful and informative item on addiction and then claim it should be deleted based on jep's selfish "I don't want my son to know" precedent. Such a precedent is incredibly damaging to grex. And it would be nice if jep and some of his supporters could argue honestly about this. It is not honest to say the deleted posts of others have little or no value when jep himself wished such an item existed before. And no one has argued for an absolute inflexible "principle". The rules against posting credit card numbers are one example. So ditch the red herrings and start talking about on what grounds you will recognize exceptional requests for deleting the words of others. What criteria should be applied? Don't kid yourselves. This is ALL about precedent.
Okay, here are some ferinstances. Should the following responses *by other participants* be deleted from an item from which one participant wants his or her own responses deleted. Let's call the person who wants his or her own responses by the his-or-her name of "Leslie." 1. So, Leslie, you say your Visa card number is 1234567890? 2. But Leslie, why on earth would you want to have sex with little boys? 3. I agree, Leslie, I don't think taking your nextdoor neighbor's old laptop counts as stealing, if you're sure they weren't using it. 4. Er, Leslie, I don't think you should be saying stuff like that here. What if the FBI is reading this item? 5. Leslie, you're paying way too much for your Xanax. 6. Look on the bright side, Leslie: if your wife is having an affair, that means you can have one, too, guilt-free! 7. But Leslie, there are lots of guys who like fat women. Plus, if you're just 5'4" 180 lbs, that doesn't sound fat to me at all. 8. Good grief, Leslie, how many times have you been fired this year? 9. So, Leslie, do you really think your breast milk is vegan because *you're* vegan? What are you, some kind of an idiot? 10. Leslie thinks the whole world has to stop and feel sorry for her just because her boyfriend dumped her. What a whining loser! 11. Leslie is nothing but an antiabortion christian fundamentalist whacko. 12. Grow up, Leslie, you knew your wife was flat-chested when you married her. 13. Leslie, does your girlfriend know you're HIV positive? 14. Leslie, when you say your penis is 3" long erect, which side are you measuring it on? 15. Leslie is under *no* obligation to tell his employer he's addicted to heroin! 16. Btw, Leslie, thanks for entering the nuclear bomb specs. I didn't know it was that easy to make.
This response has been erased.
3
Re #103: "know" sb "no" Thank you md for finally getting to the heart of what many are avoiding. Not all of your examples are easy choices, although my view generally is that no one puts a gun to a poster's head and forces them to write someone else's words. #1 is the only one that jumps out at me, although there are maybe one or two others I could change my mind on. I also like that much of what md used for examples is similar to what has already been posted here. Yet there was no big outcry to delete them.
Actually the precedent seems to be someone does something, and if another one finds out, then the action is voted on after the fact. But if the GreXers have it their way, they get away with whatever happened and act as if nothing changed.
I think posting credit card numbers to facilitate theft is quite illegal. The police might want to know about that one. But first let me try it out on ebay. ;-) The rest have pretty much been done to death here, with slight variations. They rate a yawn.
So Mike, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Re 99: Grex is in the process of determining whether it is appropriate to remove other people's text _at all_ (except for certain obvious exceptions mentioned above, like credit card numbers). The arguments presented above and elsewhere are interesting and useful, but the real answer is going to be in the vote. If, as I expect, jp2's proposal passes and jep's fails, then the precedent will be established that what Valerie did should not be repeated. If jp2's proposal fails, then and only then will there be a precedent for removing items. If jep's proposal passes, there _may_ be a precedent for special favours. However, the special circumstances that allowed the removal in the first place aren't likely to be repeated: 'twould require a staff member with the knowledge to act as she did but without the knowledge of this discussion. As jep has noted, a public discussion of his request would have made his request moot: it would have guaranteed the items' preservation and could conceivably have resulted in their reposting in entirety, under somebody else's name. Retiring the items first would not have helped: "set noforget" overrules "retire". So there will never again be the opportunity to do this special favour.
This response has been erased.
I disagree: 'staff' won't delete items on request. If staff _would_ delete items on request, Item 39 would have been long gone from this conference. That it has NOT been removed is evidence that your premise is false.
"So there will never again be the opportunity to do this special favour." Regardless. The favor should not be done for the reasons I've stated previously. The mere fact the opportunity to do the WRONG thing is unique in no way justifies the harm of granting the favor. Jep will be allowed to remove his words. That is all he is entitled to. Anything more is just a personal favor for a favored person., without any justification other than "my son might see it." What a lame and immature excuse.
This response has been erased.
Re: Joe's #111 "As jep has noted, a public discussion of his request would have made his request moot: it would have guaranteed the items' preservation and could conceivably have resulted in their reposting in entirety, under somebody else's name." That's not correct. Jep could have at any time gone into the divorce items and removed all of his comments. So the worst that could have happened is someone could have read or reposted comments made by others. This whole debate isn't over what Jep and Valerie posted - it's about what the other participants in those forums posted and who "owns" those comments.
Right, Mary; but jep's request was for the removal of _all_ of the text, his as well as others'. Had he simply wanted his own text removed, there would have been no need for public discussion at all.
Right, and imagine this: Jep quietly goes in and deletes all of his own comments *then* goes to staff and asks for everyone else's text to be deleted. I suspect even Valerie would have given that one a little more thought.
Or maybe not. ;-)
This response has been erased.
Yup. Gelinas seems to miss the point. He also calls jep's situation a unique one-time only deal. However, there is already a proposal to allow others to *voluntarily* remove their posts before any wholesale copying is done (if I am understanding the proposed mechanism correctly). In fact, if Grex is going to entertain the notion of doing personal favors for favored persons, then that strikes me as the appropriate method. Item owner makes request to staff, staff temporarily bars access immediately. User makes pitch for voluntary deletions and mass deletes own posts. Others who agree go in and make deletions. What is left is re-posted. It's really quite simple. Jep's situation is thus in no way unique and it is disingenuous for gelinas to suggest otherwise. What is unique is that some on grex are seriously advocating the removal of the words of others for NO OTHER REASON than the item in which they appeared. I find that position appalling and unprincipled.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:98: The fact that it's a public forum in no way means I have to *welcome* those people. Tolerate them, maybe. It doesn't mean I have to believe them when they say they're acting for the good of Grex. I don't believe that's true of jp2 any more than I believe polytarp was trying to get people to read the classics by posting lots of Project Gutenberg texts in Agora. This is amusing to them in the same way that chucking rocks at people's windows is amusing to schoolkids. Re resp:101: Hacking into someone else's account would violate clearly defined policy. There was no policy about what valerie did. Re resp:103: "So far all I am seeing is an adhocracy in which anyone can make a proposal and allow a vote, no matter how ridiculous the requests." Well, yes. Is there a problem with that? mnet seems to be the same way. (I remember seeing a proposal there recently on whether to prohibit jp2 from making any further proposals. I found that an intriguing idea. I have no idea if it passed.) Re resp:110: Mary's probably gonna try to get Mike arrested, now. ;>
jp2, did you respond in any of the items that were deleted? I'm just curious about whether your outrage is about actual deletion of your words or theoretical deletion of them. (As someone whose words were in fact deleted in both cases (I posted heavily to the baby diaries and jep's divorce items), I can't say that I feel censored in particular, since what I said was said and had its effect at the time I said it, and that was all that I desired and expected from those postings, that they be part of the conversation at the time. I don't have any particular attachment to them now, years later, in terms of being aghast that they were deleted. I'm not happy that they were without my being asked, but I'm also not feeling censored in any way. I was allowed to speak at the time it was relevant. I can always add my two cents to any future discussion about similar topics. That doesn't seem like censorship to me.)
This response has been erased.
re resp:103: Follow this link for just about all that I have said about deleting my two divorce items: item:76 If you read it, I think you will be quite surprised (based on your comments) about what I have said and what I haven't. Hint: you won't find anything I've written, there or anywhere, saying what you keep saying I wrote, about wanting to keep a discussion from my son. But I've pointed *that* out several times before. You keep bringing up the same thing, over and over and over again, in item after item, knowing it's incorrect. And accusing me of not answering you, and of being deceitful. Why is that? Why?
This response has been erased.
re resp:127: That is indeed my response. Grex will not be deciding, now or in the future, how I raise my son. Congratulations, Jamie. Now can you go over that with cyklone?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
That's pretty judgemental , jp2, about jep. I think that it's also rather rude. While I'll admit that I know and like jep, I would think it was rude if he said it about you. And if people don't feel censored, then is it censorship? That was my implicit question to you when I said that I didn't consider my words censored by their removal.
Jep sez:
1) They were entered during a time of great stress and despair. During
that time, I was diagnosed as undergoing major depression, and received
presciption medication as well as therapeutic treatment for my illness.
So what's your point. In using my analogy to an addiction item,
your mental state makes the preservation of the item even more compelling
to other desparate people who may need such an item in the same way you
wished such an item was available to you.
2) The material I entered during that time was of a highly personal
nature. I don't believe I would have entered it if I had been in
my "right mind". I just didn't care then that I could be causing a
future problem for myself. I care now.
Grex is full of highly personal material. If that was the criteria
for deletion, you would have a lot of empty space. In any case, when asked
about the "future problems for myself" you denied it was legal. You have
suggested that restoring the item would have some negative effect on your
son. Jp is right, you are the one lying, not me. Please, if these future
problems are that important to you, could you at least spell them out in
some detail? Just point me to your responses if you want, and I will read
them myself. So far, your pointer to 76 has been pretty unpersuasive.
3) Some of the material could potentially be used to harm both myself
and my young son.
Again, that is a conclusory statement. What is your basis for
making it, especially after you said your concerns were not legal? What
SPECIFICALLY do you fear? I have stated before it appears to me you are
uncomfortable allowing your son on grex if your items remain. Is that
your sole reason or one of them? Please be specific. Your calculated
vagueness, which allows your supporters to "fill in the blanks" with their
own awfulizing, is certainly not an effective means of establishing
precedent and good policy.
4) The material contained within them was focused on me, and my own
personal problems, and had very little if any relevance to anyone else.
This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term
relevance. In fact, seeing, reading and hearing about he experiences of
others, no matter how personal to them, can be incredibly relevant. You
yourself admitted you wished there was such an item. Now you would deny it
to someone else. How very very selfish of you. You should be ashamed of
yourself.
5) The items are currently deleted from the system. They were unused
for a period of over a year. I believe they were not being read by
anyone, and am certain they had not been responded to for over a year.
I don't believe there is any compelling reason for these items to be
restored. through my problems of a couple of years ago.
Se my previous response. You cannot predict the future and know
those items will not have value to someone else.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
BTW, twila, my words (many many of them) will be censored if jep has his way. I put a lot of thought into them, so I am extrememly offended and upset that after spending paragraph after paragraph trying to explain to jep how his attitudes were self-destructive and unproductive he would resort to such sleazy, underhanded tactics to censor an item he previously claimed was so helpful. I am also upset because he seems to be reverting to the same type of judgmental control freak that many of us were cautioning him against being in the original item.
This response has been erased.
Cyklone, I don't deny that some (many?) others did see the deletion of their text as censorship of their words, but I am trying to make the point that others don't, since no one's words were prevented from appearing AT THE TIME when they'd be read by the person they were aimed at. I certainly didn't think that I was writing anything that would apply to anyone except jep in his own particular case and at that particular time. I aslo doubt that most people in the kind of emotional pain that he was in at the time would think to troll through old agoras on grex to find an old item when they could post a new one and get new and hopefully more apropos advice. JP2, okay, some people do, But you are saying that everyone does, which is not true. And I'm sorry that my opinion is meaningless to you, but calling people liars and implying that this is why their relationship did not work out is no way to convince anyone that you're worth listening to and that your point of view is valid. Insults do not make you right.
This response has been erased.
I have never looked at an agora more than about 10 days after the new one appeared. Has anyone else reading this item done so?
I keep oldagora in my cflist.
This response has been erased.
yeah. i suggested that already and no-one's done it yet.
cyklone's resp:103 says: He says he doesn't want to have to explain anything to his son. I never said that. Not here, not anywhere. So I say. Cyklone has said that same thing a lot of times before, in plenty of different items, and I've stated quite a few times that it is not true, but he keeps repeating it. You've proved you can find my quotes, cyklone. Show one. Or admit you are deliberately trying to mislead people, while accusing *me* of lying. Your credibility is on the line right now, and so is mine. One of us is certainly unscrupulously and repeatedly misrepresenting the facts in order to deceive the users of Grex in this matter. We definitely are stating directly contradictory things, and each of us has had ample opportunity to be familiar with the facts. Prove I'm lying, or you will prove you are. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
I apologize to the rest of Grex if anyone is reading the current interchange. It's not usually my style to smear other people, but I am getting very tired of deliberate lies being used to attack my character. Resp:143, which cannot be answered, will show that cyklone is a determined and deliberate liar on at least one point. Obviously, I'd appreciate it if you took the point that he is capable of attempting deception on other points as well, and that I am being very unfairly attacked by his remarks. I have very thoroughly outlined my arguments for why I wanted those two items to be deleted. My arguments are in item:76. There I answered to the best of my ability every point raised against my request to leave my two divorce items deleted, as completely and honestly and reasonably as I can. As has been stated, I didn't tell every part of every reason I gave. You can read dark and mysterious and evil intent into that if you want to. I'm sorry if you do. I'm not really like that, you know. A lot of you know. I think everything I say will be picked apart, and used against me, and mis-stated, and held for future attacks by a few people. They care only about "winning", and not about what's right, reasonable, or certainly not about any other people. So, I'm done saying much of anything new. I'll say this, which I haven't said before. I think the users of Grex are picking whether Grex is going to be run by people who are interested in developing a community and being part of it, or by a different sort of person entirely. Pick who you follow carefully, you might find you're stuck with them for a while.
This response has been erased.
Jep, if I misquoted you, then I apologize. Now let's look at the impression you've created with your own words. You DO say you think allowing the item to remain can harm your son. I asked for specific examples, and you didn't provide any. However, when I mentioned you may just have to deal with the fact that your son could stumble upon the items, and perhaps use that as an opportunity to discuss things with your son, you replied by essentially saying how you raise your son is your business and you didn't appreciate any interference. So even if you never said anywhere that you don't "want to have to explain anything to his son" your response I just cited clearly implicates just that concern. You can play all the word games you want. I'm man enough to say that perhaps the exact words I wrote were not exactly what you said. Are you man enough to admit that you HAVE SAID you believe allowing the items to remain may have some as yet unspecified impact on your son and/or your relationship with him? You know you really could be honest enough with yourself and the rest of us by just coming out and telling what your SPECIFIC concerns are regarding your son. It seems you instead prefer to imply problems and then backpedal and accuse others of lies or misrepresentations when they try to discern what the exact problems are that you are unwilling to disclose. So how bout it? Want to be honest with us and tell us what is REALLY behind you alleged concerns for your son? Or are you just going to continue to play foolish obfuscation games? If so, you are being intellectually dishonest and unfair to those of us who want to debate the merits and not the innuendo of your proposal. BTW, twila, you said you thought someone in jep's position would be better starting a new item than going back through an old one. That misses two points. First, JEP HIMSELF said he wished there was an old item for him to review. So not everyone thinks the way you do. Second, during the course of discussion in any new item, it is certainly possible that someone might post a reply to the effect of "you know, that sounds a lot like what jep was going through. You should check out ______" That is yet another good reason to allow the item to remain, along with the fact that deliberately removing my words without permission is censorship.
(Concerning much of the responses above) Hash and rehash. To revisit several trite phrases, this is old hat and beating a dead horse. It appears that everyone is pretty much firmly set in their opinion. But I think one thing is pretty clear: If you have personal information and don't want others to get a hold of it-- don't post it on Grex. It's not secure here. It's not really secure anywhere-- but there are places where it is a little more secure. For instance: listservers (such as yahoogroups)-- subscriptions can be controlled. Weblogs such as LiveJournal, that have security features-- only "friends" and groups of "friends" can read certain posts if you wish. There are ways to distribute your information. Of course, there is just the plain old e-mail. But... there is no guarantee even then that your words won't be distributed. So, I suppose the philosophy of "You can't take back what you said" still applies. Policy and opinion can be hacked to death, but I think that is still the guiding principle.
(While the membership of mailing lists may be limited, what people do with the messages they receive through the mailing lists cannot be. As an example, consider the message from Valerie on the current vote.)
Cyklone, I think I've pointed out that your assertion that your comment along these lines is false at least 5 previous times: "He says he doesn't want to have to explain anything to his son." It just keeps coming back from you again and again. Explain that, please. It certainly seems to me like repetitious deliberate deception. Let me go over that again. Repetitious. (It's happened several times now.) Deliberate. (You are doing it on purpose.) Deception. (You know it's not right.) I have very little confidence that I can successfully make even this one point, so I am not going to address other points just now. From experience, I expect you to go right on saying the same thing all over again. I'm sorry if you find it frustrating, but you have repeatedly, knowingly, and demonstrably lied, and have lost credibility. You've lied, repeatedly, to establish that I am lying. It doesn't work. I'm not lying. I've backed up everything I needed to about what I've said with direct and concrete facts. I've been consistent throughout. Making up lies will not change that.
Jep, your words would carry a lot more weight if you could respond to my SPECIFIC statements and questions. Putting aside whether or not I have truly missed the point before today (and I can assure you I have enough character and principles to refrain deliberate lying) then now is the chance for YOU to set the record straight. If you re-read #146 you will see I admitted perhaps you did not use the exact words I ascribed to you. You also say that "I think I've pointed out that your assertion that your comment along these lines is false at least 5 previous times." Great. Please point me to those items. I will be happy to respond. So far all I have to go on is your speculative and unsupported statement that you believe that restoring the items could harm you and your son. If you HONESTLY believe that then please provide some examples of the harm you fear! Surely that is not too much to ask when you are seeking to censor the words of others. If you don't provide specific examples, then accusing me of lying does little more than show you are unable to debate the merits of your proposal. Saying "I have very little confidence that I can successfully make even this one point, so I am not going to address other points just now" is a clever little cop-out. It does nothing to encourage a discussion of your request on the merits. It is the equivalent to saying "he was mean to me so I'm excused from continuing this debate and I should automatically get my way." Nice try. Perhaps the confidence you lack is in your ability to make any cogent arguments in support of your drastic request to impose censorship on the very people who tried to help you. And when you seek to deny the value of those words to others who may benefit from them, you are showing what I can only consider to be extreme selfishness. Perhaps you can explain it some other way. I'll be happy to hear your explanation. I'll tell you what, jep, we can start fresh right now. You can set forth your SPECIFIC reasons for stating you believe restoring the items will cause you and/or your son harm, and I will respond only what you post from there on out. Or, as an alternative, if you believe you described them to your satisfaction in the past, then just point me to your post(s). So, are you going to cop-out again and whine and name-call, or are you willing to back up your conclusory and speculative statement with actual examples and arguments?
> If you have personal information and don't want others to get a hold of it-- > don't post it on Grex. It's not secure here. That's a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think? If you are posting it on grex, then it is by definition being made public. That has nothing to do with being "secure". One might not realize that grex is theoretically accessible and accessed by the whole internet world, but "public" is "public". Your personal e-mail and files *are* secure on grex, from public scrutiny.
re resp:150: You have lied, and done it deliberately, cyklone, as I demonstrated. Go back in all of the items where you used that statement (and other misinformation) to try to smear me, and apologize, and then perhaps we can put all of this behind us and be more civil during the next discussion. We are not going to "start fresh right now" for this discussion, for your benefit. You can. I'm not participating, though. I have said all I'm going to say. (I've said that before.) I have very thoroughly explained my position. (I said that, too. In addition to doing it, which is itself a certain sort of self-documentation that I have done it.) Additionally, as a bonus, I've answered all of your comments that you made in resp:150 already, previously to resp:150, except the highly personal insults, about which I don't care, not coming from you, not at this point. Go read what has already been said. Then you will know all of that stuff. I shouldn't have to spoon feed it to just you for time #9, just because you didn't get it the previous 8 times. It's all there. All of it. Item:76 (and I said that before, too, quite recently.)
This response has been erased.
There's only so many hours in the day, Jamie. There are not enough to deal with you just now, particularly given the attitude you expressed on M-Net, and which I quoted here, that you will go to any lengths at all to get your way.
I believe that what jep fears is not so much that his son might see the items, although that would or could be a concern, but that his exwife could use the items and what he said to deny him custody during a further court battle, which is certainly NOT outside the realm of possibility. That would be real harm, and I certainly would not blame him for wanting in any way to reduce that possibility.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re #155: It would be nice if jep would speak for himself twila. Jep, if you are such a gutless pussy that you (1) won't recognize an apology when offered, and (2) refuse to type an extra paragraph to set forth what you believe you stated over and over, then it is you who are lying to yourself and others. The fact is, I'm going to go back through every fucking piece of crap you've written about this, jep, and then we'll see exactly how specific your were in setting out your reasons for your request. Of course if you were man enough to simply type that one extra paragraph or two, you could save me a lot of time. But you seem hell bent on trying to "punish" me and/or smear me for pointing out the obvious, which is that your position is utterly unsupportable on a system that claims to favor free and uncensored speech. Because I believe in those principles, I'll do the heavy lifting. And fuck you for not being willing to meet me half way.
YEAH, HEAR THAT JEP>^
Well isn't this interesting . . . . . #330 of 343: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Thu, Jan 29, 2004 (21:23): re resp:326: I have written at great length and with great patience about my request, my decision and my reasoning. I don't think I have any more to say. I have already completed copying all of jep's entries in item 76. The above quote contains a huge lie, which is shown by: #153 of 343: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Wed, Jan 14, 2004 (09:15): re resp:152: Jack, my point in mentioning you is that you're someone who doesn't know me very well, yet in resp:115 you referred to me and said "unethical" about 4 times. I didn't mean to pick on you. I'm sorry, because it's clear to me why you'd take it that way. I haven't discussed in great detail the reasons I think there is risk from those items. I don't want to. More detail about that isn't going to change the discussion. Once again, I'm not trying to change any policies, and I don't think I *am* changing any policies. I'm asking for a very specific exception. My request is not a referendum on Valerie or on her actions. Pay special attention to that middle paragraph, as it is at the heart of what I have been saying all along. Jep is unwilling to specify why grex should support his drastic censorship request. He would rather scrunch up his face, stamp his feet and act all pouty that we dare question his reasons. He would rather allow others predisposed to doing his favor the opportunity to create their own worst case scenario to justify censorship. Jep most certainly does not want to open his true reasons up to any actual examination. And then, to top it all off, he pretends that he has been forthcoming all along and the I and others are twisting his words, notwithstanding his own words in #153 to the contrary. So, in summary, it is jep who has lied, now saying he has gone into great detail with his reasons, when his own words indicate he has not discussed his reasons in any detail and DOESN'T WANT TO! Jep, you not only owe me an apology (I won't hold my breath though, and can die happy without it), you owe one to everyone who wants to consider your request ON THE MERITS while you yourself refuse to specify your reasons. Go ahead, call me whatever names you want. Accuse me of all kinds of evil. I can handle it. What you can't seem to handle though, is being "convicted" on the basis of your own words (I believe the phrase is "hoist on your own petard"). Grow up!
YOU"RE NOT GOING TO STOP THERE, ARE YOU?
Actually, I might. It all depends.
resp:151 Right. I should have chosen a word other than 'secure' or been more specific-- i.e. been particular about the bbs here, and not e- mail and files. Posting to the bbs is public-- therefore the words are viable to scrutiny. You get what I mean, but I managed to not choose the correct words. Even so, I've heard stories of people accidentally sending e-mail to the wrong recipients with embarassing results.
In #93 slynne wrote: My position on this at the moment is that the items should be restored. It was not an easy decision for me to come by. I guess I just dont think it is ok to give some people control over another person's words here... I don't know if anybody is still wading through this huge item, but in case anybody is still reading: The thing I see as a problem with this reasoning is that it is creating a new rule and applying it to old items. When I entered my baby diaries, there was no rule that said who "owned" an item or who could delete it. Reasonable people made different assumptions about this gray area. Me, I always thought that my baby diary was something I could delete myself or ask a fair witness to delete, at any time. I made my postings there with that assumption in mind, never realizing that there was a contentious issue here. Other people clearly came to different conclusions. I think it is fine to make new rules like this one and apply them to newer items that are created after the rule is created. But it doesn't seem right to me to create a new rule like this one and apply it to an older item. That baby diary started a year or two before Grex was involved in the ACLU lawsuit. And it started long, long, before the recent discussion in co-op (which I haven't seen) about people deleting their own responses. All these things have changed how items on Grex are viewed. That's fine, but is it right to apply these new rules to items that were created before those rules were? I don't think it is.
Valerie, I have to say that I think this rule is very reasonably applied to all items both new and previously existing, primarily because it represents a change in our understanding and application of copyright protections and laws. Under those circumstances, it makes no sense to restrict application to only new items. Furthermore, I think it reflects a failing on the part of our system that changes in policy and/or standard practice were made without propagating to all active staff. It should be incumbent upon staff members to make sure they are aware of changes in policy, at minimum by periodically scanning item headers in Co-op. In fact, the staff conference should have an item dedicated to reporting member proposals, votes, outcomes and policy changes to further facilitate the constant currency of all staff regarding policy.
Valerie misses an obvious point: if a subjective rule is to be applied, then all who posted to her item with a subjective belief of ownership have just as much right to expect their words to remain under their sole control. So the real issue is how to reconcile the views of people with opposing but still subjectively supportable views. I agree with other on this. Each person who entered words can control those words only.
This response has been erased.
If I haven't said so before, I'll say it now (but I think I have). I am not giving a blueprint on how to attack me or my son, by explaining in great detail my concerns. At one time, I posted everything that was on my mind; someone used it against me; and that could have had really horrible results. I won't repeat the mistake. That's all you're getting on the subject, cyklone.
If you are refering to the case of mary copying your posts and showing it to someone, your argument would be a lot more persuasive if not for the fact you were refusing to provide details long before you became aware of what she did. So who's lying now? Also, simply saying "I think my son or I might be harmed if my ex/the police/my employer/protective services saw what others posted about me" would hardly be "providing a blueprint" since people have speculated as much already (btw, my review of item #76 shows you expressed NO SUCH concern until today). And since you yourself have said your concerns are not legal and you do not intend to seek legal advice on this, it appears you still wish to be vague for no good reason. In fact, one of the few reasons I can *infer* from your behavior is that you are simply too embarrassed to admit you are embarassed by your behavior then and now.
valerie, I hope that *you* are still reading this item. > When I entered my baby diaries, > there was no rule that said who "owned" an item or who could delete it. You are mistaken, as you found out - picospan/grex *did* have a rule. > Me, I always thought that my baby diary was something I could delete myself > or ask a fair witness to delete, at any time. And when you found out *you* couldn't delete your items, you did not approach the conf. fw's for assistance - you used the special cfadm account to kill the items yourself. This to me shows a mindset of deliberately performing an unauthorized action, which you knew or should have known would be contentious, as the ensuing staff discussions proved. At this point I think it would be better for you not to try to justify your actions; merely say "I did what I wanted because that's what I wanted, and because I had the power." Everyone should understand that, even if they disagree with that course of action and some want to see it undone. Just don't try to play the "I didn't know any better" card; that is what angers me most, similar to jep trying to justify why his items should be given special treatment.
Very well said.
that's it albaugh, put words in other peoples mouths. Tell them what they should say to mek you happy.
Better than people forcing other people to do certain things to make themselves happy.
I get the feeling everyone is going to be stuck in their opinions until the votes are decided-- and even then, I bet, no one's positions will change.
Re resp:130: That's a really cheap shot. Honestly, you can do better. Please, try to let me keep *some* respect for you. You and cyklone started out making decent, logical points, but you've allowed yourselves to degenerate into name-calling.
Re: #172: What are you talking about, bru?
Re #175: I hope you will take note that I have vowed to return my focus on the issues. I also hope you will note that I re-read 130 to the present and despite any name-calling at my end, I think I continued to make a number of pertinent points that I hope do not go unconsidered.
Yeah, keep it nice for the GreXers, theyhre only children.
This response has been erased.
(she did say she would maintain her account)
the gentle art of verbal self-defense is being abused .., btw, a great book.
I haven't had the opportunity to read the book itself, but I have watched George Thompson's courses on Verbal Judo. Quite the concept.
if you had read it we oculd have traded ...
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: