|
|
| Author |
Message |
naftee
|
|
JEP did it, I must do it.
| 
Feb 10 02:02 UTC 2004 |
Guys, I'm sorry. I really do apologise.
I admit; I started it all.
It was I who caused a former member and dedicated former staffer of GreX to
leave the GreX community. It was also I who caused a well-known GreX member
to spend weeks of his time in great duress, wondering if his cause would be
passed. It was I who caused a great rift in the thinkings of the GreX public,
a great wave of conflicts and disinformation.
Yes, it was I who initiated all of the above. But now I wish to change
things.
Everything started with item 68 in this conference, which I entered. Now,
any future user of GreX who comes upon this conference will read this item
and see that the information in its first response caused an enormous battle.
Naturally, they will believe the person who entered that item must be very
bad indeed, and must have a truly evil intent.
Therefore I call upon the GreX staff, board, and members to bring about the
deletion of item 68 in this conference. With it gone, I can finally be at
peace with any future GreX members and users. I will not have to worry about
those people (who knows, maybe even JEP's son) carrying a deep and intense
hatred towards myself. I will truly be happy if that item is gone.
Please, call upon your morals and do what's right. Delete that item, I beg
you.
|
| 109 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 1 of 109:
|
Feb 10 02:13 UTC 2004 |
Wouldn't it have been easier to pay the USD18 and vote for the 'no deletion'
proposal, when it comes up for a vote?
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 2 of 109:
|
Feb 10 02:21 UTC 2004 |
He shouldn't have to pay anything to get Grex's staff to do what's right,
gelinas.
|
naftee
|
|
response 3 of 109:
|
Feb 10 02:34 UTC 2004 |
Exactly, unless you're saying members get special treatment.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 4 of 109:
|
Feb 10 02:42 UTC 2004 |
What is "the right thing"?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 5 of 109:
|
Feb 10 02:59 UTC 2004 |
"That's what this vote will tell us"
|
naftee
|
|
response 6 of 109:
|
Feb 10 03:03 UTC 2004 |
Remember, the top priority here is community. If we delete this item, then
we can all put this behind us and continue on. Especially me.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 7 of 109:
|
Feb 10 03:17 UTC 2004 |
Just about a month ago, I wrote:
"Approving this proposal may set a precedent, but the
precedent will be quickly made moot, but [sic] an explicit
change in policy. It will not be possible to argue, 'He got
to, so I should be able to, too,' because of all the argument
around this issue: It is very clear to any reasonable person
(and we don't worry about unreasonable ones) that this
*is* an exception, in an exceptional situation" (Item 76,
Response 67).
I just noticed a typographical error in the quote: it should say "by an
explicit change in policy." That change has now been proposed. I am
reluctant to take any action on deletions until the policy is clarified.
|
naftee
|
|
response 8 of 109:
|
Feb 10 03:21 UTC 2004 |
So you admit an exception was made for jep.
|
naftee
|
|
response 9 of 109:
|
Feb 10 03:23 UTC 2004 |
The logical question that follows is, 'why jep' ?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 10 of 109:
|
Feb 10 03:26 UTC 2004 |
As I've said, I voted for restoration and against the exception. You're
arguing the wrong questions with the wrong person.
|
naftee
|
|
response 11 of 109:
|
Feb 10 03:29 UTC 2004 |
So now you admit you're an enemy of an upstanding GreX citizen and decorated
former staff member!
I call for a court-martial.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 12 of 109:
|
Feb 10 03:59 UTC 2004 |
Yes! Old GreX is crumbling like a rotten door: just give it one solid kick!
They're now turning on themselves! Look at what we can see through the door:
New GreX!
|
md
|
|
response 13 of 109:
|
Feb 10 11:42 UTC 2004 |
I'm only gonna say this once:
If you respond to anything entered by naftee, polytarp or any of those
jerkoffs, YOU are the problem. Do you understand, gelinas?
|
naftee
|
|
response 14 of 109:
|
Feb 10 12:49 UTC 2004 |
Sorry, I forgot, you're only allowed to do what you think is right if your
name is VALERIE or JOHN.
|
slynne
|
|
response 15 of 109:
|
Feb 10 16:52 UTC 2004 |
I am sorry that you guys are feeling hurt because a bunch of members
voted with their hearts and decided to give special treatment to people
they care about. Personally, I voted to restore the items but I cant
really blame people who voted the other way. I totally understand it.
Is it special treatment for special people? Yep. Those people spent a
lot of time forming relationships with other people who happen to be
members. Those members decided to make an exception to the norm around
here as is their right according to the grex bylaws.
I can see how you see this as being unfair. I guess in a way it is.
But, sometimes life is unfair and having some of your words deleted
isnt the end of the world. I promise.
|
other
|
|
response 16 of 109:
|
Feb 10 18:05 UTC 2004 |
Anyone who suggests that a society cannot hold its principles and still
occasionally violate them as a society for what it perceives as
legitimate reasons cannot be expected to understand the simple notion
that societies are made up of people and thus cannot serve their own
interests if they remain rigid and inflexible in the application of
those principles.
|
jp2
|
|
response 17 of 109:
|
Feb 10 18:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 109:
|
Feb 10 18:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 19 of 109:
|
Feb 10 19:14 UTC 2004 |
To use the PC word of the millennium, these clowns are being disingenuous.
jep was not given special treatment via vote in the deletion of his items -
that was carried out by a rogue staff. The recent vote was about whether to
leave all the items deleted, since the damage had already been done.
Only a weak mind cannot see the difference between the two. There is no
existing policy allowing for the on-demand removal of items on request of the
creator.
|
other
|
|
response 20 of 109:
|
Feb 10 19:30 UTC 2004 |
#17: Principles are by their nature generalities. No generality can
adequately address all possible cases. Principles, as generalities,
work because they guide actions through MOST scenarios, and in fact,
the level of debate spurred by the instances in which they are not
adequate is indicative of their strength. However, to suggest that
they cannot be compromised in the slightest no matter the circumstance,
is utterly ridiculous. That would be the policy of a machine which is
incapable of making decisions without specific programming, not policy
acceptable for the government of human societies.
|
tod
|
|
response 21 of 109:
|
Feb 10 20:00 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 22 of 109:
|
Feb 10 20:49 UTC 2004 |
Why not?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 23 of 109:
|
Feb 10 22:10 UTC 2004 |
remove the free speech ribbon from the website, please.
|
naftee
|
|
response 24 of 109:
|
Feb 10 22:11 UTC 2004 |
re 19
"since the damage had already been done."
I truly believe that the users of GreX would have voted the same way,
regardless of whether or not it occurred before or after the fact.
re 15 So you're saying I'm not special? :(
|