You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-8   9-33   34-58   59-83   84-108   109-133   134-158   159-183   184-208 
 209-233   234-258   259-283   284-308   309-333   334-357     
 
Author Message
jep
member initiative: do not restore two items Mark Unseen   Jan 9 19:39 UTC 2004

I wish to make a user proposal that my two items recently deleted by 
loginid valerie not be restored.  The two items were:

agora40, item 63
agora41, item 11
357 responses total.
jp2
response 1 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jan 9 19:46 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

willcome
response 2 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jan 9 19:53 UTC 2004

I vote no.
jep
response 3 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jan 9 19:54 UTC 2004

I wish to ask that these items not be restored for the following 
reasons:

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.

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.

3) Some of the material could potentially be used to harm both myself 
and my young son.

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.

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.

6) The items were deleted by my request, with no intention to harm 
anyone else because of having them removed.  I do not believe anyone 
*has* been harmed because of their removal.

7) The items would garner an unusual amount of interest if restored 
now, because of circumstances which have nothing to do with the intent 
or current content of the items.  People who read the items now would 
be doing so because they'd been deleted and thus become part of a 
controversy, not because of any desire to help me through my problems 
of a couple of years ago.

I appreciate the assistance of the members of Grex in gaining 
acceptance for this proposal.  Thank you very much.
keesan
response 4 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jan 9 20:00 UTC 2004

You have my permission to leave them deleted, but I don't think you should
be embarrassed about your psychological problems caused by the stress of
divorce.  It was really educational for the rest of us when you shared them
with us and I at least respect you for being able to do so.
aruba
response 5 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jan 9 20:10 UTC 2004

I don't think it's true at all that the items had no relevance to other
people, John.  But I have no heart to fight you on this.
jp2
response 6 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jan 9 20:14 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

gull
response 7 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jan 9 20:24 UTC 2004

I think both this proposal and the previous one should be put on hold 
until Grex has an actual policy about whether people can delete their 
own items.  I think it's wrong to try to short-circuit the policy 
decision this way.

Life does not come with a rewind-erase button.  Get used to it.

richard
response 8 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jan 9 20:24 UTC 2004

I disagree that those items should not be restored.  Every time items get mass
deleted, posts get mass deleted .etc, you are essentially re-writing and
revising grex's history.  Grex has been like a great experiment, and
preserving what it was, and what it has become, is important.  This is why
I don't like Valerie mass deleting all her posts.  In how many old items is
she taking other people's comments out of context by removing her posts to
which they were replying.  Same thing with JEP removing his posts.  This
is affecting not just their posts, but to the posts of those who
participated in those items.  

Suppose two users have a heated argument in an item, and then one of the
users removes all their posts.  Now anybody reading that item will only
see the other user's posts, and not have the context of the whole
discussion, and that other user could look bad.  Is that fair to the other
user?  Does one user have the right to tear large holes in an item and
potentially embarrass other users who posted in that item in the process?
 0-8   9-33   34-58   59-83   84-108   109-133   134-158   159-183   184-208 
 209-233   234-258   259-283   284-308   309-333   334-357     
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss