response 1 of 157:

Feb 5 10:05 UTC 2004

restore the items, milquetoast.

response 3 of 157:

Feb 5 13:00 UTC 2004

It would be nice of janc could try to keep up with ongoing discussions rather
than playing the "up to my gills in work" card followed by a rehash of issues
already addressed (and BTW, I've spent the last three days trying to counter
jep's personal BS and obfuscation while fighting a nasty flu, so spare
us the lame excuses).

Anyway, janc misses a few points that must be addressed. He notes that
jep's purported reason for his deletion request is "He fears that material
from those items could someday be used against him or his son." This is
true as far as it goes, which is not very far. I have REPEATEDLY asked jep
for specifics regarding this alleged fear. Jep CONTINUOUSLY REFUSES to
provide any details whatsover, saying at one point "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." 
(Item 76, #153). Thus, janc is asking readers to support the drastic
implemenation of censorship to satisfy the request of a user who is
himself UNWILLING to provide any meaningful justification for imposing
such a drastic measure. Instead, janc appears to be falling for jep's
clever ploy of implying vague harms to himself or his son, and then
failing to support such claims, while instead allowing those already
predisposed to do a personal favor for a favored person to create their
own worst case scenario that will give them the maximum warm fuzzy to
justify their support of censorship.

If janc weren't personally connected to this dispute, I expect he would
have seen through that intellectual dishonesty almost immediately.
Unfortunately, though, janc is blinded, as seen by his later statement:

"Neither of these items were active discussions.  John's divorce item
 has not been active for a couple years.  Valerie's most recent baby item
 had been frozen for weeks before it was removed, and the others were as
 much as five years old.  If their deletion had not been announced, it
 could have been a long time before anyone noticed that they were gone.
 Furthermore, it is not systematic censorship of any idea, opinion,
 or person that is being proposed here.  If anyone who gave John advice
 in his divorce item wishs to give the same advice again, they are not
 being prevented.  If this is censorship, then it is a form of censorship
 that does not interfere at all with active discussions."

As I have mentioned in other discussions elsewhere (please try to keep up
janc, as it gets really tedious having to go over the same ground over and
over like some neverending game of whack-a-mole) Grex does suffer a harm
regardless of how long the items in question are idle. My recent example
was a new item about divorce posted by someone other than jep. It is quite
possible that at some point in the item jep's item will be mentioned. It
should therefore be available to assist other users facing similar
situations. JEP HIMSELF SAID HE WISHED SUCH AN ITEM EXISTED when he was
going through his divorce. It's a shame janc can't keep his facts
straight. 

It is also disingenuous for him to suggest that even if what jep and
valerie want is censorship (and it most certainly is) it is some sort of
minor or barely harmful censorship, since no one is prevented from
providing similar responses in the future. This certainly begs and
interesting question or two. Does janc honestly believe that all posters
will live forever? Or that someone who posts one year will remain to
re-post five years later? I would suggest the answer to both questions is
no. Janc's "censorship-lite" still results in the removal of text and
viewpoints that (a) could be valuable and (b) are not guaranteed to be
re-entered if a similar situation arises. Of course, hidden in janc's
"argument" is a hidden and unspoken subtext, which suggests that
notwithstanding (a) and (b) there will still be "true grexers" available
to repeat their advice if necessary. Which brings us back to the "my
ball/my playpen/personal favors for favored persons" mentality that is
displayed by some (but thankfully not all) of grex's regular user base. 

Janc's "sad, tattered remains" argument has also been debunked numerous
times (you REALLY need to keep up, dude), and certain posts will remain
valuable regardless of how much else is stripped away. In any case, it
seems kind of odd to argue that by removing their text, jep and valerie
harm the content of their own items so much as to AT THAT POINT justify
censorship of the remaining posts. If you don't see a slippery slope
there you need your head examined.

I realize that I have been spending ridiculous amounts of time trying to
get people like janc and jep to be more honest with us in their arguments.
I realize now, though, that the problem is they cannot be honest with
themselves. How sad. 

response 7 of 157:

Feb 5 14:45 UTC 2004

Grow up, jp2. For goodness' sake, insulting jep or janc or anyone else is no
way to get anyone else on your side. It is childish and makes me wonder how
much of this you really mean.

response 9 of 157:

Feb 5 15:17 UTC 2004

Isn't it funny that it's been only janc and valerie who have purposely
ditributed false and/or antiquated information to the GreX public?   I think
they're both involved in a conspiracy to destroy GreX.

response 17 of 157:

Feb 5 17:46 UTC 2004

I don't remember anything about his "state of mind" that wasn't par for 
the course with people when relationships end, unfortunately.  It was 
nice to see him rebound from it so quickly.

Re jp2 "caring" about Grex, my impression is that much of what he does 
here is his gleeful way of making Grexers pay attention to him and get 
all in a tizzy over whatever issue he raises.  It is hilarious to watch 
everyone here fall for it, I must confess.  But he is also the sort of 
person who hates to ignored or disagreed with so much that he can't 
just leave it at that.  So what started as a joke, or a taunt, turns 
into a BFD.  After that, he can't help himself.  So yes, I guess you 
could say he does "care," in a certain sense.

Cy is another matter.  Either he cares deeply and sincerely about these 
issues, or else he is doing the best parody of [insert name of your 
favorite old-time querulous bbser here] I've ever seen.

response 19 of 157:

Feb 5 18:08 UTC 2004

MD is correct: I care very deeply about allowing the items to remain. I
put a great deal of time, effort and thought into my many posts (using a
pseudo). Jep even specifically mentioned my pseudo as someone who helped
him.  Those words were not just for him, though. They were for anyone who
could benefit from them. I know a great deal about the subject and I do
not want that information to disappear. I very much hope slynne will think
about that before she making any decision about changing her vote. 

In deference to slynne and twila, I will try to tone down the emotional
level of the conversation, while noting that jep himself appears to be
ramping it up in what is apparently a last ditch effort on his part to
prevail. And I do wish some of the other "anti-censors" would focus on the
facts and not the emotions. I do give some of them credit for having made
that distinction already.

As for keesan, I guess I am on her filter so perhaps someone she is not
filtering can reprint this for her: In my "Parodist's Reply" Item
(50-something I believe) I point out the error of using your personal
experience as a yardstick by which to make broader decisions affecting
many people. It is even more risky to use Jim's experience as such a
yardstick. I am quite certain there were many unique aspects of his case
that caused it to come out the way it did. I see very few parallels to
jep's situation. I see absolutely nothing that would cause him to lose his
children if his items were restored minus his own words. Perhaps aaron
will grace us with his quick overview and confirm this as well. Even if he
doesn't, keesan would do well to remember that JEP HIMSELF has said that
his concerns are NOT legal in nature and are NOT related to his divorce
case. 

I would very much appreciate a "no" vote on jep's request so that (1)
others can benefit from the collective wisdom found in his items and (2)
because it is the right thing to do in terms of supporting free and
uncensored speech.

response 21 of 157:

Feb 5 18:18 UTC 2004

I am not filtering cyklone.  

response 23 of 157:

Feb 5 18:37 UTC 2004

I only filter people who are trying to be obnoxious and one who is totally
unconcerned about typing/spelling quality.  I don't filter people for their
opinions.

response 25 of 157:

Feb 5 19:04 UTC 2004

I think it's funny that she filters tsty.