|
Grex > Oldcoop > #145: Member Resolution: Undead the Kilt | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 109 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 11 of 109:
| 
Mar 26 00:00 UTC 2004 |
Brooke - I'd like to give it a rest because I got sick to death of reading
keatses and keatses of abuse and bitterness every single day for a month and
a half. We voted on it, which is what we do when there is disagreement. I
don't know what's left to say at this point.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 12 of 109:
|
Mar 26 00:36 UTC 2004 |
What's left to say is your vote, and the majority vote, was an
unprincipled vote to do personal favors for favored persons because, as
scott put it so well, you were "circling the wagons" against the noisy
mnetters. Instead of putting aside your prejudices, reasoning things out
and doing what is right, many of you twisted your logic and principles
into utterly unspportable positions. So history will now show (unless some
of you pussies vote to delete these discussions) that when it came time to
do the right thing, ya'll wimped out. If I'm fighting a battle with my
back to the wall, I want todd on my side, and not because he's an
ex-marine. Todd stood up for principles that mean something. Most of the
voters did not. In my book that makes ya'll cowards. Which merits a big
FUCK YOU to all the anti-restorationists.
|
parcel
|
|
response 13 of 109:
|
Mar 26 00:45 UTC 2004 |
YEAH< PUSSIES
FUCK YOU
|
jp2
|
|
response 14 of 109:
|
Mar 26 01:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
soup
|
|
response 15 of 109:
|
Mar 26 02:48 UTC 2004 |
I'm floatin' tod's boat. AND I"M BITTER< GODDAMINIT
|
aruba
|
|
response 16 of 109:
|
Mar 26 05:29 UTC 2004 |
<sigh>
|
kip
|
|
response 17 of 109:
|
Mar 26 05:34 UTC 2004 |
Okay, I'll throw another log on the fire.
What is left to say is that wrongs were committed, some large, some small.
None of the "solutions" proposed were going to solve or cause less harm than
what had already been done. While I wasn't in favor of John's divorce item
being deleted, once the attention was focused on it, any restoration was
actually going to cause more damage than if nothing had been deleted in the
first place.
You know, at first there was some "principled dissent" but it all too quickly
descended into shrill rhetoric. Had it not drifted so, I doubt the resolution
tod is referring to would have come up.
Now, feel free to make me regret opening my mouth.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 18 of 109:
|
Mar 26 13:36 UTC 2004 |
What is your basis for saying "any restoration was actually going to cause
more damage than if nothing had been deleted in the first place."?
|
slynne
|
|
response 19 of 109:
|
Mar 26 14:57 UTC 2004 |
I wish valerie and jep would have been willing to accept a solution
where they deleted their own posts and then asked people to delete
thier posts too. So few posts would have remained that I suspect that
the same thing as having the items deleted would have been
accomplished.
However, I have no control over other people and things didnt go the
way I would have wanted them to go. I think the real point here is that
the members voted and now we have to live with that result. Maybe I
dont think it was the best outcome but I cant go back and change
things.
I think that it is time to move on now. Bitching and whining about it
isnt going to change anything. Too many people have their defenses up
even for more rational discussion to be effective.
I would like to suggest that maybe we can kind of give things a rest
for now and perhaps revisit the issue of who controls whose words
around here at a later time. Some time, perhaps, when we can have the
discussion rationally without even mentioning valerie or jep.
|
kip
|
|
response 20 of 109:
|
Mar 26 15:06 UTC 2004 |
You're right, that was too broad. None of the suggested restorations were
going to cause less harm because they only dealt with John and Valerie's
posts, and not direct quotations.
Which along with the increased attention both items would have received
due to the debate would have provided fodder for parody of Valerie or
persecution of John. The very things I believe they were trying to avoid.
|
kip
|
|
response 21 of 109:
|
Mar 26 15:06 UTC 2004 |
19 slipped in, fair and excellent points.
|
edina
|
|
response 22 of 109:
|
Mar 26 15:34 UTC 2004 |
I totally understand being sick of this, two months after the fact. And I
can see how people see this as a "grex vs. m-net" thing. But I'm on both
systems. And I don't think I've said anythign to insult or annoy anyone.
And yes, I truly wish that I'd been here back in the heat of things, as maybe
I could have contributed to a different outcome.
I do want to say this: Calling someone a pussy is never going to get them
to listen to what you are saying. Insulting them until the cows come home
is never going to get them to listen to what you are saying. Knowing Jamie
in real life and considering him a friend and knowing how he is will not make
any person on this system who thinks he's a complete jackass change their
mind, no matter how much I say, "No really - he's a great guy and one of the
most unconditional people I know." Jamie and I have spoken in the past on
his social retardation, but that's how Jamie is. I cannot speak for our
little Canuck friends, so I won't. Having met Cyklone in real life and having
known Todd for what, 4 years or so - I can say that I like and respect these
men and their opinions.
Yes, we keep bringing it up. And yes, it's annoying. Seeing anti-choice
protesters at the Supreme Court always annoys me, as I feel that a decision
was made in 1973. But that doesn't stop them from protesting or feeling that
they can and should further their cause. And no, I'm not making a comparison
in causes, more in styles of those with the cause. They think a woman's right
to choose is wrong - I feel a person has the right to delete or not delete
what they post on an open system, but not delete what someone else posts.
And I truly don't understand how people on this system don't feel the same,
as while it seems as if we certainly don't agree on many issues, it also seems
as if we do agree that you have the right to say it.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 23 of 109:
|
Mar 26 16:50 UTC 2004 |
I have said in the past that I think it's really how they argued their points
and said what they did that polarized people more than the actual issue. I
*personally* don't have an attachment to my own words being preserved so I
wasn't as outraged as many people were about that bit -- although I do
understand that if you expect there to be preservation (and many think/thought
that was implicit in the system) then this is indeed outrageous.
|
jp2
|
|
response 24 of 109:
|
Mar 26 16:58 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 25 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 26 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:17 UTC 2004 |
/sigh.
|
edina
|
|
response 27 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:21 UTC 2004 |
Twila, I can understand not being personally attached - and sometimes I'm not.
In the divorce item, I was. There is nothing more personal to me than what
was going on in my life. And I've thought a lot about your comments on
editing, and as much as I (and I know you do too) love to read, it made total
sense and I was appreciative of editors and their work.
I think my issue is this: In my eyes, an infraction was committed. I don't
understand why people had to vote on whether to keep the items deleted. IMO,
they should have been restored and the authors should have scribbled their
responses/contributions. Imploring other people to do the same in those items
is, in mind, fair, but I can honestly say I wouldn't have done it. As I've
said before, the divorce item was very pertinent to me. They meant something.
And it is my error that I did not save copies. I will not be so blind next
time. But, IMO, it is Grex's error (and when I say this, I mean the staff
and the membership) to allow them to be taken from me. And that's what I
don't understand.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 28 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:23 UTC 2004 |
"I have said in the past that I think it's really how they argued their points
and said what they did that polarized people more than the actual issue."
That demonstrates *exactly* what is wrong with Grex. If you can't look
beyond the style of argument to analyze its substance then you have no
right to claim adherence to the principles grex allegedly represented.
Many of ya'll don't seem to understand the point that free speech means
allowing people to present their ideas in their own words. And FWIW, I
think twila's statement is a cop out, since even before the arguments
heated up there was clearly a group of people predisposed to doing
personal favors for favored persons. I didn't ramp up my insults until
certain users repeatedly insulted my intelligence with arguments a middle
schooler could have picked apart.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 29 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:25 UTC 2004 |
Wow, lots of slippage. I agree with Todd and Brooke.
|
edina
|
|
response 30 of 109:
|
Mar 26 17:38 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, remember - you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
|
tod
|
|
response 31 of 109:
|
Mar 26 18:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
edina
|
|
response 32 of 109:
|
Mar 26 18:39 UTC 2004 |
Sure. Me too.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 33 of 109:
|
Mar 26 19:03 UTC 2004 |
What I'm the most sick of is the name-calling and ascribing of motives behind
words or actions. There was a disagreement about how to handle what was done.
A vote was held. Some / many were unhappy over the outcome. Deal with it.
Bring it up for a vote again, if it amuses you.
Here's a radical idea: How about another rogue staff carrying out the
"unauthorized" restoration of the items from tape???
|
edina
|
|
response 34 of 109:
|
Mar 26 19:09 UTC 2004 |
I've been doing tons of reading today on the 9/11 Commission/Clarke Testimony,
and I came across a quote in an Op-Ed piece by E.J. Dionne Jr.
"One great thing about democraciesis that they make it very hard for secrets
to be kept forever, for claims to go unchallenged indefinitely and for those
in power to escape responsibility."
There is a lot of name-calling going on and I hate it, as I think all it does
is add to the lack of credibility. I will look past what I'm being called
to see what's being said, but it is just one more needless hurdle.
Here is my request of those on the other side of the issue: Why was it right,
in your eyes, to allow the continued deletion of the items?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 35 of 109:
|
Mar 26 23:09 UTC 2004 |
Re #30: I tried rationality and I got bullshit.
|