|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 110 of 424:
| 
Jan 12 21:53 UTC 2004 |
Re #102: Here is what I proposed: delete all of jep's posts and print out
what remains for his lawyer to review. Your position re the involvement of
lawyers is nonsensical in view of *your own* statements that legal
liabilities for jep may justify removal. And if you want to approach it
from a "let the grexers decide" position, then I think most sane grexers
will be more likely to accept an argument based on potential legal
liability if a lawyers opinion is actually presented as opposed to your "I
am not a layer but I think a lawyer would be bothered by this" argument.
Re #106: I'm not going to get into it with you on this jep. If this has all
hit such a nerve, then I suspect there are deeper underlying issues you may
want to discuss with a counselor. And while I do care about the welfare of
children, regardless of whether I know them or not, that is not the main
thrust of my argument. I am saying that Grex needs a clear policy as whether
a given policy can be over-ridden by a concerned and well-meaning parent.
I'm sorry that you are the parent caught up on the controversy. That does
not diminsh the importance of the issue being decided, however.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 111 of 424:
|
Jan 12 23:06 UTC 2004 |
I did say that the items could be dangerous to jep, but that was a long time
ago, when there was one item, and it was newer. At this point, his ex-wife
undoubtedly has a copy if she wanted one, and leaving it up here wouldn't do
any further damage.
|
gull
|
|
response 112 of 424:
|
Jan 13 00:01 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:110: I doubt there's a lawyer out there who would look at the
printout and say, 'Yeah, go ahead.' He's being paid (very handsomely)
to protect jep's interests. He's going to err on the side of caution.
I see no point in shelling out $200 an hour for such a foregone conclusion.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 113 of 424:
|
Jan 13 00:32 UTC 2004 |
You may make that assumption. I would not. For one thing, there is a huge
hearsay issue that may or may not make the entire discussion moot. Your
"yeah, go ahead" comment also misses the point. The purpose of the
lawyer's review would not be to inquire as to whether or not jep should
leave *his* posts readable. The questions for review would be "Can these
*other people's* comments cause problems for me? If so, what kind of
problems could I expect?"
In any case, even if you are right, I consider $200 a small price to pay
to justify the extreme notion that a well-meaning parent can request other
people's posts be deleted. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
How about you?
It also appears that your views are contradicted by one of the very people
janc previously cited (joe saul) in support of deletion.
|
jep
|
|
response 114 of 424:
|
Jan 13 01:05 UTC 2004 |
re resp:113: My lawyer doesn't even use e-mail. Explaining what a
conferencing system is should probably be doable in an hour. I
estimate reviewing the responses ought to be doable in 8 more hours.
Probably.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 115 of 424:
|
Jan 13 01:14 UTC 2004 |
Let me also make it clear that I don't think the responses of other people
are dangerous to John, or that John had anything approaching a right to have
them removed. I will not be cited as a supporter of this action. When I
talked to him about it in the past, I was speaking about his own responses.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 116 of 424:
|
Jan 13 01:20 UTC 2004 |
Re #114: You don't have to use the same lawyer. There are plenty who use
email and know what a bbs is. There are also plenty who do not charge $200
an hour. In any case, since you are the one requesting such drastic
action, I can't get too worked up about the cost. Again what we are
getting, at least in my opinion, are excuses and insufficient reasons to
justify the extreme action you are requesting
|
naftee
|
|
response 117 of 424:
|
Jan 13 02:04 UTC 2004 |
I agree with cyklone. Hire a new lawyer who actually knows something.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 118 of 424:
|
Jan 13 03:40 UTC 2004 |
What useful purpose would restoring the response, minus JEP's comments, serve?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 119 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:23 UTC 2004 |
The same purpose that would be served if an addict wrote an item that
received lots of responses about addiction and recovery. Jep himself said
he wished there was an item like his already in existence that he could've
read during his divorce.
There is a considerable benefit to keeping such items readable. Ya'll want
to do the easy or nice thing rather than the principled or rational thing,
however.
|
jep
|
|
response 120 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:37 UTC 2004 |
It's so easy to be principled at the expense of someone else.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 121 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:40 UTC 2004 |
Its also very easy to lose your principles when you have to apply them to
yourself.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 122 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:47 UTC 2004 |
I don't consider restoring the item, even without JEP's comments, "principled"
or "rational".
|
cyklone
|
|
response 123 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:52 UTC 2004 |
I guess that doesn't speak well for you then if you can't see that other
people's posts have indpendent value above and beyond the person who
initially inspired them.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 124 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:53 UTC 2004 |
Someone took an action they had no right to take. That action resulted in
the removal of text other people allegedly had control over. Restoring the
status quo before the illegitimate action *is* a rational remedy. It's
undoing the illicit act. That may not be a remedy you agree with, but it's
rational.
"Principled" is a value judgement about which reasonable people can disagree,
so I don't think there's any point in our arguing about it. I think that
restoring the item -- with jep's text, which is the only part of it he ever
owned, removed -- is principled. You may not.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 125 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:58 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone slipped.
But whatever. In a sense, John was right when he said the actions could set
a precedent. The precedent, if there is one, will be that if you want an item
removed, and you can either find a staff member willing to sacrifice their
staff position, or you are a staff member, you can do it. And the items
will stay deleted, in order to protect your "rights".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 126 of 424:
|
Jan 13 05:16 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Joe. Your first paragraph explains the rational. Don't know why I
missed that particular line of argument.
|
gull
|
|
response 127 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 128 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:10 UTC 2004 |
(Sorry, had a typo in the above.)
Re resp:125: I believe my proposal addresses that 'precedent' by setting
a formal policy. If your concern is future policy, restoring jep's
items is not very relevent. I'm starting to suspect, though, that the
goal of doing so is not to get some benefit for Grex, but to punish jep.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 129 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:15 UTC 2004 |
See my comment in item #76. I don't consider it "punishment" to ask a user
to make amends to the system when that person's extreme actions in
violation of system policy harm the system and innocent users.
|
jep
|
|
response 130 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:23 UTC 2004 |
re resp:128: Are you suggesting it's important to make sure staff
members don't sacrifice their positions to delete items, Joe? I think
that's pretty silly.
|
jep
|
|
response 131 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:35 UTC 2004 |
re resp:128: I don't know if I'd say there's an intent to punish me for
my wrongdoing. I've very thoroughly outlined what I did,and why I did
it. Anyone who reads item:76 would, I think, have to conclude I acted
properly.
I think there's a willingness from some people, who have no interest in
Grex policy other than this issue, to make an example of me. The items
weren't being read, and so were important only to me. Deleting them
harms no one. I followed every rule and procedure that existed. But
none of that matters. There's a principle; it affects only someone
else and therefore is terrific for abstract purposes; it's got to be
defended, gosh darn it! What's a mere person or two compared to
something important like that?
|
jp2
|
|
response 132 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 133 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 134 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:41 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, what policy did jep violate? It was Valerie who deleted
the item.
|