|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 163 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 111 of 163:
| 
Mar 6 13:57 UTC 2004 |
Mnet was down for a month from vandal activity. Grex backups are rare at
best.
By not keeping copies of your works given what you know about the reliability
of unsecured, open Internet sites, you've pretty much proven that you don't
care that much about your words. Whether the loss was due to a staff abuse
or any other source is irrelevant.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 112 of 163:
|
Mar 6 14:29 UTC 2004 |
That is absolute and utter bullshit Scott, and I expected you of all
people to be smart enough to see the difference between an accidental loss
of text due to system failure and a deliberate act of staff misconduct.
Like I've said before, by your logic there is no difference between murder
and death by old age since the result is the same. You cannot possibly
believe your "logic" is in any way valid.
I agree with tod in #110.
Twila: If you would bother to keep up with this discussion and recall what
I've written, you would know I have already made a request in this cf for the
copies of my dbunker entries. Let me say it again for those that missed it
the first time.
IF ANYONE HAS COPIES OF THE DBUNKER POSTS IN JEP'S DIVORCE ITEMS I WOULD
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE A COPY. YOU CAN EITHER GIVE ME THE ENTIRE COPY, AND I
PROMISE NOT TO POST OR OTHERWISE USE ANYONE ELSE'S POSTS, OR YOU CAN JUST
COPY OUT THE DBUNKER POSTS AND SEND ME ONLY THOSE. IF THERE IS A LOT OF
LABOR INVOLVED, I WOULD EVEN BE WILLING TO COMPENSATE FOR THE TIME.
|
scott
|
|
response 113 of 163:
|
Mar 6 15:30 UTC 2004 |
My logic is just as good as yours. You valued your words that much, you
should have done something to protect them. You KNEW that Grex was not a
guaranteed safe place for data - doesn't matter how the damage was done.
|
rational
|
|
response 114 of 163:
|
Mar 6 16:03 UTC 2004 |
(M-Net wasn't down from vandal activity, though I'm not surprised a technocrat
like Scott would fall for that myth.)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 115 of 163:
|
Mar 6 19:26 UTC 2004 |
Scott's logic is defective in many, many ways. He also fails to recall my
very detailed arguments as to why the the "safeguarding" of one's posts is
a complete red herring (here's a reminder scott: what if a poster died?).
The words have value regardless of the permanence of storage or the
safeguards to retain them.
Censors are people who make value judgments about the texts based on the
qualities they attribute to the words and/or the authors. Scott seems to
think words are not worth preserving if the original authors take no steps
to preserve. If he wants to live in his fantasy world, great, but I have
lost all respect for his intellectual capacity.
Using Scott's twisted "logic" if a person didn't attend to their health,
it would be OK to murder them because they didn't plan to live long
anyway.
|
salad
|
|
response 116 of 163:
|
Mar 6 19:27 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 117 of 163:
|
Mar 6 21:21 UTC 2004 |
Re 115: So it's not about the value of your own words, then? That would
explain why you hadn't even posted them under your own name.
Look, you could go ahead and just say you've changed your mind, given the way
those items were removed. Just don't try to argue logic here, or present any
more faulty analogies. It's very hard to take you seriously when you
essentially saying that your words are important, but that you didn't care
enough to preserve them yourself.
|
rational
|
|
response 118 of 163:
|
Mar 6 21:26 UTC 2004 |
I wonder if it's possible they were over the threshhold of something he'd want
to save, but not over the threshhold of something he'd go out of his way to
save.
|
coopcf
|
|
response 119 of 163:
|
Mar 6 22:57 UTC 2004 |
Scott & Cyklone:
Read item 75, responses 155 - 167 .
Thanks.
|
salad
|
|
response 120 of 163:
|
Mar 7 00:15 UTC 2004 |
The COOP conference is eternally wise.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 121 of 163:
|
Mar 7 13:26 UTC 2004 |
Re #117: " It's very hard to take you seriously when you essentially
saying that your words are important, but that you didn't care enough to
preserve them yourself."
So even if words have value to a third party, the should nevertheless be
denied access to those words simply because the author for whatever
reasons did not to take your required steps to designate those words
worthy of preservation? Get a clue, moron. You don't even realize that by
piling value judgment upon value judgment you are engaging in the very
behavior free speech prinicples seek to avoid.
You also have a wonderful way of blaming the victims for Valerie's abusive
behavior and to justify the shamefully unprinciple vote of the grexers who
supported personal favors for favored persons.
|
scott
|
|
response 122 of 163:
|
Mar 7 14:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 123 of 163:
|
Mar 7 15:00 UTC 2004 |
I'm not blaming the victim, actually. I'm saying that you are making
yourself out to be the abused and aggrieved victim, when your (lack of)
actions previously seem to say otherwise.
As I said a couple responses ago, I would accept that once the deletions
occurred you suddenly found yourself much more concerned about the survival
of your words than before, and that in retrospect you would have made your
own backups.
BTW, calling me a moron is not helping your logic any. And it would help if
you could decide once and for all whether you're concerned about your own
access or a hypothetical "third party" access to your words.
Hmm... didn't we have yet another huge argument here a while back about what
sort of license was being given/loaned to Grex to keep a copy of people's
words online? This was part of the scribble log debate.
|
salad
|
|
response 124 of 163:
|
Mar 7 20:06 UTC 2004 |
Didn't you guys read the item?%!
|
rational
|
|
response 125 of 163:
|
Mar 7 20:13 UTC 2004 |
YEAH?
|
jp2
|
|
response 126 of 163:
|
Mar 8 00:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 127 of 163:
|
Mar 8 01:00 UTC 2004 |
LOL
|
tod
|
|
response 128 of 163:
|
Mar 8 16:48 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 129 of 163:
|
Mar 8 17:11 UTC 2004 |
The members voted not to restore.
|
jp2
|
|
response 130 of 163:
|
Mar 8 18:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 131 of 163:
|
Mar 8 18:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 132 of 163:
|
Mar 8 18:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 133 of 163:
|
Mar 8 18:45 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 134 of 163:
|
Mar 9 00:13 UTC 2004 |
Rer #123: Scott, if you had been following the debate with any careful
consideration, you would have seen that I was making two parallel points.
My first (and initial) point was that grex had no principled basis to deny
authors, including myself, the right to control our words (other than the
"personal favors for favored persons" prinicple).
What happened next was that the anti-restorationists, unable to deny my
compelling logic, began to seek alternative grounds to justify removing
user control over their words. The main basis was the benefit to jep and
valeried outweighed the harms to the posters. I stated at the time that
while I did not consider that a valid argument to justify censorship and
the removal of user control over their words, even that flimsy argument
was highly suspect.
My basis for that claim was that jep and valerie made no supportable
claims of harm, prefering instead to "argue" on the basis of innuendo. I
also made very clear the point that the words had value independent of the
author and even beyond the value the author ascribed to said words. One of
the key pieces of evidence in support of my argument was that JEP HIMSELF
said he wished a similar item had existed when he was so unable to cope
with his divorce.
I'm sorry you can't remember all that. However, I made my points
consistently and repeatedly. I am sure you are quite smart when it comes
to electronics and computing. But when it comes to following the history
and the arguments in this debate you are clueless. Hence my moron comment.
And yeah, if it makes you feel better or believe you've won some sort of
argument, then I admit I probably would have backed up my posts if I had
any idea grex staff and its members would act in such a reprehensible
manner. In terms of the principles at stake, and the unsupportable
anti-restoration arguments, though, whether or not I or anyone else made a
back-up is entirely irrelevant. I'm amazed you can't see that.
|
scott
|
|
response 135 of 163:
|
Mar 9 00:25 UTC 2004 |
Um, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand your
arguments.
|