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.

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. 

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.

response 117 of 424:

Jan 13 02:04 UTC 2004

I agree with cyklone.  Hire a new lawyer who actually knows something.

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.

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.

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. 

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".

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.

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?