response 115 of 357:

Jan 13 03:19 UTC 2004

"Every Grexer will know how to get them."

re resp:113 It's a possibility... yes.  I think that it would be 
rather sad and pathetic if someone did choose to go searching for the 
items just to repost them as you said.  Time could be spent better 
elsewhere, in my opinion.  I know there is no guarantee that it can't 
happen.  I would believe it would be remote, although in the heat of 
all this debate it seems more likely in your eyes.

I perceive you are only trying to defend and preserve the sanity and 
well-being of yourself and your family.  But as best as I can tell, 
you went about it in ways that are viewed as unethical by much of this 
community.  Unfortunately, one of the parties involved also did 
something that much of this community considers unethical as well.  
Would that your controversies could be separate-- but I don't see that 
happening with the way things are going.

I don't know.  I've seen a lot of emotions and opinions sloshed 
around.  What is ultimately decided will redefine Grex in years to 
come, I'm sure.  I will say it until I'm blue in the face... a lot of 
this does say that folks need to very carefully consider what they put 
out on the Net... not all places are secure and not all places let you 
retract your information so easily.  Especially if you consider that 
others might have it stashed somewhere.  I'm sure people will still be 
set in their opinions for quite some time... good luck whatever 
happens.

response 117 of 357:

Jan 13 04:15 UTC 2004

yep, sad and pathetic people.  'twas my point but you know.

"What's decided as far as Grex's policy towards future deletion 
requests is what may or may not redefine Grex."  That is what I meant--
 sorry if that was unclear.  I had thought that was apparent.

response 119 of 357:

Jan 13 04:35 UTC 2004

It was clear to me. Grex has at least three separate things to decide.
Actually four if you want to get into the issue of how to police staff and
users who abuse the system.

Jep says " And neither you nor I can afford the bill in any case"
referring to the cost of an attorney to vet his items with his posts
reviewed. He also says there is no need for a lawyer which leads me to
believe all the breast-beating about liabilities is a red herring. I'm
guessing it's something as simple as jep realizing he wasn't comfortable
letting his son get a grex account under the old status quo. That's the
only explanation that even remotely explains his paranoia if he is to be
beleived this isn't about custody concerns.

In any case, Grex has paid a very dear cost regardles of jep's real
reasons and regardless of whether or not he shares his real reasons for
what he did. Given the cost to Grex, though, I think it is highly
appropriate that jep pay a cost as well. If he dontates something like
$500 to Grex I would accept that as his apology and compensation for the
harm he caused. And of course that would in no way be a precedent to allow
future item deletions.

response 121 of 357:

Jan 13 10:10 UTC 2004

Ok, we're apparently on a similar vibe.

response 123 of 357:

Jan 13 11:40 UTC 2004

Millionaire.

response 125 of 357:

Jan 13 14:00 UTC 2004

As I said, I do not want to establish a precedent in terms of paying for a
giving outcome that otherwise violates policy. What I am saying is that if
the majority of grex is predisposed to make a *one time only* exception, it
should make clear that the cost of such extreme action should be shared by
jep. Hence my suggestion.

response 127 of 357:

Jan 13 14:12 UTC 2004

I am all for defining policy. I do not see myself as seeking to "punish" jep.
YMMV. I do think he should bear a cost that in some way compensates grex for
the harm caused.

response 129 of 357:

Jan 13 14:31 UTC 2004

Re resp:127: So what, in dollars, do you feel was the cost to Grex?

response 135 of 357:

Jan 13 15:40 UTC 2004

re resp:124: No, I was very directly clear, emphatically so, with more 
than one e-mail message, that I wanted the items deleted.  (See 
resp:105)

Let there be no doubt about it now, either, I want them to remain 
deleted, just as they are now.

re resp:127: I'll cheeerfully pay every penny that can be proven to be 
lost to Grex because these items were deleted.  I'm not going to pay 
legal expenses if some moron sues, though.  If there's a cost to Grex 
for deleting my items, I'll certainly pay for that.

I have no idea what such a cost could be.  I'll take aruba's word for 
it, though.  If he says I cost Grex money, I'll make arrangements with 
him to cover that cost.

response 137 of 357:

Jan 13 17:01 UTC 2004

I am reminded of an emotionally abusive tactic I have seen used to control
people:  invoking the rule "You can't change your mind".  

From "When I Say No, I Feel Guilty", M. J. Smith, copyright 1975:
But if you do change your mind, other people may resist your new choice by
manipulation based on any of the childish beliefs we have seen, the most
common of which goes something like this:  'You should not change your mind
after you have committed yourself.  If you change your mind, something is
wrong.  You should justify your new choince or admit that you were in error.
If you are in error, you have shown that you are irresponsible, likely to be
wrong again, cause problems.  Therefore you are nto capable of making
decisions by yourself.'
....
To be in touch with reality, to promote our own well-eing and happiness, we
have to accept the possibility that changes our minds is healthy and normal."

Some of the responses here are harking back to a policy change the membership
voted on previously:  You do have the right to expurgate and scribble
responses in a way that makes them no longer available.  Even if you knew at
the time that posting on the Internet was "public" you -can- change your mind.

And if you responded to an idea in a way that makes you humiliated when the
original idea is scribbled, then I suggest you think carefully before you
respond in that fashion.  And also go back and scribble your own responses
that now humiliate you.

Grex is a community.  We strive to create a community and some of us are very
upset when whatever vision of the Grex Community that we hold is challenged.
Two deeply held community values are in conflict here: The warm fuzzy
belongingness value that we try to create by things like the Saturday Walk
and Lunch, and the free-speech-to-the-death value that many of us also
espouse.  Usually they don't conflict.

When someone has healed, matured, or otherwise come to view old thoughts,
beliefs and behaviors in a different light, it seems peculiar to say to them
"we don't care if you are trying to make amends, we will force you to remain
in the time-warp of who you used to be".  

When two important values are in conflict, it is not necessary to say "We must
forever place one of these values in higher priority than the other."

We can say, by leaving jep's two items deleted, "Well, we wouldn't have done
it that way if we'd thought about it before, and we sure won't ever do it that
way again, but the value to being a supportive community suggests the solution
of leaving them deleted".  

Or we can say "The value of my responses being forever readable outweighs
jep's needs in this instance, and I insist that my words be put back on public
view".  

In any event this community must decide _in_this_instance_only_ how to handle
the situation.  Because even a community has the right to change it's mind.