|
Grex > Oldcoop > #106: Understanding the Undulating Undeletion Proposals | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 157 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 130 of 157:
| 
Feb 8 01:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 131 of 157:
|
Feb 8 02:13 UTC 2004 |
Re 100, where remmers comments on those he is in agreement with: I'm in
disagreement, often violent disagreement, with those he listed. Nonetheless,
I've been convinced by jmsaul's argument.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 132 of 157:
|
Feb 8 02:17 UTC 2004 |
Violent disagreement to cover-up jep's violent crime.
|
tod
|
|
response 133 of 157:
|
Feb 8 03:42 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 134 of 157:
|
Feb 8 04:12 UTC 2004 |
While we are at it, let's wipe all of m-net too.
|
tod
|
|
response 135 of 157:
|
Feb 8 04:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 136 of 157:
|
Feb 8 04:29 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 137 of 157:
|
Feb 8 04:32 UTC 2004 |
Is naftee using keesan's cancer to harass her>? That really is fucked up.
|
naftee
|
|
response 138 of 157:
|
Feb 8 04:41 UTC 2004 |
What's fucked up is that she revealed that her inner emotions are destroying
her!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 139 of 157:
|
Feb 8 05:05 UTC 2004 |
We're within minutes of the polls being closed on the great item killing caper
of 2004 - yea! :-) I don't want any apologies from valerie or jep - I
understand why they wanted what was done. I *would* like some HONESTY from
them, though: Just set aside any & all justifications for what was done,
and admit that for their own reasons they carried out a unilateral act on grex
that caused all this contention, and on a widespread basis.
Sorry aruba - I repect everything you have done for grex and won't denegrate
it - but there is no "we" here - there is only empowered baff working largely
without restrictions and almost always in a reasonable fashion - almost.
The items being restored or not will have no effect on that state of affairs,
for better or worse.
|
janc
|
|
response 140 of 157:
|
Feb 8 15:43 UTC 2004 |
Polls are closed. A few corrections.
Valerie did not admit that she knowing did wrong when she deleted
John's items. When she deleted her own, she thought some people would
be dissappointed to see them go, but never expected there to be any
serious outcry. She thought it was obviously within her rights and
expected others to think so too. By the time Valerie deleted John's
item she had found out that many people did seriously object and that
most perceived it to be in violation of a rule she hadn't heard of.
But she did it anyway because she believed (and still believes) that it
was right. She left staff not out of contrition or shame, but because
it was obvious that her values were no longer in sync with Grex's.
It is also not true that nobody fears the outcome of this vote. I know
two who fear it on a rather personal basis, and several who fear it on
a less personal basis. Restoration might have a chilling effect on a
few people, and I can think of at least one person who might be tempted
to stop posting on Grex in protest if they are not restored. This is
not an easy issue.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 141 of 157:
|
Feb 8 15:44 UTC 2004 |
Sissies.
|
naftee
|
|
response 142 of 157:
|
Feb 8 16:34 UTC 2004 |
Jerkfaces.
|
jp2
|
|
response 143 of 157:
|
Feb 8 17:00 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
styles
|
|
response 144 of 157:
|
Feb 8 23:29 UTC 2004 |
Can't execute "cat > /tmp/tr"!
Nasty return from editor: 127
Ok to enter this response? n
Response aborted! Returning to current item.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 145 of 157:
|
Feb 8 23:41 UTC 2004 |
Jerk.
|
remmers
|
|
response 146 of 157:
|
Feb 10 12:54 UTC 2004 |
(Rejoining this discussion after a couple of days' absence...)
Re #131: Well, I am often in strong disagreement with the people I said
that I agree with (on this issue) too. :)
Re #140: "By the time Valerie deleted John's [jep's] item she had found out
that many people did seriously object and that most perceived it to be in
violation of a rule she hadn't heard of."
Hmm... Well, for what it's worth, when she said "It's longstanding Grex
policy that the person who created an item can delete it," (exact quote,
see resp:68,11) to justify deleting the diary items, *I* was the one
surprised by a rule I never heard of. There was no such written policy,
nor any pattern of past practice to support it. It just seemed to come
out of the air, and to contradict to what I thought Grex had stood for
over the past twelve+ years.
|
janc
|
|
response 147 of 157:
|
Feb 10 15:07 UTC 2004 |
I too was surprised by that. I don't think that was ever a Grex policy.
|
tod
|
|
response 148 of 157:
|
Feb 10 18:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 149 of 157:
|
Feb 10 18:46 UTC 2004 |
It's called a rationalization.
|
tod
|
|
response 150 of 157:
|
Feb 10 18:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 151 of 157:
|
Feb 10 21:58 UTC 2004 |
It's
|
tod
|
|
response 152 of 157:
|
Feb 10 21:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 153 of 157:
|
Feb 11 04:22 UTC 2004 |
Monty Python's Flying Circus!
(Well, someone had to say it.)
|
bhoward
|
|
response 154 of 157:
|
Feb 11 06:14 UTC 2004 |
Re#146, #147: It certainly was not a policy articulated or supported in
practice by anything I've read so far as I've recently worked my way
through archived conferences. And while I've been away from Ann Arbor for
a while and people do change over time, that is also not a policy that
would have been supported by many of the grexer's I knew personally from
back then.
|