response 140 of 357:

Jan 13 17:49 UTC 2004

jep, I dont think you have acted unethically here. Nor do I think you 
are a vandal. 

I do admit to feeling *very* conflicted about this situation. On the 
one hand, I like you and I dont want to see you hurt. I dont think 
those items will hurt you but you clearly do. I respect your desire to 
have them removed. 

The folks who say that their words have been deleted and should be 
restored have a valid point though. Their words should be restored 
unless they give permission otherwise. I really would hope that all 
participants in that item would give you permission to delete their 
posts too. 

You should know though, that the liklihood of that happening increases 
if you ask them *before* this vote goes through. Because asking them 
afterwards has the message "I dont care enough about your feelings 
about your words to ask your permission to remove them. I am only 
asking you now because my attempt to force the removal without your 
permission failed". 

response 142 of 357:

Jan 13 18:29 UTC 2004

Exactly! He has yet to acknowledge that it was wrong to attempt to retain
a personal benefit based on a violation of grex policy. That is why I
proposed a "fine." It is a way to save face for all concerned, not
compensation for actual harm. It a way for jep to have his way while also
admitting it was wrong and caused harm to the core values of grex. 

response 144 of 357:

Jan 13 19:22 UTC 2004

Yeah the $fine stuff is just silly.

response 152 of 357:

Jan 14 10:37 UTC 2004

resp:138 Whoa, cowboy, just hold on right there.  If you really want 
to believe that, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I don't know you.  But is it possible for me to disagree with 
what how you did things without coming to the conclusion, "oh, gee, 
he's just buying into everyone's rant that jep is an unethical vandal?"
I think it could be.  By your same reasoning-- you don't know me-- I 
don't know why the hell you chose to single me out.

I am a father, and I hope I can empathize on some level.  If I 
understand things correctly, you want some control on how you want to 
discuss things with your son... to not risk the possibility of a lot 
of unpleasantness just land in his lap.

Honestly, I think scribbing out your responses in the item would have 
been the best way to go.  Apparently-- that didn't happen-- we are all 
dealing with this after the fact.

Again, I'm not sure why you see that I am projecting such unfavorable 
views upon you.  Granted, all I know of you is a father who obviously 
cares about his son (hmmm, there is a possibility that I might have a 
response or two in your items) and that the material that the items 
covered was about a very difficult time that you wish to put behind 
you.  You've said that restoring the items jeopardizes that-- that 
unscrupluous users will repost them to the forefront (do I remember 
correctly) and that it could be damaging to you, and your son... if he 
was to find it.  I think it was mentioned that your ex-wife *might* 
get a hold of it if she hadn't already.

I can understand all of that, and understand why the material should 
be gone.  Even if, theoretically, the material might have remained and 
no harm would have been done, you had very good reasons to remove 
it... and as best I understood, scribbling was the legitimate way to 
have it done.  However, a staff member intervened on your behalf, 
deleted everything, and hence the controversy.

I don't make decisions cast in stone-- I do try to get as much 
information as possible.  To be honest, John, I am sympathetic and 
empathetic, if you would believe that.  But I am also sympathetic to 
those who are examining the precedent this may cause, and 
unfortunately, because Valerie was involved and because of the 
controversy surrounding her own actions, well, I would like to push 
for a solution that keeps policy on an even keel... because I don't 
think any of us can tell what might happen in the future.

I know this must be terribly emotion-wrenching for you.  But I'm not 
thinking what you're claiming.  Much too simplistic.  At best, my 
opinion is that some decisions were made that weren't well thought 
out... maybe more on Valerie's part.  I also see that those decisions 
will have an impact on Grex policy... and what people decide will 
determine how things are run in the future.  I see two interests very 
much at seeming conflict-- a father pleading against restoration, 
arguing such is a foreseeable risk, and a group that argues 
restoration (with scribbling later) is the way to preserving policy 
for the future.  Not sure how to have the cake and eat it too... but 
solutions seem to be at an impass for the moment.

response 154 of 357:

Jan 14 14:34 UTC 2004

you're right, you aren't changing policies.  They were temporarily changed
for you.  That makes you special, but certainly not more correct.

response 156 of 357:

Jan 14 16:39 UTC 2004

Thanks a lot, Twila, for contributing something actually *useful* to 
this discussion.  You're gonna ruin the whole theme of the thing!  
;)

response 158 of 357:

Jan 14 19:20 UTC 2004

And as somebody else mentioned, jep can *retire* his items, so they are not
even apparent to the average user.

response 160 of 357:

Jan 15 01:45 UTC 2004

I suspect part of the reason so much anger is being directed at jep is 
because valerie is no longer around to take it out on.

response 162 of 357:

Jan 15 03:13 UTC 2004

I'll say this, everyone who posted in those items was very, very 
helpful to me.  I appreciated it then and I do now.  I regret being at 
odds with some of you.