|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 170 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 143 of 170:
| 
Jan 14 16:34 UTC 2004 |
jep, you are simply RATIONALIZING!!!!! It's really quite annoying - stop it.
"They're something else now." BS. They are what they are, threads of text.
To me, the jury is still out on whether any of the items deleted by valerie
should be restored. But I will not accept your argument that they have
magically morphed into something more than they were. Your statements are
self-serving, and I'm tired of hearing it.
|
flem
|
|
response 144 of 170:
|
Jan 14 17:20 UTC 2004 |
re: the "magically morphed" theory: maybe you should have thought of
that before you called all this attention to them.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 145 of 170:
|
Jan 14 19:56 UTC 2004 |
Re #142: I've avoided using the "vandalism" word before this, but I
need to use it here to make a distinction. Those items were
not deleted by someone with the authority to do it as part of
normal Grex practice. Asking whether we would call for their
return if a FW had cleaned them out is a poor analogy for that
reason.
A better analogy is whether we'd ask for them to come back if
they'd been removed by a vandal who wasn't a trusted member
of the staff at the time. Say polytarp had done it. Would
we want them back? Absolutely.
|
willcome
|
|
response 146 of 170:
|
Jan 14 21:09 UTC 2004 |
I'm ALWAYS the fucker in hypotheticals.
|
naftee
|
|
response 147 of 170:
|
Jan 14 23:52 UTC 2004 |
yer just that special.
|
tod
|
|
response 148 of 170:
|
Jan 15 00:23 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 149 of 170:
|
Jan 15 02:00 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:143: Everyone is rationalizing in this item. Specifically,
they're presenting what they feel are the rational reasons for their
opinions.
I disagree with the 'vandalism' analogies. I don't feel they're
accurate. If someone hacked root and started deleting stuff, they'd be
clearly doing something that was against the rules. It looks to me like
what valerie and jep did was in a grey area. Not even all the remaining
staff initially agreed on whether what valerie did was permissable or
not. I'm not sure it's fair to retroactively apply a black-and-white
policy to their actions *now*.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 150 of 170:
|
Jan 15 02:14 UTC 2004 |
It seems to me that "grey area" is the result of an unwritten grex "code"
that allows personality and "take-my-ball-homeism" to prevail over common
sense and uncensored speech. Maybe it gives ya'll a warm fuzzy, but I find
it appalling.
|
gull
|
|
response 151 of 170:
|
Jan 15 03:13 UTC 2004 |
I didn't say I thought their actions were admirable. Just that I'm not
convinced it was obviously against Grex policy to take them.
|
jp2
|
|
response 152 of 170:
|
Jan 15 03:26 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 153 of 170:
|
Jan 15 03:34 UTC 2004 |
re resp:143: I'm really sorry you think I'm rationalizing, and that
there's something wrong with doing that.
I very much don't want my items restored. It's important to me. I am
trying to answer all of the points being made from my perspective.
It's definitely true that I'm trying to serve my own interests.
As a matter of fact, I'm obsessed enough by the issue I've pretty much
stopped logging in to Grex from work, because once I'm here I can't
skip getting involved in it. I come to coop first. I might or might
not read the other conferences before I'm done for the night. I hope
I'll be in bed before 1:00 a.m. -- I'll have a bad day at work if I
don't get some sleep. What you're seeing is what happens when an
obsessive-compulsive type person gets wrapped up in something.
I'm sorry to be annoying to you, though. It's not my intention.
|
jep
|
|
response 154 of 170:
|
Jan 15 03:34 UTC 2004 |
re resp:152: Jamie, item:39 *is* a Grex policy item.
|
naftee
|
|
response 155 of 170:
|
Jan 15 03:38 UTC 2004 |
re 152 jep still seems to think that a permissible precedent was set when
valerie deleted her items, as per response 340 item 68.
I'm not sure if he will ever change his misunderstanding. Maybe he's just
that obsessed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 156 of 170:
|
Jan 15 03:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 157 of 170:
|
Jan 15 03:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 158 of 170:
|
Jan 15 15:49 UTC 2004 |
Jamie, as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to scribble any post you wrote
anywhere on Grex. It's an ability all users have.
What I don't want you to be welcomed to do is remove an entire item, such as
#39 in coop, where others have responded.
My personal opinion is that the items should be restored into some form of
limbo and anyone who wants to scribble their section of it may. I believe
these deletions were a one time occurence and should not be considered the
precedent setting move some others consider it to be.
Just to be perfectly clear, that's my opinion and not the consensus opinion
of the entire staff. That should already be clear, but I'm slowly learning
that what I think is obvious is apparently not obvious to all.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 159 of 170:
|
Jan 15 18:11 UTC 2004 |
I do think a mountain is being made out of a molehill over all this, mostly
due to the practicality that the likeliehood of recurrence is small. And I'll
admit my share of the guilt in that mountain making, by engaging in these
discussions. But I also think that a defacto precedent *was* set, by virtue
that there seems to be no clear policy having been established beforehand to
which people can point and say "valerie clearly and deliberately violated that
policy". Thus until all the proposals currently alive in coop are resolved,
there is at least a theoretical possibility that this same situation could
recur, with all the associated controversy.
|
cross
|
|
response 160 of 170:
|
Jan 15 20:38 UTC 2004 |
It's not the event itself, it's the principle of the matter that's at issue.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 161 of 170:
|
Jan 24 07:48 UTC 2004 |
re: 92 - Cross...was 1996 so good to you that you refuse to leave it?
I've been "flame target of the month" in M-Net's Flame conference for nearly
five years now, M-Net's Twinkie conference is basically a parody of itself...
Is there any particular reason you like to post about me so much? Beyond this,
you've openly theorized in the last Agora that I was "willcome". I'm about
to throw a tantrum to janc proportions, because nobody told me you were saying
mean things about me here on Grex.
|
cross
|
|
response 162 of 170:
|
Jan 24 16:53 UTC 2004 |
92 was entered by krj, not me, twinkie. :-)
|
twinkie
|
|
response 163 of 170:
|
Jan 24 17:26 UTC 2004 |
Meh. 92, 94, close enough.
|
naftee
|
|
response 164 of 170:
|
Jan 24 18:51 UTC 2004 |
TWO GUYS HOT FOR TWINKIE
GROSS
|
styles
|
|
response 165 of 170:
|
Jan 25 03:00 UTC 2004 |
BRING ON THE SNARKY< EH?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 166 of 170:
|
Jan 25 03:03 UTC 2004 |
Oh, the snarky is brought.
|
styles
|
|
response 167 of 170:
|
Jan 25 05:41 UTC 2004 |
looks green :(
|