|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 147 of 255:
| 
Jun 13 04:50 UTC 2000 |
I'm not surprised, and I suspect they would pull an individual's postings if
the individual were willing to push them on it. The law would be against
them, so they'll probably do it if confronted by a serious request. (There's
a way to tell if a request is serious, and a way to weed casual requests out,
though many service providers simply assume copyright claims are always
honest. But I don't want to digress onto that.)
If they are doing it as a matter of policy, they probably also ask people
not to talk about it as a condition of the settlement -- that way both
sides save court fees (though the requester may still have to spend some
money proving seriousness), and most people on the Net assume that Deja
News won't remove stuff, so they aren't deluged with casual requests.
If you want to try it, I can outline the serious approach in an item where
it would be on-topic. I don't feel like going after DejaNews myself,
though someday I might.
|
jp2
|
|
response 148 of 255:
|
Jun 13 11:37 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 149 of 255:
|
Jun 13 14:04 UTC 2000 |
This discussion only reinforces my impression that in balancing
individual privilege vs. the public interest, current copyright law errs
on the side of the former.
(re web voting: There's a web interface for board elections, but I
haven't yet gotten around to doing one for proposal votes. So, sorry,
but you currently have to log in to vote on proposals.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 150 of 255:
|
Jun 13 14:53 UTC 2000 |
It depends on whether you think the public interest includes "encouraging
people to write by assuring them that their individual rights won't be
trampled upon" or not, but that's a discussion for a different venue.
|
mary
|
|
response 151 of 255:
|
Jun 13 17:34 UTC 2000 |
That's certainly one way of looking at it.
I guess where I'm coming from is from a whole other direction.
I can't imagine myself making a public comment then trying to
take it back by censoring it. If I screwed, which I do,
then I own up to it, make apologies as needed, and remember
to maybe not go that route next time around. Now, I know
I'm just speaking for myself here, but removing something
from a public conference because I'd rather not be held
accountable for what I did seems, well, cowardly and has
all the earmarks of avoiding responsibility for my actions.
Your mileage may vary.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 152 of 255:
|
Jun 13 18:00 UTC 2000 |
Mary, I mostly agree with your statement. The area of *dis*agreement is that
I see reasons other than avoiding responsibility and accountability for
retracting a statement. If I say something rude about you, then yes,
apologise and go on. If I cross the line into slander or libel, then IN
ADDITION to apologising, I should make amends as much as possible. Removing
the offending statement, permanently, is the only useful amends I can see.
YMMV.
|
mary
|
|
response 153 of 255:
|
Jun 13 20:58 UTC 2000 |
I agree. You should always leave the door open for when
altruism comes to call. It has been known to happen. ;-)
(I am just being a stinker here, Joe. Pay little attention.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 154 of 255:
|
Jun 14 00:52 UTC 2000 |
I think sending the response to the censored log is enough of an
acknowledgement of retraction, myself. I don't think it matters whether the
log is readable or not.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 155 of 255:
|
Jun 14 01:34 UTC 2000 |
It certainly could.
|
janc
|
|
response 156 of 255:
|
Jun 14 04:40 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Mary that posting an apology and/or correction is probably a
better course in general, and one I personally prefer. I just don't think
it should be the only option available.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 157 of 255:
|
Jun 14 12:25 UTC 2000 |
Same here.
|
remmers
|
|
response 158 of 255:
|
Jun 14 17:06 UTC 2000 |
Re #173: Right, a different venue, although I'm not so sure I have
the appetite to debate the general issues at this point in time. So
I'll just say that I think the public interest includes encouraging
low-cost grass-roots public free speech forums like Grex and M-Net
to exist without excessive danger of legal liability on the part of
the management.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 159 of 255:
|
Jun 14 17:16 UTC 2000 |
I'd agree. The best way to do that, though, is not to take a hardline point
of view against the user's individual interests like you're doing now.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 160 of 255:
|
Jun 14 23:48 UTC 2000 |
Mary seems to have taught John her future-item-reading trick. (It's odd,
you'd think she'd be fine with hiding the censored log, since she sees all
the posts ahead of time anyway.....)
|
mary
|
|
response 161 of 255:
|
Jun 15 00:34 UTC 2000 |
You have to stop thinking about it in terms of having said and
going to say. Conferencing is a little like a Mobius strip.
Or to put it another way, what comes around has gone around,
and if it looks familiar, you've got it now get over it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 162 of 255:
|
Jun 15 11:27 UTC 2000 |
Re #159: Don't you mean "like *we* are doing now"? :)
Mary's right. Doing conferencing over a period of years is
sort of like watching various productions of "Hamlet". The
costumes and scenery might change, but you can still predict
with uncanny accuracy what each and every character is going
to say and do. I don't *quite* have it to the point where
I can forsee what response number a person's familiar
response will appear in, but I'm working on it.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 163 of 255:
|
Jun 15 11:34 UTC 2000 |
Then you already know I'll say this: No, I meant like *you* are doing now.
I don't take any responsibility for, or ownership of, Grex's current policy
on scribbling.
|
md
|
|
response 164 of 255:
|
Jun 15 15:26 UTC 2000 |
What Joe said.
|
remmers
|
|
response 165 of 255:
|
Jun 16 13:19 UTC 2000 |
Re #163: I wasn't suggesting that you should take any responsibility
or ownership for the current policy, Mr. Needs To Lighten Up A Bit.
I was alluding to an observation I made earlier that participating
in discussions here makes you in a real sense a member of the
community.
If the policy gets changed, I'd *love* to see you claim that you
had no role in causing that to happen. :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 166 of 255:
|
Jun 16 13:49 UTC 2000 |
No, I wouldn't claim that.
|
slynne
|
|
response 167 of 255:
|
Jun 18 21:42 UTC 2000 |
Well I would!
|
aruba
|
|
response 168 of 255:
|
Jun 19 01:46 UTC 2000 |
Standard plug: Anyone who'd like to have a role in determining this or
any other Grex policy should become a member of Grex. Only members' votes
count in determining the outcome of a vote. Type !support or go to
http://www.cyberspace.org/member.html for information on how to become a
member.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 169 of 255:
|
Jun 19 02:17 UTC 2000 |
The outcome of this vote may determine whether I bother.
|
remmers
|
|
response 170 of 255:
|
Jun 20 15:24 UTC 2000 |
REMINDER: The vote ends Thursday, June 22, at midnight (EDT).
|
remmers
|
|
response 171 of 255:
|
Jun 22 16:32 UTC 2000 |
UPDATE: Since Grex has been inaccessible via the net for a full
day, voting is extended at least through Friday, June 23 (possibly
longer, depending on how long the net connection remains down).
|