|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 160 of 184:
| 
Feb 5 02:24 UTC 2004 |
Well isn't this interesting . . . . .
#330 of 343: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Thu, Jan 29, 2004 (21:23):
re resp:326: I have written at great length and with great patience
about my request, my decision and my reasoning. I don't think I have
any more to say.
I have already completed copying all of jep's entries in item 76. The
above quote contains a huge lie, which is shown by:
#153 of 343: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Wed, Jan 14, 2004 (09:15):
re resp:152: Jack, my point in mentioning you is that you're someone
who doesn't know me very well, yet in resp:115 you referred to me and
said "unethical" about 4 times. I didn't mean to pick on you. I'm
sorry, because it's clear to me why you'd take it that way.
I haven't discussed in great detail the reasons I think there is risk
from those items. I don't want to. More detail about that isn't going
to change the discussion.
Once again, I'm not trying to change any policies, and I don't think I
*am* changing any policies. I'm asking for a very specific exception.
My request is not a referendum on Valerie or on her actions.
Pay special attention to that middle paragraph, as it is at the heart of
what I have been saying all along. Jep is unwilling to specify why grex
should support his drastic censorship request. He would rather scrunch up
his face, stamp his feet and act all pouty that we dare question his
reasons. He would rather allow others predisposed to doing his favor the
opportunity to create their own worst case scenario to justify censorship.
Jep most certainly does not want to open his true reasons up to any actual
examination. And then, to top it all off, he pretends that he has been
forthcoming all along and the I and others are twisting his words,
notwithstanding his own words in #153 to the contrary.
So, in summary, it is jep who has lied, now saying he has gone into great
detail with his reasons, when his own words indicate he has not discussed
his reasons in any detail and DOESN'T WANT TO! Jep, you not only owe me an
apology (I won't hold my breath though, and can die happy without it), you
owe one to everyone who wants to consider your request ON THE MERITS while
you yourself refuse to specify your reasons.
Go ahead, call me whatever names you want. Accuse me of all kinds of evil.
I can handle it. What you can't seem to handle though, is being
"convicted" on the basis of your own words (I believe the phrase is
"hoist on your own petard"). Grow up!
|
naftee
|
|
response 161 of 184:
|
Feb 5 02:29 UTC 2004 |
YOU"RE NOT GOING TO STOP THERE, ARE YOU?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 162 of 184:
|
Feb 5 03:28 UTC 2004 |
Actually, I might. It all depends.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 163 of 184:
|
Feb 5 03:42 UTC 2004 |
resp:151 Right. I should have chosen a word other than 'secure' or
been more specific-- i.e. been particular about the bbs here, and not e-
mail and files. Posting to the bbs is public-- therefore the words are
viable to scrutiny. You get what I mean, but I managed to not choose
the correct words.
Even so, I've heard stories of people accidentally sending e-mail to
the wrong recipients with embarassing results.
|
valerie
|
|
response 164 of 184:
|
Feb 5 05:02 UTC 2004 |
In #93 slynne wrote:
My position on this at the moment is that the items should be restored.
It was not an easy decision for me to come by. I guess I just dont
think it is ok to give some people control over another person's words
here...
I don't know if anybody is still wading through this huge item, but in case
anybody is still reading:
The thing I see as a problem with this reasoning is that it is creating a
new rule and applying it to old items. When I entered my baby diaries,
there was no rule that said who "owned" an item or who could delete it.
Reasonable people made different assumptions about this gray area. Me,
I always thought that my baby diary was something I could delete myself
or ask a fair witness to delete, at any time. I made my postings there with
that assumption in mind, never realizing that there was a contentious
issue here. Other people clearly came to different conclusions. I think
it is fine to make new rules like this one and apply them to newer items
that are created after the rule is created. But it doesn't seem right
to me to create a new rule like this one and apply it to an older item.
That baby diary started a year or two before Grex was involved in the
ACLU lawsuit. And it started long, long, before the recent discussion in
co-op (which I haven't seen) about people deleting their own responses.
All these things have changed how items on Grex are viewed. That's fine,
but is it right to apply these new rules to items that were created before
those rules were? I don't think it is.
|
other
|
|
response 165 of 184:
|
Feb 5 05:12 UTC 2004 |
Valerie, I have to say that I think this rule is very reasonably
applied to all items both new and previously existing, primarily
because it represents a change in our understanding and application
of copyright protections and laws. Under those circumstances, it
makes no sense to restrict application to only new items.
Furthermore, I think it reflects a failing on the part of our system
that changes in policy and/or standard practice were made without
propagating to all active staff. It should be incumbent upon staff
members to make sure they are aware of changes in policy, at minimum
by periodically scanning item headers in Co-op. In fact, the staff
conference should have an item dedicated to reporting member
proposals, votes, outcomes and policy changes to further facilitate
the constant currency of all staff regarding policy.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 166 of 184:
|
Feb 5 12:22 UTC 2004 |
Valerie misses an obvious point: if a subjective rule is to be applied,
then all who posted to her item with a subjective belief of ownership have
just as much right to expect their words to remain under their sole
control. So the real issue is how to reconcile the views of people with
opposing but still subjectively supportable views. I agree with other on
this. Each person who entered words can control those words only.
|
jp2
|
|
response 167 of 184:
|
Feb 5 13:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 168 of 184:
|
Feb 5 14:19 UTC 2004 |
If I haven't said so before, I'll say it now (but I think I have). I
am not giving a blueprint on how to attack me or my son, by explaining
in great detail my concerns. At one time, I posted everything that was
on my mind; someone used it against me; and that could have had really
horrible results. I won't repeat the mistake.
That's all you're getting on the subject, cyklone.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 169 of 184:
|
Feb 5 14:32 UTC 2004 |
If you are refering to the case of mary copying your posts and showing it
to someone, your argument would be a lot more persuasive if not for the
fact you were refusing to provide details long before you became aware of
what she did. So who's lying now?
Also, simply saying "I think my son or I might be harmed if my ex/the
police/my employer/protective services saw what others posted about me"
would hardly be "providing a blueprint" since people have speculated as
much already (btw, my review of item #76 shows you expressed NO SUCH
concern until today). And since you yourself have said your concerns are
not legal and you do not intend to seek legal advice on this, it appears
you still wish to be vague for no good reason. In fact, one of the few
reasons I can *infer* from your behavior is that you are simply too
embarrassed to admit you are embarassed by your behavior then and now.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 170 of 184:
|
Feb 5 19:16 UTC 2004 |
valerie, I hope that *you* are still reading this item.
> When I entered my baby diaries,
> there was no rule that said who "owned" an item or who could delete it.
You are mistaken, as you found out - picospan/grex *did* have a rule.
> Me, I always thought that my baby diary was something I could delete myself
> or ask a fair witness to delete, at any time.
And when you found out *you* couldn't delete your items, you did not approach
the conf. fw's for assistance - you used the special cfadm account to kill the
items yourself. This to me shows a mindset of deliberately performing an
unauthorized action, which you knew or should have known would be contentious,
as the ensuing staff discussions proved.
At this point I think it would be better for you not to try to justify your
actions; merely say "I did what I wanted because that's what I wanted,
and because I had the power." Everyone should understand that, even if they
disagree with that course of action and some want to see it undone.
Just don't try to play the "I didn't know any better" card; that is what
angers me most, similar to jep trying to justify why his items should be given
special treatment.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 171 of 184:
|
Feb 5 21:58 UTC 2004 |
Very well said.
|
bru
|
|
response 172 of 184:
|
Feb 5 23:52 UTC 2004 |
that's it albaugh, put words in other peoples mouths. Tell them what they
should say to mek you happy.
|
naftee
|
|
response 173 of 184:
|
Feb 6 00:01 UTC 2004 |
Better than people forcing other people to do certain things to make
themselves happy.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 174 of 184:
|
Feb 6 00:11 UTC 2004 |
I get the feeling everyone is going to be stuck in their opinions
until the votes are decided-- and even then, I bet, no one's positions
will change.
|
gull
|
|
response 175 of 184:
|
Feb 6 15:29 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:130: That's a really cheap shot. Honestly, you can do better.
Please, try to let me keep *some* respect for you. You and cyklone
started out making decent, logical points, but you've allowed yourselves
to degenerate into name-calling.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 176 of 184:
|
Feb 6 17:54 UTC 2004 |
Re: #172: What are you talking about, bru?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 177 of 184:
|
Feb 6 19:04 UTC 2004 |
Re #175: I hope you will take note that I have vowed to return my focus on
the issues. I also hope you will note that I re-read 130 to the present and
despite any name-calling at my end, I think I continued to make a number of
pertinent points that I hope do not go unconsidered.
|
naftee
|
|
response 178 of 184:
|
Feb 6 22:39 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, keep it nice for the GreXers, theyhre only children.
|
tod
|
|
response 179 of 184:
|
Feb 7 00:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 180 of 184:
|
Feb 7 01:52 UTC 2004 |
(she did say she would maintain her account)
|
tsty
|
|
response 181 of 184:
|
Mar 14 07:25 UTC 2004 |
the gentle art of verbal self-defense is being abused .., btw, a great book.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 182 of 184:
|
Mar 15 08:30 UTC 2004 |
I haven't had the opportunity to read the book itself, but I have
watched George Thompson's courses on Verbal Judo. Quite the concept.
|
tsty
|
|
response 183 of 184:
|
Mar 16 11:02 UTC 2004 |
if you had read it we oculd have traded ...
|
jesuit
|
|
response 184 of 184:
|
May 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
|