|
Grex > Oldcoop > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 163 of 357:
| 
Jan 15 09:13 UTC 2004 |
resp:153 Read it again, John. I said that the actions taken were
considered unethical... namely, the controversy has been actions that
led to having the entire items deleted. I have perceived that some
folks have believed it unethical, if you will, unfair, restricting
free speech.
It seems a jump to me to therefore assume that I will therefore
associate your name with scandalous accusations. I tried to state
things as I saw them, without making any such connection. I'm sorry
you don't see it that way, because I'm not out to be your enemy at all
or make your life miserable. I feel you are mistaken.
|
jep
|
|
response 164 of 357:
|
Jan 15 17:09 UTC 2004 |
re resp:163: Jack, I think we're close to being on the same page.
I understand you don't necessarily think I am unethical. I don't
regard you as my enemy, or someone who's trying to make me miserable.
(-:
I was more using you as an example of someone who doesn't know me very
well, but may now be associating my name with such concepts
as "unethical" or a "vandal" after seeing the things that people who do
know me have said about me. It seemed likely to me you'd think of me
that way because one of your responses used the word "unethical"
several times.
While I can retain hope that *you* won't think that's how I am, I can
also expect that *others* will think of me as an unethical vandal
because people -- who do know me, and who know better than that -- keep
saying that.
|
janc
|
|
response 165 of 357:
|
Jan 15 17:25 UTC 2004 |
I'm baffled by the attempt to blame JEP for all this. The only thing he ever
did was express a desire to have those two items removed. He never heard
anything about what the board was thinking. He didn't know about the idea
of temporarily deleting the item and bringing it up for public discussion (I
meant to clear that with him - as it would potentially subject him to some
pain and he might have prefered to leave the items quietly forgotten - but
I never got around to it, since we never even had board agree to consider
that option - some board members opposed it strongly). JEP did not talk
Valerie in to this. Valerie felt strongly that it was proper for her items
to be deleted. She saw the similarity of circumstances between her and John,
and chose to apply her own ethical standards in a uniform way, although in
open defiance of Grex's rules. She did not tell anyone, not me, not JEP,
that she was planning to do so. It makes no sense to beat JEP for her
actions. The only thing JEP ever did was tell people how he felt, not yet
a crime on Grex (though it may be on M-Net).
|
jp2
|
|
response 166 of 357:
|
Jan 15 17:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 167 of 357:
|
Jan 15 18:29 UTC 2004 |
This may help you with your baffledness, Jan. Here is mail
jep sent to Valerie, staff and board, on January 7th, 4:30 p.m.
"Additionally, I feel strongly that, since you were allowed to delete
your items, I should be allowed to have mine deleted. You said you
acted as two people. User Valerie asked Staffer Valerie to delete the
items, and without much ado, it was done. I have now asked the staff
of Grex to delete a couple of items for me. User Jep has made the
same request, which has clearly reached Staffer Valerie. No debate is
needed. Please just delete the items. You can discuss it later.
I can justify my second thoughts and request to delete my item quite
easily, but I should not need to do so. Just, please, delete the items
and do it now."
I don't think Valerie would have killed the divorce items
had John not demanded it be done. So, he was part of this
action, by his own emphatic request.
Not that it matters much. This isn't about punishing John.
It's about users censoring other users.
|
jp2
|
|
response 168 of 357:
|
Jan 15 18:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 169 of 357:
|
Jan 15 18:52 UTC 2004 |
I don't know if mary betrayed any confidences by posting that. But jep it
seems pretty clear to me from that, as I said earlier, that you just wanted
what you wanted because you wanted it. I can understand that, even if I
wouldn't support granting it to you. So please just cut the crap about it
being important stuff, blah-blah-blah-Blah-BLAH!
|
cyklone
|
|
response 170 of 357:
|
Jan 15 18:53 UTC 2004 |
Jep is certainly no innocent here. As I've mentioned before, at the very least
he is attempting to retain a benefit to which he was/is not entitled and it
is very unseemly for him to refuse to graciously "return" that undeserved
benefit. And in view of #167, I think his claims of innocence are even more
suspect.
|
carson
|
|
response 171 of 357:
|
Jan 15 19:21 UTC 2004 |
(oh, for fuck's sake, Mary...)
(that was wholly inappropriate. within your rights, maybe, but still
inappropriate.)
|
mary
|
|
response 172 of 357:
|
Jan 15 19:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 173 of 357:
|
Jan 15 19:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 174 of 357:
|
Jan 15 20:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 175 of 357:
|
Jan 15 21:02 UTC 2004 |
Jep already put all of the jep/board/staff email into the
public discussion. It's in this item, response #105. He
explained in #107 why it's hidden (due to length) but intends
it to be read by anyone interested.
|
jep
|
|
response 176 of 357:
|
Jan 15 21:24 UTC 2004 |
re resp:171: I have also said that anyone who received it can post
anything I sent to the staff, Board, or valerie, regarding the deletion
of my two divorce items. Mary can post whatever she has on the
subject, as far as I am concerned, either from me or from anyone else.
I am not trying to hide anything.
All of the messages I sent or received are posted in resp:105, censored
because of length as Mary said, but readable.
If you're in Picospan, at the "Respond or Pass?" prompt, type:
set noforget
then
only 105
to see the e-mails I posted. They're complete (except for two small
parts of comments which I believe are irrelevant to the discussion),
and intended to be read by anyone interested.
There was, I am told, much discussion among "baff" in which I was not
included. If there's anything there which isn't already in the
conference somewhere, by all means, post that, too.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 177 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:04 UTC 2004 |
Drift re: this excerpt from a jep e-mail:
> the fw of Agora, where my items are, is Katie.
> She doesn't log on that often.
If true, given that agora is heavily "traveled", are there other people
available / willing to fw for agora who grex regularly?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 178 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:11 UTC 2004 |
This things one sees, again from what jep posted:
Message 1/1 Jan Wolter Jan 9, 2004 01:14:13 am -0500
X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: jan@unixpapa.com via ratbert
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:14:13 -0500
To: jep@grex.org
Subject: Your Item
Are you a Grex member? If so, I suggest that you enter a member
proposal in Coop, proposing that your item not be restored.
Make the proposal specific to your item, not a general policy.
Although that is generic, accurate advice for a wide variety of grex things,
I find myself feeling uncomfortable that a grex "pillar" got involved with
"furthering / expanding the controversy", or whatever it is. jep was a
beneficiary of an act most people consider wholly inappropriate, and was then
being advised as to how to hold onto that "ill-gotten" benefit. Dunno...
|
jp2
|
|
response 179 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:18 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 180 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 181 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:30 UTC 2004 |
I assume she did it either because it was her duty as a nurse - or human being
- or because she was being a busybody. Only the Shadow knows...
|
tod
|
|
response 182 of 357:
|
Jan 15 22:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 183 of 357:
|
Jan 15 23:42 UTC 2004 |
OTOH, if she did indeed make such reports, the "legal liability" argument some
have been making in support of keeping the items deleted is weakened. If there
were no repercussions back then, in the heat of the divorce and jep's anger,
then I certainly see no risks at this point.
|
gull
|
|
response 184 of 357:
|
Jan 16 00:46 UTC 2004 |
It's not clear whether she did or not. The response in which she apparently
admitted to doing so was scribbled. All we have to go by is what jp2 has
said.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 185 of 357:
|
Jan 16 00:58 UTC 2004 |
She acknowledged it.
|
naftee
|
|
response 186 of 357:
|
Jan 16 02:48 UTC 2004 |
Where would we be without the 'usual troublemakers' of GreX.
|
jep
|
|
response 187 of 357:
|
Jan 16 19:54 UTC 2004 |
re resp:180: She did? I had never heard that. Mary, is that true?
|