|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 19 new of 184 responses total. |
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
|