|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 20 of 79:
| 
Jan 24 21:10 UTC 2004 |
I don't think we need to write a new policy every time some poor staff member
has to change polytarp's diaper. Clean up the mess, and get on with life.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 21 of 79:
|
Jan 25 03:20 UTC 2004 |
The posted items were clear abuse. Joe's response was entirely appropriate.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 22 of 79:
|
Jan 25 10:24 UTC 2004 |
I have to agree. resp:18 Interesting thought... if they were all
different, well, that might have been one thing. But it was just
clear spam.
I wasn't reading this crap, but I figure the action taken as described
was appropriate... you had a point to prove again, polyboy?
|
md
|
|
response 23 of 79:
|
Jan 25 13:25 UTC 2004 |
Nope. He just wants to be noticed. Is that so wrong?
|
kip
|
|
response 24 of 79:
|
Jan 25 14:20 UTC 2004 |
nah, and I should be able to scream at the top of my lungs the same thing over
and over and over again standing in the middle of my favorite restaurant
without fear of repercussion.
right....
|
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 79:
|
Jan 25 14:27 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 26 of 79:
|
Jan 25 14:54 UTC 2004 |
heh, okay, Jamie, let's have some fun and get to know each other better. I'm
guessing you're of the mind that Schenck v. United States [249 U.S. 247,
1919] says the free speech is protected until there is a clear and present
danger to the speech?
Thus as long as someone doesn't actually destroy Grex through speech, it's
fine. Doesn't matter that speech might bring the system to its knees through
what I would essentially call spam.
Would that be an accurate description of your opinion? Just wanting to be
sure I understand how much free speech Grex is supposed to be protecting.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 27 of 79:
|
Jan 25 15:44 UTC 2004 |
I don't see any censorship issues raised when multiple identical posts are
deleted, so long as one remains. It's kind of like a school bulletin board
that allows only one flyer to be posted due to space limits. As long as
all flyers are so limited, there is no censorship. I think staff acted
appropriately.
|
slynne
|
|
response 28 of 79:
|
Jan 25 15:57 UTC 2004 |
Ah, the kids are testing the limits. That is what they do. I think Joe
did a very good job with this situation.
|
keesan
|
|
response 29 of 79:
|
Jan 25 17:06 UTC 2004 |
I think we should also delete any postings over a certain size so they don't
take up the entire disk.
|
jp2
|
|
response 30 of 79:
|
Jan 25 17:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 31 of 79:
|
Jan 25 18:38 UTC 2004 |
I'm personally not in favor of the "clear and present danger" argument, but
I was under the impression that you believed that was the only time *free
speech* could be restricted.
Please explain to me what you believe the red-lettered *free speech* should
mean on the Grex's web page.
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 79:
|
Jan 25 18:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
nestene
|
|
response 33 of 79:
|
Jan 25 20:46 UTC 2004 |
How long have these jerks been acting like this? (The kids I mean;
staff are not jerks.)
|
md
|
|
response 34 of 79:
|
Jan 25 21:29 UTC 2004 |
30: The plural of "asterisk" is "asterisks," stupid.
Deleting all of the "Republic" items had nothing to do with suppression
of free speech, obviously. Anyone who pretends to turn it into a free
speech discussion is just pulling your chains, Grexers. Ignore them.
(Btw, the idea of "preserving free speech" by leaving one copy of
Plato's Republic in the Agora cf is pretty hilarious. Sorry.)
|
naftee
|
|
response 35 of 79:
|
Jan 26 01:01 UTC 2004 |
re 33 All GreXers are children, apparently.
|
jp2
|
|
response 36 of 79:
|
Jan 26 01:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 37 of 79:
|
Jan 26 03:04 UTC 2004 |
resp:35 Speak for yourself.
|
russ
|
|
response 38 of 79:
|
Jan 26 13:18 UTC 2004 |
I think that Cross's enthusiasm for blocking the accounts, IP
address ranges, and other means of access used by known vandals
is more appropriate than the current wimpy countermeasures.
I also think that Grex should pursue criminal charges against the
malefactors should a venue be found in which they can be made. At
the very least, Grex should attempt to have the ISP service of
the miscreants shut off under whatever conditions of use apply.
|
ryan
|
|
response 39 of 79:
|
Jan 26 13:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 79:
|
Jan 26 15:40 UTC 2004 |
Criminal charges? What law has been broken here?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 41 of 79:
|
Jan 26 15:56 UTC 2004 |
Certainly not one that the RCMP is going to care about.
Blocking them is rather pointless. They have enough IRC buddies to route
themselves through, that it wouldn't be much more than a minor inconvenience.
And you're almost begging them to enter more crap, just to demonstrate
how ineffective attempts at blocking them are.
How do I know this? I was on the Arbornet BoD when they were pulling the same
crap there, and I was all gung-ho on blocking them. I didn't believe trex when
he pointed out what I said in the paragraph above. I should have, because he
was right.
|
naftee
|
|
response 42 of 79:
|
Jan 26 16:58 UTC 2004 |
IRC buddies . heh.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 43 of 79:
|
Jan 26 17:15 UTC 2004 |
I thought "butt buddies" would be too puerile.
|
naftee
|
|
response 44 of 79:
|
Jan 26 21:50 UTC 2004 |
What, do you have problems with saying what you mean, twinkass?
|