|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 220 of 357:
| 
Jan 21 23:36 UTC 2004 |
I have printed out items too. Don't remember why.
|
mary
|
|
response 221 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:02 UTC 2004 |
Sure, tod. Read respone #195 in this item. Then tell me what you
think would be the best response in that scenario. But the given is
that you are pretty sure the person is so out of control that he
could harm himself. Do you tell his partner or parents? Do you ask
for advice from someone who can read such threats better than you
can? Are you supportive in the item and cross your fingers that is
enough? Do you just read the item and do nothing?
Would it make any difference if the person talking suicide is a
minor? What if the behavior being discussed is instead child abuse?
What's the expectation of this community when a discussion discloses
a potentially life threatening danger?
|
tod
|
|
response 222 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:15 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 223 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:27 UTC 2004 |
mary's a nurse? I thought she was retired...
|
mary
|
|
response 224 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:44 UTC 2004 |
You get to set the threshold for your criteria. The assumption is
*you* see the person as dangerous to himself or others. Now what?
It's a hard place to be.
From your question it almost seems like you are looking to be sure
that the risk is genuine. And that is exactly why I'd be seeking a
second opinion before doing anything dramatic. Being supportive and
seeking more information happens concurrently.
John won't let me retire. ;-)
|
tod
|
|
response 225 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:51 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 226 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:54 UTC 2004 |
A guy I used to know once had someone call a suicide hotline on his
behalf. Man, was he ticked off. It took him hours to get the hospital
to release him. I don't know if he was billed for the privilage, as well.
|
tod
|
|
response 227 of 357:
|
Jan 22 00:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 228 of 357:
|
Jan 22 01:02 UTC 2004 |
Listen, you don't know what it's like to be a cop. It's a high-pressure job,
and we made a mistake that time.
|
tod
|
|
response 229 of 357:
|
Jan 22 03:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 230 of 357:
|
Jan 22 04:45 UTC 2004 |
Re #226: That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad thing to do.
|
mary
|
|
response 231 of 357:
|
Jan 22 14:02 UTC 2004 |
Re: #225 You don't run off to Dr. Phil because you're not at all convinced
the person is at risk. Again, just this one time, tell me what you'd do
if *you* thought he was in bad enough shape he could kill himself.
What I'm suspect is maybe all you'd be comfortable doing is supporting the
person online. That's a legitimate answer. But if it is your answer is
it because you'd be uncomfortable seeking help or because you feel Grex's
unwritten privacy code would be violated?
|
cross
|
|
response 232 of 357:
|
Jan 22 17:08 UTC 2004 |
If something someone said online led me to believe they were suicidal,
then knowing what I do (which admitedly isn't that much) about how much
human communication is distorted in a medium like this, I'd go over
to the person in question's house and talk to them to see if my fears
were justified.
Mary, shame on you. You ought to know better than to presume that what
you read on a computer screen is going to be a sufficient for you to
make a good determination of a person's state of mind. You engaged
in an action that could have had serious consequences for JEP and his
son without first doing sufficient due diligence to see if your fears
were well-founded.
Don't Nurses have to take some equivalent of the Hypocratic Oath?
``First, do no harm.'' In this case, your actions don't appear to have
affected the outcome of events. I think that's luck. What you did
had potential to do real harm, and you don't seem to understand that.
|
mary
|
|
response 233 of 357:
|
Jan 22 17:57 UTC 2004 |
And you are making assumptions about what I did that are inaccurate.
But don't let that temper your judgement. ;-)
|
jep
|
|
response 234 of 357:
|
Jan 22 18:30 UTC 2004 |
Mary's actions are irrelevant to this item, which is a policy
discussion in coop of whether to direct the staff to leave my items
deleted. My state of mind from two years ago isn't very relevant,
either.
|
jp2
|
|
response 235 of 357:
|
Jan 22 18:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 236 of 357:
|
Jan 22 19:00 UTC 2004 |
I'd say it shows his concerns are very real, if belated.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 237 of 357:
|
Jan 22 20:52 UTC 2004 |
Hence his reference to the red herring, I suspect. If jep was not harmed
by Mary's actions, it seems far-fetched for anyone to assume that
restoration at this point could cause any harm.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 238 of 357:
|
Jan 22 21:07 UTC 2004 |
That Mary's (limited) actions had no ill effect is NOT proof that someone
else's actions would be similarly harmless. Right now, the possibility
for such action is limited. Restoring the items restores the possibility
for adverse action. In my opinion, the current controversy increases
the likelihood of such adverse action.
|
tod
|
|
response 239 of 357:
|
Jan 22 22:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 240 of 357:
|
Jan 22 23:29 UTC 2004 |
Re #238: Please identify some *rational* basis for your belief that an
adverse action could occur. Remember, the issue should be weighing the
potential harm to jep v. the *established* harm to grex's professed values
of free and uncensored speech (with the resultant harm of denying access
to someone else in the future who may need such an item much as jep
himself said he wished such an item already existed). "Awfulizing" is a
form of distorted thinking and not a good basis for rational
decision-making. Speculation that has *some* basis in reality is OK, so
please share some details. So far though, you have simply made a hollow
statement empty of any real meaning. Here's another hint: Jep himself
stated his request to keep the items deleted was *not* based on legal
concerns.
|
jep
|
|
response 241 of 357:
|
Jan 23 00:34 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, please illustrate the harm that will be done to
Grex's "professed values" by not restoring those two items from backup
media. While you keep throwing out the phrase, "free and uncensored
speech", you haven't established in any way that this action limits
that.
Those two items aren't going to be left intact and available to future
users. That's not a possibility. Even if you are granted what you
want, most of the responses aren't going to be there. I, and at least
several others, will have our responses removed. What future readers
would be left with, at the very most, is a few scattered comments which
used to be part of a discussion.
You're completely free to post a new item, and to create something
which would be useful to anyone else who happens upon it while stressed
out over a divorce. If your concern is helping others, as you keep
stating, that could be a good way to do it. It would be a lot more
productive use of energy than the politicking you're doing in the
discussions over the deleted items.
It is even possible I would help with such an item. As I've said
before, I was helped a lot by people responding in those items. I
can't be as open and personal now as I was before because of other
factors, but I would be willing to give back if I ever can.
What's happening instead is something entirely different, and in no way
productive. No new divorcee is going to be helped by reading the
pitted remains of my divorce items.
No censorship is being fended off. No one was ever censored. No one
was denied any right to speak out (and be heard/read by others), and no
one is going to be denied that now.
Opposing this proposal isn't doing any good. None. At all. And
won't, whether you succeed or whether I do.
|
jp2
|
|
response 242 of 357:
|
Jan 23 00:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 243 of 357:
|
Jan 23 00:57 UTC 2004 |
Ahaha, "no censorship is being fended off". Boy, you sure love to obfuscate
and distort facts, don't you?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 244 of 357:
|
Jan 23 03:34 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, that self-serving logic is laughable. Just because someone is free
to speak out later does not negate the existence of censorship when a
person's previous words are no longer available. Of course, if jep
believes this logic, then I suggest he authorize staff to provide me
access to all the dbunker posts. Put your money where your mouth is. I
*will* use those posts to start a new item if jep's proposal passes. I am
hereby requesting a grex member in good standing make a proposal to permit
all posters to jep's item be given a chance to retrieve their text. This
includes those of us who's pseudos have been reaped.
There is also an insidious argument being circulated in a very underhanded
way. It is the "most of the responses aren't going to be there. I, and at
least several others, would be left with, at the very most, is a few
scattered comments which used to be part of a discussion." I anticipated
this little argument about two weeks ago. The "hidden agenda" here is to
play the "poor me" card and get enough people to agree to delete their
posts. That means now jep can argue that the item itself has lost its
value. Apparently he believes this justifies censorship on the groungs
that what is being censored has little present value. Of course I think Ku
Klux Klan literature has little value, yet should not be censored. While
this should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of principles and
intelligence, I see jep's "logic" as yet another means for the feel-good
crowd to do a personal favor for a favored person. The intellectual
dishonesty displayed by jep and his supporters is stunning and
disgraceful.
|