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. 

response 246 of 357:

Jan 23 04:40 UTC 2004

Wait, you don't want to restore the items because you WANT to help jep -- a
stalker -- skirt the law?

response 250 of 357:

Jan 23 14:35 UTC 2004

Re resp:240: I think you're doing a lot of "awfulizing" yourself.  Any
damage to Grex's values is already done, and restoring the item won't
reverse it.  It won't undo all the debate that's occurred over the last
few weeks.  It's not going to do anything except satisfy some people who
want to see jep punished.  Resp:242 is revealing; if you read between
the lines, it says that valerie was the problem...but since she's no
longer here, we're supposed to take this out on jep instead.

I originally wasn't going to vote for this proposal, but I've been so
disgusted with the amount of abuse directed at jep over the last couple
of weeks that I'm starting to reconsider.

response 252 of 357:

Jan 23 15:17 UTC 2004

There is no guarantee that any items will remain on grex forever. 
However, usually items are removed with notice. That didnt happen in 
this case because of a staff member intentionally deleting this item. I 
agree that the items should not have been removed without notice. 
However, I cant buy cyklone's argument that we shouldnt remove the 
items because of some potential future benefit to someone. If those 
items are restored, they will be essentially useless since the majority 
of posts will have been removed. 

The only reason I can see for the items to be restored is that people's 
posts were removed without notice. I think that as a system policy, 
that should be frowned upon. But, I also think it should be ok to make 
exceptions to the rules. Luckily grex has a method (member votes) to do 
this. Yes, if this passes, it would be a situation where a favored user 
has been granted special treatment. 

FWIW, I havent yet decided how I am going to vote on this. I dont think 
any great harm will come to jep if the items are restored since most 
people (myself included) will be deleting our comments anyway which 
will leave the items pretty bare. I also dont think it will ruin grex 
to leave them deleted. They were good items, sure. But there is no way 
that they will be restored in any usuable way. For me, I guess it all 
boils down to if I consider it more important to protect every users 
words no matter who they are or to allow someone I like to use proper 
channels to make an exception to the rules. 

response 258 of 357:

Jan 23 18:32 UTC 2004

> My counter is that "People expected their words to
 be preserved _in context_."  If (or when) the context disappears, their
 words should disappear as well. <

Sorry, I don't buy that one bit.  It is true that without the prior reponses,
some / many responses become nonsensicle.  But that is not a reason to delete
them, a justification.  So let's not go there.

As for the "censorship" notion, I certainly do not believe that valerie
deleted items for the express purpose of censoring others' words.  The net
effect of that action may be seen as "censorship", until/unless the items are
restored and individual posters are allowed to decide for themselves.

response 260 of 357:

Jan 23 22:15 UTC 2004

Re #257: "Evidence Tampering:  destroying records that have not been
requested is not a crime, last I heard.  We are always free to destroy our
own coments, and jep's are the only ones that really provide any
'evidence' of wrong-doing." 

Great. So now you ADMIT that removing jep's words removes the harm to him.
In that case, what is your basis for deleting the words of others?

My dictionary defines censorship as the act of removing things that are
objectionable. Jep apparently feels that at least some of the posts in his
item were objectionable, on the grounds his son might become aware of
them. Care to try again?

"Free Speech:  Words were written.  These words had their desired effect,
or as much of it as possible, at the time.  That's free speech.  Removing
the words later does not diminish their original, and intended, effect." 

Now you are really stretching. Words only have effect for as long as they
are there to be seen and heard. No one posted with any intent of an
expiration date being applied. I intended my words to have an effect for
all who read them, WHENEVER THEY READ THEM. Deleting them prevents this
and my words *are* diminished. 

Your argument about who owns the words is utterly specious. Point me to a
single written policy or even a staff decision that implies a person on
grex does not "own" his words. Your failure to do so will show your
argument has no merit whatsoever. Indeed, the vote to allow permanent
scribbling shows a recent affirmation by grex to allow the poster ultimate
control over his or her words.

To those who think I am "awfulizing" by saying deletions undermine grex's
professed dedication to free and uncensored speech, I would simply note
the obvious: when you are perceived as hypocrites who toss away your
professed values to do personal favors for favored persons, then your
reputation is damaged. What I am picking up from some posters is that you
care more about your "feel-good" reputation rather than any principled
commitment to free and uncensored speech and having a reputation for
supporting same. Fine, ya'll have to live with yourselves. Just don't
presnt a different face to the ACLU next time it needs a plaintiff.

Finally, the argument that restoration is not "feasible" if many people
delete their posts volunatorily begs a number of questions. How do you
know this? Does your crystal ball tell you that Joe Divorce Candidate will
come looking for the item jep wished was here at the beginning of his
divorce and will get NOTHING AT ALL out of what remains? Do you even know
for sure what will remain? 

The theory of the marketplace of ideas suggests that indviduals must
decide for themselves what words have value and which do not. Yet you now
claim to make that decision for people you don't know and haven't even
met. How very paternalistic of you. BTW, that attitude backs you right
into proving my claim of censorship, since you are now deciding that "Item
A minus X% of content" is not worthy of disemmination.  You are now
appointing yourselves de facto editors and making decisions on content
that others should be free to make themselves by reading or not reading
what posts remain. How very Big Brotherish of you.

response 262 of 357:

Jan 23 23:39 UTC 2004

Re resp:260: "Just don't presnt a different face to the ACLU next time
it needs a plaintiff."

Poor choice of argument, in this case, for two reasons:
- jep strongly opposed Grex's involvement in the ACLU case.  Making an
argument based on whether Grex would be useful to them in the future is
unlikely to fly with him.
- The ACLU has never particularly cared how honorable the people they
defend are.  The extreme example of this is a case in Florida where the
ACLU is trying to protect Rush Limbaugh's medical records.  Rush hates
the ACLU and everything they stand for but they're defending him anyway.

response 264 of 357:

Jan 23 23:56 UTC 2004

Re #261: And such a nice little fantasy world you've created. Just don't
pretend it has anything to do with free and uncensored speech. 

Re #262: Jep's feelings about the ACLU are irrelevant to the issue of
whether or not grex's actual values are consistent with those of the ACLU.
Put a little differently, the ACLU would support jep's rights to free and
uncensored speech even if he was himself advocating censorship. The ACLU
would not support him (or, more precisely, Valerie) in actually censoring
others.  Your "argument" is absurd on its face. Claiming, as gelinas does,
that the creator of an item becomes a co-owner of the words of another,
with a "trump veto" over the words of another, is equally twisted and
unsupportable. Just admit it: some of ya'll are grasping at straws to do a
personal favor for a favored grexer and cannot bear to admit that in doing
so you violate the whole notion of free and uncensored speech. Agora my
ass. 

response 266 of 357:

Jan 24 00:30 UTC 2004

The "trump veto" is only available by removing _all_ of the item, not
just the words of one other user.  The item author cannot say, "gelinas
cannot participate in my item" nor "gelinas' response X must be removed."

I really won't mind if my argument does not prevail, cyklone.  I think it
*should*, but I understand that others don't.

And we simply disagree on the ownership of items.  This disagreement does
not mean that one of us is more supportive "free speech" or more against
"censorship."  We _may_ have different ideas of what those terms mean,
though.