|
Grex > Oldcoop > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 257 of 357:
| 
Jan 23 17:44 UTC 2004 |
(I don't have time to talk to a lawyer before responding to other parts
of the responses to my comments. As soon as I can, I'll report back as
much of the conversation as I am allowed.)
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.
Censorship: Is an emotional term. It is being used for its emotional
value, not for its description of what happened. Words were removed,
without regard to what they were or who said them, but simply because of
where they were said. That is not censorship by any definition I know.
People don't like that they were removed, so they cry "Censorship!"
The claim does not make it censorship.
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.
The real question is, who owns the item? The person who entered it,
or the people who responded to it? Who owns the responses to the item?
Is it absolute ownership, on the part of the responder, or is it shared
ownership, between the responder and the item-author, who gave the responder
something to respond to? If shared ownership, is the persmission/desire of
both owners required to continue "publication" (for lack of a better word)?
Or is one owner's desire to make the shared work disappear sufficient?
Lots of people have said that the item-author owns the item text and
the individual responders own their responses. I've not really seen
any reasons to accept that view, except "People expected their words
to be preserved." 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.
|
albaugh
|
|
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 259 of 357:
|
Jan 23 19:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 261 of 357:
|
Jan 23 23:09 UTC 2004 |
My argument on ownership is NOT based on past practice or policy. It is not
a justification for the removal of the items. My argument on ownership is
an argument for taking a specific action NOW: _not_ restoring jep's items.
It is also an argument for not restoring Valerie's items.
I argued in favour of closing the 'scribble' log because I believe that
individuals have the right to stop 'publishing' their words. That does
not mean that others do not have a similar right over those words.
I argue that the only additional person who has that right is the person
who entered the item.
In the course of our lives, we often discover that our expectations
were mistaken. That doesn't mean that the world will change to meet
our expectations. Instead, our expectatins change to match the world.
|
gull
|
|
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.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 263 of 357:
|
Jan 23 23:42 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 265 of 357:
|
Jan 24 00:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 267 of 357:
|
Jan 24 00:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 268 of 357:
|
Jan 24 00:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 269 of 357:
|
Jan 24 00:57 UTC 2004 |
resp:249 I found the key word was "tend to"-- Friend of the Court also
tends to favor the parent who earns more money-- else a friend of mine
would easily have custody of her kids. (She's rather poor)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 270 of 357:
|
Jan 24 00:57 UTC 2004 |
No, it might be clear from Picospan that in Marcus' opinion the item
author is not the owner, but that is as far as the evidence will take you.
No, the item author has no right to republish your words. The limit of
their rights in your words is to remove the item they enter. If you
decide to republish your words in a different item, the original item
author has no rights in them, except in the item he created.
|
dbunker
|
|
response 271 of 357:
|
Jan 24 01:39 UTC 2004 |
Methinks that cyklone protests way too much. I think he's trying very hard
to make this discussion all about free speech and censorship because he feels
guilty about his role in hurting Valerie enough that she wanted to leave.
He can't face up to his guilt, so he makes out like he's fighting the
righteous good fight.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 272 of 357:
|
Jan 24 03:29 UTC 2004 |
LOL! Is that you polyboy? FWIW, I feel no guilt or responsibility for
valeries "hurt" or for her abuse of grex.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 273 of 357:
|
Jan 24 03:42 UTC 2004 |
Re #266: So by your logic a "trump veto" over one person is not OK but a trump
veto over everyone is. What an interesting planet you inhabit. Please try
again with earth logic. It is fundamental abuse of the system to allow anyone
to have a trump over the words of one person. It is even more offensive to
have a trump over an entire group of people for the very simple reason that
you are multiplying an abuse of one into an abuse of many.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 274 of 357:
|
Jan 24 04:05 UTC 2004 |
When you actually have something logical to say, please say it.
So far, it has been emotional polemic.
|
naftee
|
|
response 275 of 357:
|
Jan 24 04:40 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, cyklone is an emotional bad-boy. He is presenting raw facts and
refuting arguments, causing GreXers to get emotionally mad. I say we
emotionally smack-down his account.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 276 of 357:
|
Jan 24 04:52 UTC 2004 |
Actually, he is not presenting "raw facts"; he issimply making claims, with
no support.
|
dah
|
|
response 277 of 357:
|
Jan 24 05:01 UTC 2004 |
What would you know about raw facts?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 278 of 357:
|
Jan 24 14:28 UTC 2004 |
Re #276: It seems to me that you are the one who has failed to support your
claims. Tell me where I have failed to support mine.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 279 of 357:
|
Jan 24 17:33 UTC 2004 |
Neither of us have been very good about backing up our claims. So:
Words have meaning only in context.
The context for a response is provided by the item author.
When the context is removed, the response should also be removed.
The item author is free to remove the context at any time.
Therefore, the item author should remove any responses at the same
time that he removes the item.
"Words have meaning only in context."
This is why "out of context quotes" are generally condemned in
news reports, scholarly articles and informal discourse.
The occasional "out of context quotes" item in agora exemplifies
the necessity of context for meaning.
The many uses of "Good day" or "Good morning", as shown in the
opening chapter of _The Hobbit_, are dependent upon
context.
"The context for a response is provided by the item author."
The item text establishes the basis for discussion.
The item itself provides the place for discussion.
"When the context is removed, the response should also be removed."
Follows from the warped meaning of out-of-context quotes.
"The item author is free to remove the context at any time."
Well established by past practice: item authors can "scribble"
the text of the item, and several have done so.
Thus, to prevent the deliberation distortion of other's meaning, any
responses should be removed when the item text is removed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 280 of 357:
|
Jan 24 17:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 281 of 357:
|
Jan 24 17:51 UTC 2004 |
You think deliberately warping the meaning is acceptable?
Or you disagree that removing the context warps the meaning?
|