|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 262 of 393:
| 
Jan 9 19:55 UTC 2004 |
Mynxcat, you are obviously joking about people thinking you are obese,
considering you posted your original weight and we all admired you for sticking
to an exercise program. Plus I doubt you are thin-skinned enough to care if
mnet decides to use your item for a parody. And yes, of course I was joking.
If I were going to get embarrased about anything I posted, it is not my weight.
|
flem
|
|
response 263 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:57 UTC 2004 |
I'll confess that my anger over what you and valerie have done is
somewhat mitigated by circumstances. If you stole a loaf of bread to
feed your starving son, I'd be sympathetic -- but you'd still be a thief.
Insofar as Grex has any policy covering events like this, it's that no
permanent action will be taken until public discussion has taken place
and either consensus or a member vote occurs. We empower staff and
board to act in emergencies and other situations where lengthy public
debate would have a detrimental effect, but we expect that they will
come up with temporary solutions that can be removed once the lengthy
public discussion has taken place.
As I understand it (I no longer have access to the mailing lists where
I understand the discussions took place, so I may be wrong about
sequence of events), Jan proposed a temporary solution, that your items
be removed from public view while a discussion was held over whether or
not you could delete the whole item. Instead of accepting this
proposal, which would have addressed your (understandable) concerns
about someone posting an archive of the items, you took matters into
your own hands.
I can understand and accept that you felt it necessary to take steps to
make sure no one could read your own comments in those items. I don't
really care why; it's none of my business. It is for your decision that
the rest of us had no say in what was to be done with *our* responses
taht you have lost my respect, and that I consider you a vandal.
|
gull
|
|
response 264 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:13 UTC 2004 |
jep, I somehow got the impression that you had done this in an attempt
to force Grex towards a policy of deleting items. I seem to have
misunderstood your motives, and I apologize for that. I still wonder if
that was valerie's goal, though.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 265 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:18 UTC 2004 |
When you say that you wonder if was valerie's goal, do you mean when
she deleted her own items, or when she deleted jep's items. I don't
think that was her goal either case. But I guess, only she and people
she's confided in would know what she hoped to accomplish.
|
jep
|
|
response 266 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:29 UTC 2004 |
re resp:263: Greg, no one told me of Jan's proposal of temporarily
deleting the items. At first, when I made my request, I heard
nothing. I sent a second request. That time time, Valerie told me
there was a discussion among Board and staff. That's when I pressed
for immediate removal. She sent me another e-mail after I'd gone to
bed, asking if scribbling all my responses would sufficiently resolve
the situation, then later that night, before I'd responded again to
her, she told me she deleted my item. No one else communicated with me
at all until after the item was deleted.
Whups, one other person did e-mail me. Mark Conger apologized for
going outside the bounds of his role as a recipient of baff e-mail, but
asked me to save the items before they were deleted in case I ever
wanted to show them to my son. Administratively speaking, he shouldn't
have said that, and he acknowledged it. However, he was so kind and
thoughtful, and was so clearly only trying to help me out, I wouldn't
dream of criticizing him for what he did.
Before anyone asks, you will have to conjecture on what I did with
regard to his suggestion. I prefer not to say.
|
krj
|
|
response 267 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:34 UTC 2004 |
(( I was expressing support for the concept of "vandalism" as ripping
out everything a person had ever written on Grex, everywhere,
covering a period of years. The removal of the baby diary and
divorce items have quite understandable motivations for me and
while I'm not happy with how it was done, I don't consider it
POINTLESS damage to the conferences, nor is the damage
widespread. ))
|
jep
|
|
response 268 of 393:
|
Jan 9 20:38 UTC 2004 |
re resp:264: I expressly did *not* ask for my items to be deleted in
order to change system policy. I knew I might be causing changes in
policy, but asked for my items to be deleted despite that. I did so
solely because of the harm I believe could have come from those items,
and because an unexpected, unsought-for opportunity arose for me to get
them removed.
I regret any policy changes that occur because of anything I did. I
liked it for Grex better before any items were deleted.
I made some remarks about the consequences of Valerie's actions in this
item before I asked for my items to be deleted. Those were because I
was preparing my position, trying to establish that my items should be
removed when I requested that be done. I didn't want to change
policy. I just didn't want a public debate before my items got deleted.
|
cross
|
|
response 269 of 393:
|
Jan 9 21:43 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #234; I don't think I got that email.
|
mary
|
|
response 270 of 393:
|
Jan 9 21:46 UTC 2004 |
John, quite honestly, do you really believe there aren't
copies of your items out there? Get realistic. For one,
I'd be shocked if your wife wasn't holding a hard copy of
the entire discussion. Nothing entered here is private
or safe from being archived. It's a public system. A
very public system.
|
jep
|
|
response 271 of 393:
|
Jan 9 21:51 UTC 2004 |
I am aware that it's possible someone has a copy of my items. It's
also possible there are no other copies. I can't be sure, now, that
there are no copies, but I can be sure if the items are restored, then
there certainly will be copies.
|
jep
|
|
response 272 of 393:
|
Jan 9 21:56 UTC 2004 |
(I don't believe my ex-wife ever read them.)
|
flem
|
|
response 273 of 393:
|
Jan 9 22:04 UTC 2004 |
re #266: Ah, interesting. That does make it seem that the matter was
much less under your control than you had made it seem previously. So
maybe vandal isn't quite the right word for you.
But I'm currently unable to think of any reason not to call Valerie a
vandal.
|
gull
|
|
response 274 of 393:
|
Jan 9 22:23 UTC 2004 |
While it's possible there are copies out there, I doubt most people
would have found them personally interesting enough to keep. It also
sounds like jep might have squeezed in before this became enough of an
issue for people to start copying whole conferences on general
principle.
|
naftee
|
|
response 275 of 393:
|
Jan 9 23:39 UTC 2004 |
re 244 ACTION mode, not attack mode.
re 247 Yeah, a no-good HACKER<>.
re 249
>valerie's actions were hers alone and not official policy
Yes, and valerie's actions suddenly became temporarily official
policy. Who knows, they may have become permanent, had this
discussion not taken place.
re 253 Thanks. I'm sure there were still people wondering.
re 264 I think her goal was to keep it secret and hope her staff
buddies didn't spill the beans.
re 271 What is your opinion of the "parody" copies on the m-net agora
conference, regarding valerie's baby diary?
re 273 Just try not to hurt her feelings, k? She might resign from
something spontaneously. Go on a mad hacking spree. Who knows?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 276 of 393:
|
Jan 9 23:50 UTC 2004 |
When were Grex's most recent backups performed, and who has custody of them?
And does Valerie still have physical access to the Grex machine?
|
naftee
|
|
response 277 of 393:
|
Jan 10 00:18 UTC 2004 |
She said she'd turn over her keys.
|
tod
|
|
response 278 of 393:
|
Jan 10 00:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 279 of 393:
|
Jan 10 00:41 UTC 2004 |
Valerie gave her Pumpkin keys to Jan.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 280 of 393:
|
Jan 10 04:46 UTC 2004 |
Seems reasonable.
|
willcome
|
|
response 281 of 393:
|
Jan 10 08:38 UTC 2004 |
Wait till you hear about the bizzarre sexual game under which the exchange
took place, though.
|
void
|
|
response 282 of 393:
|
Jan 10 09:47 UTC 2004 |
IIRC, one of the arguments used in the great censor-log-closing
debate was that the entity Grex does not own anything posted here, and
therefore cannot force authors to continue publishing their material
here if they decide they want it removed. It seems to me that a
corollary of that is that item originators do not own the posts of
others in the items they start, and therefore cannot force those
authors to stop publishing their material here if the authors want it
to remain visible.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 283 of 393:
|
Jan 10 11:59 UTC 2004 |
resp:261 To be honest, I hope you don't get that item deleted, Sapna.
I studied piano for a while myself, but was relating a little more
directly as an beginning/intermediate guitar student at the time.
(Right now my studies are on hold.) I enjoyed the discussion... felt
it inspiring to new music students. I feel deleting the item would be
a loss to the conference. But that is my opinion.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 284 of 393:
|
Jan 10 13:48 UTC 2004 |
I'm sure the paino item would not be of as great loss to the system as teh
baby diaries were or jep's divorce items. They wre definitely items I would
return to if I ever found myself in those situations, and I'm sure many people
related to them. On a much broader sense than the piano diary. Or the fat
diary.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 285 of 393:
|
Jan 10 13:54 UTC 2004 |
While I tend to agree with you, especially about the divorce item, which I
think was one of the best ever and contained some of the best advice and
observations I have ever seen on mnet or grex, lumen's point is valid to
the extent he suggests items have value beyond what a poster may intend or
believe to be the case. As a songwriter, I subscribe to the John
Mellencamp philosophy that songs are like children. At some point they
leave the nest to stand or fall on their own merits. A person's items and
posts are similar in that respect. The issue is not one of ownership but
control. The last few days clearly demonstrate, in my mind anyway, that
certain posters are incredible control freaks.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 286 of 393:
|
Jan 10 14:08 UTC 2004 |
Come on. That's why you parodied her in the first place. It's the most
obvious and provocative trait that comes through in her posts, especially
if you were ever around when someone entered a response that didn't fit what
she wanted people to say. Her item was the Singapore of conferencing.
I have some sympathy for jep, but I would have had more sympathy had he done
it sooner to keep them out of his ex-wife's hands. By now, I'm sure Mary
Remmers or someone has already given her copies, so the only purpose deleting
them served was to annoy everyone else and help Valerie burn more bridges.
|