|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
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?
|
jp2
|
|
response 282 of 357:
|
Jan 24 18:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 283 of 357:
|
Jan 24 18:23 UTC 2004 |
So you disagree with the conclusion but cannnot refute it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 284 of 357:
|
Jan 24 18:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 285 of 357:
|
Jan 24 18:57 UTC 2004 |
Yeah response 282 shows clearly that the users should not be allowed to
arbitrarily delete content of other users, within reasonable bounds, of
course.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 286 of 357:
|
Jan 24 19:37 UTC 2004 |
Gelinas is also making a huge intellectual blunder in assuming all words
in a given item require context to be understood. I do not accept such a
faulty premise. I can guarantee that certain posts in jep's items stand on
their own, and are full of meaning that do not require anything beyond the
ability to read the actual post. I would also submit that even where
context would make certain words more" meaningful", they may still contain
meaning in the absence of context.
The premise that the context for a given post is dependant on the item's
author is absolutely absurd. In many cases, the only context required is
that provided by the post immediately preceding.
"Words have meaning only in context."
This is why "out of context quotes" are generally condemned in
news reports, scholarly articles and informal discourse.
Out of context quotes are condemned by those quoted out of context. The
issue regarding restoring posts does not implicate that concern. Whoever
is willing to allow their posts to remain implicitly accepts the resulting
context or lack thereof. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest
and/or evidence of a seriously feeble mind. Gelinas, you can't seriously
be saying *OTHER PEOPLE* beside the poster should be entitled to make
"out-of-context" complaints are you? If so, that again sets up the issue
of a user who wishes his/her words to remain regardless of context and a
group of voters saying "we think these words are sufficiently out of
context that no one else should be permitted to read them." Guess what?
THAT IS CENSORSHIP, PURE AND SIMPLE! Get a fucking clue, dude.
I won't even talk about deconstructionist viewpoints right now. We need
leland to join this item, as I am sure he would spot even more flaws in
gelinas' "logic."
|
gelinas
|
|
response 287 of 357:
|
Jan 24 19:47 UTC 2004 |
Except for the use of emotion-laden terms, which are the tools of
demogogues, you actually have some good points, cyklone. Nice job.
This disagreement is NOT an example of "feeble-mindedness" or "not having
a clue." There are real issues here, with real effects. Stop screaming
so much and start thinking a little more, eh?
Oh, jp2, #282 boils down to, "It's Just Wrong!" #282 contains no
counter-arguments.
|
naftee
|
|
response 288 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:01 UTC 2004 |
Sometimes screaming and hand-waving is the only way to get people to think.
We really do need leland here.
You're right, gelinas, response 282 delivers its message loud and clear.
Which, I'm guessing, it was meant to do.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 289 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:04 UTC 2004 |
Point me to a post where I *haven't* been thinking. I'm "screaming"
because the censorship is so obvious I cannot believe grex's collective IQ
(which I previously had thought to be fairly high) fails to see it. That
leaves at least two possibilities: The collective IQ is no where near as
high as I originally thought (ie. a bunch of feebs are pulling the numbers
way down) or the feel-gooders have no rational way to prevail except to
obfuscate and/or rely on emotion rather than logic. Pointing out that I am
sprinkling my rational arguments with a few insults hardly makes your
argument rational and mine emotional.
I am more than willing to argue rationally. No one in suppoprt of jep's
proposal seem willing to do so, however. The reason is that no rational
arguments can be made that do not ultimately support censorship. Some of
you are trying to do a personal favor for a favored person without
admitting to yourselves and to grex that in so doing you are inevitably
and unavoidably striking a blow against free and uncensored speech.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 290 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:06 UTC 2004 |
<naftee snuck>
|
gelinas
|
|
response 291 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:11 UTC 2004 |
I would be arguing the same way no matter who had made the original
proposal. So I'm not going to take your "some of you" personally. :)
Claiming it is censorship does not make it censorship. I disagree that
it *is* censorship. Please present, without insults, your thoughts on
what makes it censorship. If you cannot, perhaps you should spend some
thinking instead of writing.
|