|
Grex > Oldcoop > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
va1erie
|
|
response 336 of 424:
| 
Jan 31 05:21 UTC 2004 |
If Va1erie were a member, it's clear how her vote would go.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 337 of 424:
|
Jan 31 07:44 UTC 2004 |
resp:333 Again and again, the message seems to be-- cyberspace is
pretty open, so be wary of posting personal information; people can and
will exploit it. Be knowledgable of how secure the forums are that you
post to. Can you trust the folks you're sharing information with? And
who might those folks be?
Of course, a lot of those ideas and questions seem moot... moot to be
asked or applied, at least to that particular situation. Yes, the
issue at hand now is policy. But that's just a matter of symptom... I
think the concerns described above probably are matters of prevention.
Policies do guide decision-making. But people have to put thought in
those choices-- and should, each and every time.
|
naftee
|
|
response 338 of 424:
|
Jan 31 19:51 UTC 2004 |
va1erie. heh
|
sarahlee
|
|
response 339 of 424:
|
Feb 2 17:22 UTC 2004 |
I vote no to the restoration of deleted items or posts from tape.
I feel perfectly okay with the risks I take posting on Grex. One of the
risks is that the item could be deleted at any time, including all of my
posts. If I write something I particularly care for, it's my
responsibility to keep a copy of it. Not Grex's.
I also reserve the right to delete every post I ever made on Grex,
without regard to the "damage" that action would cause to the context of
other people's posts.
I have no expectation that my posts on Grex are guaranteed against
anything, including deletion. Same with anything I write anywhere
online, unless I personally signed a contract giving me that guarantee.
I posted a great deal in Valerie's baby diary and don't care one whit
that my posts there are gone. If that item is restored, with or without
her posts, I request my posts there be deleted.
|
tod
|
|
response 340 of 424:
|
Feb 2 18:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 341 of 424:
|
Feb 2 19:59 UTC 2004 |
(sarahlee is not a member, BTW)
|
witzbolt
|
|
response 342 of 424:
|
Feb 2 20:38 UTC 2004 |
i'm ejaculating on your tits.
|
naftee
|
|
response 343 of 424:
|
Feb 2 21:52 UTC 2004 |
!members >> fags.on.GreX
|
jep
|
|
response 344 of 424:
|
Feb 3 16:22 UTC 2004 |
From M-Net:
#7 of 7 by James Howard (jp2) on Tue Feb 3 11:14:55 2004:
I think the vote ends on Saturday. Regardless, be warned now, under any
circumstance but A passing and B failing, the initiative for A will be
re-entered and Grex will continue voting on it every ten days until
they get it right.
|
jp2
|
|
response 345 of 424:
|
Feb 3 16:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
dpc
|
|
response 346 of 424:
|
Feb 3 16:47 UTC 2004 |
Sorry, I don't think so. 8-) There is no provision for repeated
voting on something that fails.
I voted yes on A and no on B, FWIW.
|
jp2
|
|
response 347 of 424:
|
Feb 3 16:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 348 of 424:
|
Feb 3 19:19 UTC 2004 |
The censored log issue sat for a long time -- over a year? -- before
being revisited. Maybe it'll be necessary to have a bylaw change to
dictate a waiting period before revisiting an issue that's been voted
on.
|
other
|
|
response 349 of 424:
|
Feb 3 19:56 UTC 2004 |
There is a by-law amendment on the table right now, which I would
consider amending specifically to allow the voteadm to exclude system-
abusive, repetitive proposals.
|
jp2
|
|
response 350 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 351 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:17 UTC 2004 |
Sure thing, Diebold!
|
other
|
|
response 352 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:21 UTC 2004 |
For the record, the response jp2 wants removed quotes a posting he made
on m-net [#7 of 7 by James Howard (jp2) on Tue Feb 3 11:14:55 2004]
declaring that his initiative, should it fail, will be re-entered
repeatedly (every ten days) "until they get it right."
|
jp2
|
|
response 353 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 354 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:40 UTC 2004 |
By the way, Jamie, can you prove that the text posted in resp:344 was
originally written by and is owned by you? Pointing to its origination
on m-net alone would not constitute proof without some verification
that the account jp2 on m-net is owned by you, which cannot be verified
by grex staff unless they also have sysadmin privileges on m-net, or
unless the m-net sysadmin vouches for the accuracy of any origin-
specific log data...
|
albaugh
|
|
response 355 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:45 UTC 2004 |
Quoting someone, with full attribution, isn't going to be deemed copyright
infringement to begin with.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 356 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:49 UTC 2004 |
Re. 354: According to 352, you already know jp2 owns it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 357 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 358 of 424:
|
Feb 3 20:59 UTC 2004 |
Prove it...
|
gelinas
|
|
response 359 of 424:
|
Feb 3 21:06 UTC 2004 |
jp2 really do *not* want this resolved in his favour. If it is, then
there is another can of worms opened: how to track down all of the other
copies of his words that exist on the Internet. Of course, it is not _his_
problem to track down all the copies of the baby-diary and divorce items,
but it becomes attractive to some to try.
While parody is protected, I wonder how much was directly quoted in m-net's
parody conference, and what relation the quotations bear to the totality
of the original work.
This really isn't something you want to start, jp2.
|
jp2
|
|
response 360 of 424:
|
Feb 3 21:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|