|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 339 of 393:
| 
Jan 14 23:50 UTC 2004 |
re 332
>willing to give their permission to have their responses deleted.
But now you're making assumptions about other people's opinions! Unless of
course you remember exactly who responded to each item and can either vouch
for them reasonably or have spoken to them personally. I'm willing to bet
you did not do this.
The above point goes for all the other users who made similar statements.
|
jep
|
|
response 340 of 393:
|
Jan 15 03:23 UTC 2004 |
My items being deleted is different from a vandal breaking root in
these ways:
1) Multiple staff members thought it was okay to delete those items
and said so publicly before I made my request.
2) There was precedent, at the time I made my request, for deleting
items of that sort. Valerie had deleted her items.
3) I asked for my two items to be deleted. I made an official request
through the best means of doing so; a message to "staff@grex.org", and
this request was granted.
I've already stated that I wouldn't have asked for the items to be
deleted if it weren't for points 1 and 2. I had no reason to expect
they might be restored, amidst a publicity firestorm yet, when all I
wanted was for them to disappear.
I'd rather, right now, that no items had been deleted, rather than
have the possibility my items will be restored in the current
environment and due to the current situation.
|
naftee
|
|
response 341 of 393:
|
Jan 15 03:35 UTC 2004 |
Do you even try reading things in this conference? All three of those points
are mostly bull.
|
jp2
|
|
response 342 of 393:
|
Jan 15 03:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 343 of 393:
|
Jan 15 03:54 UTC 2004 |
Like I said above, mostly bull.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 344 of 393:
|
Jan 15 04:23 UTC 2004 |
In several items, jp2 has mentioned asking that Item 39 be deleted from this
conference.
I thought that item should be deleted, by the rules as I understood them.
However, because of the discussion occassioned by the deletion of the
baby-diary items, I asked for guidance from fellow staff members. The one
response I remember seeing advocated a double-standard. While I was waiting
for the discussion to resolve itself, Valerie deleted JEP's items and
resigned.
At this point, the policy appears to be against deletion of items.
I'm not happy with the current situation, but I don't know how best to
resolve it.
|
mary
|
|
response 345 of 393:
|
Jan 15 13:30 UTC 2004 |
"I'd rather, right now, that no items had been deleted, rather than
have the possibility my items will be restored in the current
environment and due to the current situation."
It's not *your* item. Never was. From the moment you opened it up to
public discussion, and someone else took the time to enter a response, the
discussion became a community effort. The item isn't yours.
And what you're really saying is: I'd rather, right now, that no items
had been deleted, rather than have the possibility that what others have
said will remain.
Again, you're sorry you took an action. Maybe you really should think
ahead.
|
jep
|
|
response 346 of 393:
|
Jan 15 16:16 UTC 2004 |
re resp:342:
Q1 "Can you provide any evidence of this"...
item:68:resp:4 (as quoted in item:68:resp:11)
#4: "It's longstanding Grex policy that the person who created an item
can delete it."
item:68:resp:61 (gelinas)
think the author of an item
has the right to remove the item, EVEN IF OTHERS HAVE RESPONDED
Q2: I said that I'd never expected to be able to delete those items,
and that when the opportunity came up unexpectedly, I took it.
Q3: I have no control over your item not being deleted. I didn't bribe
anyone, of course. Am I a favored user? Hmm... I'd say I've earned
some respect on-line. I also carry some baggage from my long
association with Grex and M-Net; I am not universally regarded as the
ideal Grexer or anything like that.
|
jep
|
|
response 347 of 393:
|
Jan 15 16:25 UTC 2004 |
re resp:345: Mary, your third paragraph needs work. I don't even know
what you mean, let alone what you are stating that I meant.
|
jp2
|
|
response 348 of 393:
|
Jan 15 17:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 349 of 393:
|
Jan 15 17:05 UTC 2004 |
From the rapidity of the shitstorm which gathered when valerie deleted
the baby items, I'd say it's pretty disingenuous, if not downright
dishonest, ofyou to claim that you didnt' know deleting your items would
produce controversy.
|
jp2
|
|
response 350 of 393:
|
Jan 15 17:08 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 351 of 393:
|
Jan 15 18:46 UTC 2004 |
What I was saying John is you took a big chance you'd be able to have
everyone's responses killed.. You simply wanted it done in a real hurry.
You demanded it be happen before any discussion took place, even among
staff and board. Clearly, the discussion of the propriety of this
censorship wasn't as important as getting the items killed.
So now it's being discussed. It may end up you won't be able to censor
everyone comments. Opps.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 352 of 393:
|
Jan 15 18:47 UTC 2004 |
I'm beginning to think jep is not deliberately lying in the typical sense of
the word. What I do find disturbing is that he seems to be showing a
cluelessness very similar to what some of us were discussing in his divorce
item. In other words, I'm seeing more denial and rationalization than lying.
|
jp2
|
|
response 353 of 393:
|
Jan 15 18:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 354 of 393:
|
Jan 15 19:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 355 of 393:
|
Jan 15 20:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 356 of 393:
|
Jan 15 20:36 UTC 2004 |
It was unnecessary.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 357 of 393:
|
Jan 15 21:07 UTC 2004 |
What was in there?
|
jp2
|
|
response 358 of 393:
|
Jan 15 21:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 359 of 393:
|
Jan 15 21:19 UTC 2004 |
Wow. Guess we really *do* have to be careful what we discuss here, if
it's likely to be passed on to the police.
|
willcome
|
|
response 360 of 393:
|
Jan 15 21:20 UTC 2004 |
Huh?!
|
mary
|
|
response 361 of 393:
|
Jan 15 21:33 UTC 2004 |
Yep. But then I decided how discussion of Jep's divorce didn't
belong in the item discussing his divorce item. Hope that makes
sense. Anyhow, it didn't belong here. There are already too many
hurt feelings.
|
gull
|
|
response 362 of 393:
|
Jan 15 21:58 UTC 2004 |
I am curious, now, if there's any truth to the rumors that mary also
gave a copy to jep's ex-wife. I'd dismissed those comments as
hypothetical until reading resp:358.
|
jp2
|
|
response 363 of 393:
|
Jan 15 21:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|