|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 361 of 424:
|
Feb 3 21:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 362 of 424:
|
Feb 3 21:54 UTC 2004 |
(this is coop, not agora).
|
jp2
|
|
response 363 of 424:
|
Feb 4 11:07 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 364 of 424:
|
Feb 4 14:16 UTC 2004 |
HEY DIDSOMEONE METION THE DMCA?
|
remmers
|
|
response 365 of 424:
|
Feb 4 17:12 UTC 2004 |
As long as we're mentioning things, somebody should mention "fair
use", which I believe #344 to be.
|
jp2
|
|
response 366 of 424:
|
Feb 4 18:18 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 367 of 424:
|
Feb 4 18:32 UTC 2004 |
It's a paragraph, Jamie.
It was quoted directly, in context, from a public site, and with the
intention of conveying information relevant to an ongoing policy
discussion.
But by all means, take legal action if you find it necessary. Please.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 368 of 424:
|
Feb 4 18:50 UTC 2004 |
What about the fair use rights of people who posted in your item?
|
jp2
|
|
response 369 of 424:
|
Feb 4 19:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 370 of 424:
|
Feb 4 19:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 371 of 424:
|
Feb 4 21:21 UTC 2004 |
LOOK WHO"S TALKING, MR " I HAVE THE TIME TO TRY TO BAN ALL OF CANADA FROM
ARBORNET YET WON'T GET OFF MY ASS TO PURSUE A LOUSY LITIGATION" . HAHA YOU"RE
WORSE THAN TWINKIEASS.
|
jp2
|
|
response 372 of 424:
|
Feb 5 16:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 373 of 424:
|
Feb 5 18:50 UTC 2004 |
Presumably, ten days and around three hours after it began. If
you're going to take us to task for not specifically allowing for
the voting period to fluctuate for purposes of convenience in the
by-laws, then you're wasting your time. If you think it's a
problem, propose an amendment to solve it.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 374 of 424:
|
Feb 5 18:52 UTC 2004 |
As the motd says / alludes to, end of the day Feb. 7 (i.e. 11:59.999...pm ET)
|
jp2
|
|
response 375 of 424:
|
Feb 5 19:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 376 of 424:
|
Feb 5 19:13 UTC 2004 |
The Treasuerer cannot check the mailbox on Saturday, to see who might have
joined that day. So the results cannot be certified before Monday.
Reporting tentative results before the membership list is certified
compromises the secret ballot, by allowing of 'traffic analysis.'
|
jp2
|
|
response 377 of 424:
|
Feb 5 19:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 378 of 424:
|
Feb 6 00:00 UTC 2004 |
re 374 Not exactly; a day is really only 23 hours and 56 minutes long
(approx).
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 379 of 424:
|
Feb 6 04:28 UTC 2004 |
Except if you're moving.
|
remmers
|
|
response 380 of 424:
|
Feb 7 13:02 UTC 2004 |
Voting will end at midnight tonight (Saturday, Feb. 7). I'll report
the results as soon as Mark can certify the list of eligible voters,
which as Joe pointed out might not be until sometime Monday.
|
naftee
|
|
response 381 of 424:
|
Feb 7 14:36 UTC 2004 |
I CAN'T WAIT !!!&**&(*(&
|
valerie
|
|
response 382 of 424:
|
Feb 7 15:15 UTC 2004 |
Some things on my mind:
1) Someone asked, "If Valerie said she is leaving, why is she still posting
here?" The answer to that is that I said I was leaving before this kangaroo
court trial of my own integrity started. I DON'T want to be here now, and I
do intend to go far, far, away after this is over.
2) Jp2 may well be in this for revenge on me, because I locked his account
in December after he sent out 909 e-mail messages. Cyklone and others who
participated in the baby diary parody (iggy, cross, seldon, and others) may
be arguing so vehemently because I deleted the baby diary as a reaction to
the parody of it. If they can convince people that deleting the baby diary
was wrong, it de-legitimatizes my reaction to the parody. That is, they may
be looking for someone to tell them that parodying the baby diary was okay,
and getting people to vote against the deletion is a way of defending their
participation in the parody.
3) I still firmly believe that I acted ethically, to the highest moral
standards, when I deleted the baby diary. The fair witnesses of the two
conferences were not easily available to be found (even now I've only
managed to locate 4 of the 5, and for some of them it took weeks). I
believe that most, quite possibly all, of the fair witnesses of those
conferences would have deleted the baby diaries when I asked. Time was
critical for getting the baby diaries deleted before parodiers made copies,
and the 4-5 weeks it has taken to locate some (but not all) of the fair
witnesses would have been way too long. It *is* the role of staff to
help out users who have time-critical problems like this one, where the
fair witnesses are not readily available to fill their roles. Another
example of staff filling a fair witness's role when the fair witness
was not available: Nobody asked Katie, the fair witness of Agora, who logs
in only rarely, to delete the gaggle of copies of Plato's Republic that
polytarp posted there recently. A staffer went in and just did it. And
deleting those items wasn't even time-critical, yet it is okay that a
staffer deleted someone else's postings.
4) Iggy argues that since people warned me not to post personal information
and I did it anyway, people should vote to undelete the baby diaries to make
me live with the consequences of my actions and teach me a lesson. I find
this argument weird, since so far the only bad consequence of posting
personal information in the baby diaries is that Iggy and other people
parodied it. If you warned me not to post it, and I did it anyway, isn't
the best solution to delete it, rather than "teaching me a lesson" by putting
the items back on-line?
5) Even if you do think I should be "taught a lesson," please think of my
children. This is THEIR personal information that we are talking about
putting back online. Even if I "ought to be punished" for my stupidity in
posting this stuff on-line, my children are innocent. For their sake, if
for no other reason, I urge you to vote to leave the baby diaries deleted.
|