response 384 of 424:

Feb 7 15:44 UTC 2004

Just so you know valerie, if you read my numerous posts on the issue, I have
personally much more invested in jep's item. My belief you acted improperly
has zero connection to my parodies. I certainly have no intention of digging
through your diaries for material if they are restored (as they should be).
And I certainly don't need your items restored to feel any sense of
"vindication." Just thought I'd clear that up, since there seems to be a great
deal of unsupported speculation going on.

I am curious, though, how you believe your children would be harmed by
restoring your items.

Finally, it seems to me you are muddying up the issues when you try to
compare your deletions with those of the multiple large files posted by
the polyboys. It is my understanding that those items were impairing
system performance and therefore were well within the purview of staff to
take immediate action. Your items did not impact system performance, and
you were therefore out of line to take staff action of any sort. The same
applies to jep's items.

response 386 of 424:

Feb 7 16:17 UTC 2004

No, I'm not looking for validation that the parodies were okay.  I didn't
participate in them much, and I felt bad about posting the direct quote,
so I scribbled it.  Your reactions here have reduced my sympathy for you,
but whether the parodies were okay, and whether your deletion of other
people's responses was okay, are independent questions

My reaction to your abuse of your Cfadm privileges is completely consistent 
with my reaction to similar actions by FWs on M-Net, and my support of
allowing posters to control their own text.  (Not item authors, the people
who actually wrote the text.)  Abuses of staff privileges shouldn't be
rewarded by allowing them to stand.

response 388 of 424:

Feb 7 17:03 UTC 2004

The above is an excellent choice for a parody.

response 390 of 424:

Feb 7 21:36 UTC 2004

I filter your mom

response 392 of 424:

Feb 8 01:10 UTC 2004

Re 382, where Valerie comments on the deletion of the items quoting
Plato's Republic:  In fact, staff _did_ contact the fairwitness and _did_
wait for her to remove the items.  There were one or two staff members
who were willing to act, but most of us felt the right thing to do,
in light of the current controversy, was to wait of Katie.  So we did.

response 394 of 424:

Feb 8 04:33 UTC 2004

valerie, you lose more credibility and respect with every additional word you
write.  Your reaction to something done elsewhere and overt action (negative,
IMO) against grex do not demonstrate justification one iota.  I acknowledge
that those you feel wronged you are also participating in the issue here on
grex.  But you did not take the high road.  And that is something you will
not admit, and that is what I dislike the most about this whole thing.

response 396 of 424:

Feb 8 09:59 UTC 2004

resp:382 #4 & #5 Good God.  Have you read *anything* concerning what 
has been written say, in the discretion of blogging?  What has been 
written there could well be applied to a situation such as yours.  The 
point is not so much "punishment" but that personal information should 
be handled carefully on public forums, be they bbs, weblog/live 
journal, etc.  We've said that a number of times now.

I think what the big issue has been with the deleted items is that 
people replied to them.  Their responses were deleted without their 
permission.  Anything else, other arguments, I believe, are lesser-- 
arguments that the items had value for others besides the authors, etc.

What do people want from Grex?  This is a public forum-- personal 
information is going to be subject to some scrutiny.  Policy is always 
a band-aid/tailpipe solution at best.  People will either have to be 
comfortable with the fact that such words can be exploited, or they 
maybe shouldn't share-- or share so much.  I think we said there are 
forums a little less public than this-- a little more secure.

response 398 of 424:

Feb 8 15:39 UTC 2004

Re 395 - by 'excellent targets' do you mean for the purpose of hurting
people?

response 402 of 424:

Feb 8 20:37 UTC 2004

...even if she entered them in some sort of OCD spaz-out
she still ENTERED them.

YOU CAN'T TAKE BACK WHAT YOU SAID, VAL, EVEN IF YOU
WERE FLORIDLY PSYCHOTIC WHEN YOU ENTERED THOSE ITEMS.

you stole from me, vandal.

response 404 of 424:

Feb 9 07:46 UTC 2004

        *sniff*


        :(~~~