response 62 of 138:

Jan 18 17:07 UTC 2004

Re resp:57: If by "custodian", you mean "someone who repeatedly creates
trouble in the hope of driving away staff members."


Re resp:61: A vote for jep's proposal would not set any precident worth
talking about, except perhaps that if people want an item deleted they
can take it to a member vote.  It's pretty specific.  As far as I can
tell there's never been anything preventing this, and in most cases it'd
be counterproductive anyway because it's too slow.  Besides, we already
have a more general proposal on the table about item removal.

Also, telling your opponent that they need to see a shrink is rarely an
effective debating technique.

response 64 of 138:

Jan 18 18:37 UTC 2004

Fine, I did the work for you.

#83 of 125: by Dan Cross (cross) on Mon, Nov 10, 2003 (21:08):
 Oh, screw it.

 I'm actually so disgusted by Mary's comments on my action, that you don't
 have to prepare any legistlation, polytarp.  I resign from staff as it is.


And from Valerie Mates:
it did cross my mind that if I get kicked off staff for 
this, I don't care.

HEY GUESS WHAT, WE DON"T TRY TO KICK PEOPLE OFF STAFF.

response 66 of 138:

Jan 18 21:01 UTC 2004

Re #62: "Also, telling your opponent that they need to see a shrink is rarely
an effective debating technique."

Then perhaps my purpose is not clear. I'm not entering my posts as an
intellectual exercise in debate, although I do recognize that is what many
grexers like to do. I post for two reasons. The first is to make clear my
belief that grex would abdicate its professed support of free and
uncensored speech if the deleted items are not reinstated, and that no
good reasons have been offered in support of deletion.

My second reason is the same reason I posted to jep's divorce item. I
thought I could provide insight that would help him and others in his
position. I see him repeating the same behaviors I saw early in his
divorce items. He sought professional help then and he said it was
worthwhile. I am suggesting he consider that option again. This discussion
appears to have hit an emotional nerve with him that I suspect has little
or nothing to do with the merits of the deletion debate. Hence my
suggestion.
 

response 68 of 138:

Jan 19 04:07 UTC 2004

re 65 Damn!  Now all I need to do is cause enough bullshit for YOU to quit.

response 70 of 138:

Jan 19 11:52 UTC 2004

My apologies, I first read about Nomic in Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical
Themas" column in Scientific American in 1982.  Basically it is a game about
law.  You start with an initial set of rules which contain laws about how you
can create new laws.  The point of the game is to game the system by creating
laws favorable to you and get the other players to pass those laws.

Anyway, Peter Suber is the actual creator of the game, he maintains a webpage
at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm

response 74 of 138:

Jan 19 23:58 UTC 2004

Mary's a stupid bitch.

response 76 of 138:

Jan 20 01:38 UTC 2004

(jep killed the items before he knew about mary's disgusting actions)

response 78 of 138:

Jan 20 03:48 UTC 2004

My request to remove my two divorce items had nothing to do with the 
messages Mary Remmers posted and then removed last week, but her 
comments did illustrate a little of why it is not a good idea for me 
to have those items around.  I don't agree that it's better to have 
those items restored, than to have them deleted.  To me, and for me, 
it is better to have them deleted.

I agree my actions are self-serving, to the extent that I asked the 
staff to delete my divorce items for my own good.  Is it selfish to do 
something to benefit yourself when it has no affect on anyone else?  
*No one was reading those items*.

They sure would be now, because of the policy discussion, and that's 
bad for me.  It's clear to everyone here, right, that it would be bad 
for me?  Potentially really, really bad?

If it were me, deciding this kind of thing for someone else, I think 
I'd be weighing the interests of the group against those of the 
individual.  If you vote to restore those items, you're voting that 
it's okay for me to be dragged through those items all over again, 
more than I ever would have been other than the circumstances of the 
last two weeks, because Grex's needs are more important.  Just as 
directly and openly as I've ever done anything here, I'm asking you 
not to do that.

I think I've laid it out as plainly as I can.  I've posted every 
argument I can think of, and responded, I think, to every different 
remark against my position.  I've tried... I've tried to be patient 
(though the issue is a lot more serious to me than it is to anyone 
else here).  I've been pretty calm, most of the time anyway, and that 
doesn't come easy to me.  

Come what will, I appreciate everyone's consideration and am anxiously 
awaiting the results of the vote.

response 82 of 138:

Jan 20 13:04 UTC 2004

Re #80: Good point. I am also disturbed by all this talk of "potential
harm" which is unsupported.  Indeed, given Mary's actions, if there was a
potential harm, it would quite likely have occurred already. I also see no
discussion of the "potential benefit."  Jep himself admitted he wished a
similar item was around for him to read.  Now that such an item is
available for the next person in his position he wants to deny that person
access to the very thing he wished he could have read.  It is therefore
disingenuous for jep to argue "tremendous potential harm to me/no benefit
to anyone else." Sheesh.

response 84 of 138:

Jan 20 23:19 UTC 2004

Because then he would've know she was on to him.