response 65 of 424:

Jan 11 17:46 UTC 2004

I am not arguing for a standard for removal of items.  I am arguing 
against the idea that Valerie's actions can be undone.  They 
happened.  There are effects which cannot be undone now.

Overall, it would be better in most ways if no items had been removed 
at all.  If I'd been involved with writing a policy a week ago, I 
would have tried to influence it against removal of items by staff 
members.  That would, of course, have prevented my items from being 
removed by staff, too.

But circumstances are different now.

My expectations for my items is certainly different now than it was a 
few days ago.  Then, they were there and nothing could be done about 
them.  Now, they're gone and it would take a staff action to restore 
them.  That action would be an action to hurt me.  That would be it's 
main effect from my perspective.  It would, by the way, hurt me more 
than it would help Grex.  I will not, of course, stand by while 
something like that is done to me.

response 67 of 424:

Jan 11 18:10 UTC 2004

That makes it an easy call then, Jan.  With the items restored, and all of
Jep's comments and Valerie's comments removed, then there is very little
left to cause them any harm whatsoever.  And Grex is left with the clear
understanding that users can't censor other users.  Which I find a biggie
in terms of what makes Grex special.

response 69 of 424:

Jan 11 20:43 UTC 2004

re 65 
>That action would be an action to hurt me. 

Don't you agree that the action of censoring other people's text hurt them
as well?  Or are you as selfish as valerie and refuse to acknowledge other
people's feelings?

response 71 of 424:

Jan 11 20:55 UTC 2004

Jan, you mention considering what is in Grex's best interests.  I'd think
that insomuch as Grex is in effect publishing what people type onto its
board across the web, that there is solid legal reason for wanting to
maintain records of what has been typed.  In this age of paranoid security
fears, and things like communications decency acts (which you shouldn't be
surprised if it is reintroduced in some form soon in congress), you have
to consider the extent to which Grex may or may not be held accountable in
the future for what it is transmitting.  

Lets say that somebody enters an item on how to make bombs, or discussing
where good places are to bomb.  Then staff deletes the item.  Then
somebody sues Grex claiming the item posted actually advocated or promised
specific bombing.  Grex is hauled into court.  Where is the item? Its been
deleted.  Are old backups kept forever?  I believe that allowing wholesale
deletion of posts, without the presence of the scribble log, could open
Grex up to a potential situation where it can't defend itself against
legal challenges.

I think when you enter a post on grex it is not speech, it is nor oral
communication, it is verbal communication, print communication of which it
becomes part of a public record.  It is publishing.  And Grex needs for
its own protection, to have active records of everything it transmits, and
to not allow wholesale changes to what it transmits, where posts can be
taken out of context or changed and Grex find itself unable adequately
defend against outside allegations.

If somebody prints a column in a newspaper, and that column is available
on the paper's web site, the columnist can't go in the future and revise
the words in his column or delete it and pretend it was never published.
It was, its out there, and so is everything posted on Grex.  You never
know who has read, printed, or saved what has been posted here.  Once
something gets posted, its a matter of public record.  

response 73 of 424:

Jan 11 21:15 UTC 2004

Richard has a far-fetched theory about what might happen to Grex if this
special case became a precident for doing this as a general rule and if
we were too stupid to keep an archive copy of anything deleted.  Buy as
much of it as you like, but it still adds up to much less risk to Grex
than keeping the item would exposes JEP to.

response 75 of 424:

Jan 11 22:15 UTC 2004

Jan, it was just acknowledged by Mary that a staffer with access could alter
the backup tapes.  Something is only far fetched until it actually happens.

I would argue that if JEP thinks he has been damaged by his posts-- which I
don't think he has, I thought his posts were heartfelt and anyone could
sympathize-- that he can't eliminate that damage by removing the posts now
and pretending they never happened.  JEP, how do you know that your ex-wife
hasn't already made copies of everything you posted here, or her lawyer, or
members of her family?  I think it is at least as likely that your son might
come across these posts from someone who saved them, as he would from someday
in the future actually reading these old conferences.  In fact your scenario
seems quite remote in terms of possibility of actually happening.  

The fact is that I and others posted in those items, and I believe that your
needs don't supercede ours, that we still have the right to see our words
posted as we intended.  Grex is putting itself in a position where staff has
to decide whose rights mean more?  And the logical way to answer that is that
the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few.  Staff has to act in
the best interests of the majority of grexers.  I want staff to recognize that
my rights and the rights of every other user who posted in those items is as
important as JEP's.  And Valerie's.  I mean how many people posted in her baby
diary items and now have no access to their own words?

response 77 of 424:

Jan 11 22:46 UTC 2004

I agree.

I suspect even some of those most outspoken about restoring
these items will *elect* to delete their own responses given
the opportunity.

response 79 of 424:

Jan 12 01:02 UTC 2004

I keep reading comments like "the harm to jep from reinstating his items,
even with his posts deleted. is far greater than the harm to others." Yet
know one seems to have any real evidence in support of this premise. For
those of us who disagree, we have been denied access to the very text that
will enable us to make an informed evaluation as to which position is
correct. I swear Grex is beginning to look more and more like the Bush
administration, with such "trust me when I tell you about that which you
cannot be allowed to know" positions.

What I seem to recall, and now cannot confirm, is that jep was cautioned
more than once about what he was doing in terms of publishing his thoughts
and feelings. Now he says " But those items mean something else, too.  I
wouldn't have entered them, or at least wouldn't have said as much in
them, if I'd had appropriate concern for what might come of them some day.
I just *didn't care*.  It seems to me to be pretty harsh to force someone
to have something remain when it was created under those types of
circumstances."

What jep calls "harsh" others might call "expected results." I guess he is
essentially saying that he was temporarily insane and should therefore be
allowed to avoid potentially difficult consequences arising from that
insanity. I question that premise as well. There is a lot of "awfulizing"
going on here, which is a sign of some pretty distorted thinking. So what
if his son someday finds out his dad was distraught over his divorce and
that he cared very much about his son. This is not about protecting jep
from legal liability. This is apparently about making it easier for jep to
avoid a difficult talk with his son. I say deal with it. Jep is going to
have to have lots of hard talks with his son if he is to truly be a good
father. The remote possibility of one more such conversation should not be
creating this kind of controversy. 
 
So once again we are back to the real issues: grex wants a warm fuzzy amd
therefore favors a feel-good approach instead of free speech.  This means
that faced with a hard choice, Grex decides to give extreme weight to the
feelings of a favored user over all others who could possibly benefit from
the words people *other than jep* posted. This is total and utter BS. 

I like jep, and wish him no harm. However, I do not think he is acting
maturely when he causes this kind of harm with such weak justification. 
Again, I see no liability issues. I see a man too cowardly or embarassed
to face the *extrememely remote* possibility he may have to tell his son
"we all make mistakes. I make them too. Here's what I learned from this
one." Please reconsider jep. This does not reflect well upon you at all.

response 81 of 424:

Jan 12 01:12 UTC 2004

Ah yes. Now we are at the very heart of why grex is becoming a system in
opposition to what it once claimed to be. At this point Grex lacks any
credible claim to support free speech. Drop the "agora" folks; you make a
mockery of the concept. 

<Oh yeah, "know" in the first para of #79 sb "no">

response 83 of 424:

Jan 12 01:57 UTC 2004

Cyklone:  You complain about the injustice of being denied access to
JEPs item so you can decide if it should be deleted.  Was that a serious
suggestion?  We should put JEP's item back on line so that everyone can
study it while we have this discussion?  And incidentally save copies to
post all over the place?

I can't imagine that you actually want think that makes sense.  But if
not then what is the point of your complaining about this?  Do you have
any suggestion for something practical that could be done to satisfy
your complaint, or are you just complaining because you like the sound?

Yes, JEP was told many times in that item that it was a very bad idea
for him to have such an item.  I would guess that having just lost his
wife JEP felt a strong need for a support network and didn't have a lot
to fall back on besides his on-line community.  He wasn't "temporarily
insane" but he was way off balance and reaching out for help and not
thinking very hard about the long term.  I doubt that he actually
regrets it.  At the time I think it was a huge help to him that did a
lot to help him navigate a very difficult time.  It was a great item,
one of the best in Grex's history.  But there has always been a chance
that it could someday be taken and used against him.  Deleting the item
doesn't eliminate the chance.  Someone might well have made copies
already and may be storing them away to whip out if ever they want to
use them against JEP.  Why should we increase the chance that this item,
which was such a help to John back then, should someday become a weapon
to be used against him?

The idea of free speech you are pushing is a joke.  Not only must people
be allowed to talk, but every single thing they said must carefully be
preserved in the public record forever.  Suppose I had the last existant
copy of a pamphlet that was passed out on street corners a year ago.  Do
you think you could get a court to stop me from destroying it on free
speech grounds?

I think it's pretty likely that John has a copy of these items.  Maybe
he'll want to show them to his son some day and maybe he won't.  Though
we're obviously all bigger experts on parenting than John is, are you
sure that it is our place to make this decision for him?

You keep talking about what Grex does and what Grex thinks.  Have you
noticed that Mary and I, for instance, see this completely differently?
How exactly have you determined that I'm Grex and Mary isn't?

response 85 of 424:

Jan 12 02:28 UTC 2004

There have been a lot of books published over the years.  A large proportion
of them have been lost.  Why should the text here be expected to more
long-lasting?

response 87 of 424:

Jan 12 02:40 UTC 2004

I disagree.  Any way this goes, grex will continue.  We may loose some people,
we'll probably pick up others.  We won't be the same as were a week and a half
ago, though.  The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.