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.

response 89 of 424:

Jan 12 03:00 UTC 2004

Cyklone:  You said yourself that many people at the time cautioned John
against posting this material.  There are certainly lots of people who
thought that this item was dangerous to John. One of the people who said
that then and now was Joe Saul.  As an attorney he could probably tell
you about the risks better than I can.

As a person who knows next to nothing about divorce, I think that there
is always potential for a joint custody situation to turn nasty in
either a legal or personal sense.  My recollection is that there was a
lot in that item that could be thrown in John's face, though not
anything that could be made to stick if he had a good lawyer at his
side.  You yourself pointed out the possibility that someone might try
to embarrass him with it by showing it to his son.  That can be a harder
situation still, because you can't necessarily hire a lawyer to help you
out in a case like that.

Yeah, its not a certainty that it would ever be used to harm John.  It
is also far from a certainty that leaving it deleted will cause any harm
to Grex.  Maybe I'm "awfulizing" the risk to John, but folks talking
about Grex not being able to defend itself in a law suit if it were
deleted were doing some rather less plausible "awfulizing".

When you say you don't want to complicate a simple issue, what is the
simple issue you have in mind?  "This is the rule, so we should always
follow it?"  Oh, yes, it's very important not to think when applying
rules.  Civilization would collapse if we ever showed any adaptability
in the applications of rules.  Grex is all about rules.

response 91 of 424:

Jan 12 05:40 UTC 2004

re resp:90: My lawyer charges $200 per hour.  There were maybe 2000 
responses in the items.  I'm not seeking a lawyer's opinion on the 
matter because it is not a legal issue.

A court can order Grex to recover the items.  If it is possible, the 
staff will then be legally obligated to do so, and I am sure they will 
comply.  I would encourage them to do so.  I am not trying to 
influence or avoid the legal system.

Many people cautioned me against saying too much in those items, 
including (I believe) at least three lawyers on-line.  I've 
acknowledged many times that I was told not to post so much.  I keep 
saying "Yes, I was told" and also "I just didn't care", and also, "I 
care now".  How many times do we have to go over that?

response 93 of 424:

Jan 12 11:18 UTC 2004

I'm pretty much in agreement with what cyklone has to say about this.

response 95 of 424:

Jan 12 14:02 UTC 2004

Me too!

response 97 of 424:

Jan 12 16:04 UTC 2004

At this point I'm not sure restoring the items would solve anything.  To
me the issue isn't the items themselves, it's the decision to remove
them.  Putting them back won't change that that decision was made.

response 99 of 424:

Jan 12 16:32 UTC 2004

Resp:97 - Nevertheless, no one is planning on jumping into their way 
back machine in order to change that.