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.

response 86 of 138:

Jan 20 23:51 UTC 2004

Re #78 (jep):  John, we certainly appreciate your sticking around to explain
things.  I understand you may need a break from Grex after this is all over,
but I hope you'll come back when rested.

response 88 of 138:

Jan 21 04:30 UTC 2004

Have the cops ready too, like you did with Salcedo.

response 96 of 138:

Jan 22 00:43 UTC 2004

tod, I'm cyberstalking your hot romanian wife.  she doesn't answer my
telegrams, though.  Odd that!