You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-8   8-32   33-42        
 
Author Message
25 new of 42 responses total.
jp2
response 8 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 19:23 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

ryan
response 9 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 19:26 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

scott
response 10 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 19:33 UTC 2004

STaff has been too busy discussing various nuisance proposals from jp2 to
perform regular backups.
jp2
response 11 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 19:44 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

krj
response 12 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 19:56 UTC 2004

Scott didn't say the staff were discussing the 
proposals *with* you, Jamie.
jp2
response 13 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 19:58 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

albaugh
response 14 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 20:19 UTC 2004

I consider this proposal to be a horrid idea.  I'm not interested in the items
being restored any more than anyone else who is not, but to deliberately
destroy data just to thwart what could be very valid proposals for item
restoration is a bad idea at best, and a waste of time at worst.
twinkie
response 15 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 20:48 UTC 2004

Without rehashing too much, let's not forget that one of jep's reasons for
wanting the content deleted was to protect him from possible legal issues.

How do you think it would look if a subpoena was issued for that data?
"Oh, sorry. We intentionally deleted it. But two thirds of us thought it was
a good idea!"

boltwitz
response 16 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 20:52 UTC 2004

Yeah.  Grex is aiding criminal(s) and/or criminal(s') enterprise(s).
jp2
response 17 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 20:54 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

albaugh
response 18 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 20:55 UTC 2004

It was not deleted for the purpose of evading or anticipating a subpoena.
The "best way" *this* proposal could be "met" is by performing another full
backup, one of these days, which would be missing the deleted items.  
Past full backup media would get recycled, I'm sure, and at that point the
items would be unrecoverable for all time.
naftee
response 19 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 21:54 UTC 2004

All cusers of GreX are criminals.
tod
response 20 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 23:06 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

twinkie
response 21 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 23:21 UTC 2004

re: 17
I don't know, but I'll bet Aaron does. 

re: 18
That's quite different from what jep said. He was rather clear in stating that
the "harm" he so desperately feared may come upon his child was indeed related
to his words being used against him in court.

It's one thing to make information private. It's something else to destroy
it. Short of a set tape rotation schedule that shows the items were
overwritten during the normal course of data preservation, it would be
difficult to avoid serious scrutiny.

tod
response 22 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 23:33 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

jaklumen
response 23 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 9 23:54 UTC 2004

resp:0 I say-- no, bad idea.
cyklone
response 24 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 00:24 UTC 2004

I oppose this proposal. I also think that people who posted in those items
should be permitted to retrieve his/her posts first.
boltwitz
response 25 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 00:27 UTC 2004

Yeah.  You're trying to AVOID issues, as you said in 0.  Any decent person
would tackle the issues.
happyboy
response 26 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 09:22 UTC 2004

re0 i would like for all of my responses in those items
to be mailed to my account here.


while staff is *at it* could someone please get rid of that
stupid free speech ribbon image on the website?  
jp2
response 27 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 11:10 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

remmers
response 28 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 13:14 UTC 2004

Re #0:  Bad idea, and rather pointless.  I'm sure plenty of people
have their own private copies.
boltwitz
response 29 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 13:29 UTC 2004

I'm sure I'd love them to be reposted.
slynne
response 30 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 15:48 UTC 2004

I dont really care about the items. I am trying to think of a way to 
keep this issue from dragging out any longer than it has already. I get 
it that people are angry about the outcome of the vote. I am at a bit 
of a loss over how to go forward at this point. 

Anyhow I withdraw #0. I guess it would be pointless. 
gull
response 31 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 16:19 UTC 2004

Normally I'd oppose resp:0, but I fear it may be the only way to get jp2
to shut up.
tod
response 32 of 42: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 18:44 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

 0-8   8-32   33-42        
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss