|
Grex > Oldcoop > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
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?
|
jp2
|
|
response 86 of 424:
|
Jan 12 02:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 88 of 424:
|
Jan 12 02:56 UTC 2004 |
I don't really want to go through details of what happened two years
ago, but I sought help on Grex and I got it. I owe Grexers
enormously. I don't regret what I did then.
I don't regret what I've done now, either, in getting those items
deleted, though I regret some of the ramifications it may have.
re resp:79: Let's just all assume I do what I think is best for my son
to the best of my ability, and leave it at that. Nothing I will say
about my discussions with him will have any influence on this
discussion.
|
janc
|
|
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.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 90 of 424:
|
Jan 12 03:35 UTC 2004 |
You missed my point. I agree with the last paragraph and have specically said
if you are making a new exceptions you damn sure better make sure you have
a good reason. Speculation is not a good reason. If you want to argue law then
here's what I propose: Delete all of jep's posts, print them out and have his
lawyer review them. If in the lawyer's opinion those posts could cause jep
harm, then I would agree to the deletion. Anything less than this is an utter
abdication of any concepts of free speech and principled applications or
exceptions to the rules. I will even kick in $50 to defray the cost to jep.
Feel free to match it.
|
jep
|
|
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?
|
naftee
|
|
response 92 of 424:
|
Jan 12 06:01 UTC 2004 |
Just a side note: Not having the items around for "study" as was pointed out
some time ago, does make it a little hard to discuss legal implications,
albeit rather harshly on jep's part.
|
remmers
|
|
response 93 of 424:
|
Jan 12 11:18 UTC 2004 |
I'm pretty much in agreement with what cyklone has to say about this.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 94 of 424:
|
Jan 12 12:43 UTC 2004 |
I missed posting earlier. So am I.
|
naftee
|
|
response 95 of 424:
|
Jan 12 14:02 UTC 2004 |
Me too!
|
slynne
|
|
response 96 of 424:
|
Jan 12 14:09 UTC 2004 |
jep, if you have copies of these items and thus know who else has
responded to them, you may want to consider writing emails to everyone
who responded asking for their permission to delete their responses.
Then, if the vote goes to restore your items, you can still get most of
them deleted. The few comments that would be left probably wouldnt be
very damaging to you. I imagine that most folks would be willing to
allow you to delete their comments. I know I would.
|
gull
|
|
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.
|
naftee
|
|
response 98 of 424:
|
Jan 12 16:25 UTC 2004 |
I still have some copies of valerie's responses, in the cache of my web
browser.
|
slynne
|
|
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 100 of 424:
|
Jan 12 16:59 UTC 2004 |
re resp:96: If my user proposal to keep the items deleted is turned
down, then maybe I'll have to do that.
I really don't want to go through those items again at this time. I
started to do so, before I requested they be deleted, and I stopped
after not long.
|
cross
|
|
response 101 of 424:
|
Jan 12 17:18 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #96; Hey, that was my suggestions!
Regarding #100; You don't have to go through them one by one; you can
use grep and a sufficiently clever regular expression to pick out who
posted to them, if that's all you want to do.
|
janc
|
|
response 102 of 424:
|
Jan 12 17:19 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone says "Delete all of jep's posts, print them out and have his lawyer
review them. If in the lawyer's opinion those posts could cause jep harm,
then I would agree to the deletion".
I'm not clear what you are proposing to show to the lawyer. Only JEP's
posts? The entire item? The item without JEP's posts?
I'm amazed that you would suggest such a thing, and that John Remmers
would agree with it. I don't think I've ever heard any lawyer say
"don't worry, be happy." I think Joe Saul would find in John's favor,
and he's hardly unbiased.
Are you guys saying that if anyone can get a lawyer to say about a
response by another person "that statement may be harmful to my client"
then it could be deleted? I know my arguments are danged persuasive,
but I hardly expected you two guys to jump headlong into the "anybody
should be able to delete anything" camp.
I'm arguing that if you can convince half the membership of Grex that
something is worth deleting, then maybe it's a good idea. No way would
I agree to deleting something just because one lawyer can be found to say
it. That's setting the bar far too low.
|
jp2
|
|
response 103 of 424:
|
Jan 12 17:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 104 of 424:
|
Jan 12 17:47 UTC 2004 |
resp:101 heh. I probably read it and then it took a while to sift
through my brain. ;)
|
remmers
|
|
response 105 of 424:
|
Jan 12 18:01 UTC 2004 |
To clarify my rather vague #93: I was referring mainly to the sentiments
cyklone expressed in his #79.
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 424:
|
Jan 12 18:57 UTC 2004 |
resp:79 is advising me to deal with the consequences of those items and
not to duck conversations with my son. As I said in resp:88, let me
worry about how I present the divorce to my son. And also how I dealt
with the divorce. Would it really surprise people if I tell you that
it has come up in conversations between him and me?
Do you really think you can force me into being a better parent,
meaning someone who lets (or will let) his son see him as a person with
powerful and often negative feelings, by getting those items restored?
That's what it looks like is being advocated in resp:79.
Would you care to add a timetable for me to use, as well, or shall I
just dump the whole item to my printer and give it to my boy this
evening? Maybe I can find some age-appropriate cartoon pictures to
illustrate it, too? ("Here's Muffy's Dad feeling suicidal. But he's a
good parent who shares his feelings.") Got some "suggestions" on that,
too?
I found resp:79 to be presumptuous, myself. How about telling yourself
that I care about my son, and you don't, and therefore it's a good
thing that I am in charge of raising him?
|
jp2
|
|
response 107 of 424:
|
Jan 12 19:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 108 of 424:
|
Jan 12 19:05 UTC 2004 |
pot:kettle;black
|
willcome
|
|
response 109 of 424:
|
Jan 12 19:10 UTC 2004 |
"(x)(Cx>~Vx)|-(x)[(Cx&Px)->~Vx]"
|