|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
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]"
|
cyklone
|
|
response 110 of 424:
|
Jan 12 21:53 UTC 2004 |
Re #102: Here is what I proposed: delete all of jep's posts and print out
what remains for his lawyer to review. Your position re the involvement of
lawyers is nonsensical in view of *your own* statements that legal
liabilities for jep may justify removal. And if you want to approach it
from a "let the grexers decide" position, then I think most sane grexers
will be more likely to accept an argument based on potential legal
liability if a lawyers opinion is actually presented as opposed to your "I
am not a layer but I think a lawyer would be bothered by this" argument.
Re #106: I'm not going to get into it with you on this jep. If this has all
hit such a nerve, then I suspect there are deeper underlying issues you may
want to discuss with a counselor. And while I do care about the welfare of
children, regardless of whether I know them or not, that is not the main
thrust of my argument. I am saying that Grex needs a clear policy as whether
a given policy can be over-ridden by a concerned and well-meaning parent.
I'm sorry that you are the parent caught up on the controversy. That does
not diminsh the importance of the issue being decided, however.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 111 of 424:
|
Jan 12 23:06 UTC 2004 |
I did say that the items could be dangerous to jep, but that was a long time
ago, when there was one item, and it was newer. At this point, his ex-wife
undoubtedly has a copy if she wanted one, and leaving it up here wouldn't do
any further damage.
|
gull
|
|
response 112 of 424:
|
Jan 13 00:01 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:110: I doubt there's a lawyer out there who would look at the
printout and say, 'Yeah, go ahead.' He's being paid (very handsomely)
to protect jep's interests. He's going to err on the side of caution.
I see no point in shelling out $200 an hour for such a foregone conclusion.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 113 of 424:
|
Jan 13 00:32 UTC 2004 |
You may make that assumption. I would not. For one thing, there is a huge
hearsay issue that may or may not make the entire discussion moot. Your
"yeah, go ahead" comment also misses the point. The purpose of the
lawyer's review would not be to inquire as to whether or not jep should
leave *his* posts readable. The questions for review would be "Can these
*other people's* comments cause problems for me? If so, what kind of
problems could I expect?"
In any case, even if you are right, I consider $200 a small price to pay
to justify the extreme notion that a well-meaning parent can request other
people's posts be deleted. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
How about you?
It also appears that your views are contradicted by one of the very people
janc previously cited (joe saul) in support of deletion.
|
jep
|
|
response 114 of 424:
|
Jan 13 01:05 UTC 2004 |
re resp:113: My lawyer doesn't even use e-mail. Explaining what a
conferencing system is should probably be doable in an hour. I
estimate reviewing the responses ought to be doable in 8 more hours.
Probably.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 115 of 424:
|
Jan 13 01:14 UTC 2004 |
Let me also make it clear that I don't think the responses of other people
are dangerous to John, or that John had anything approaching a right to have
them removed. I will not be cited as a supporter of this action. When I
talked to him about it in the past, I was speaking about his own responses.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 116 of 424:
|
Jan 13 01:20 UTC 2004 |
Re #114: You don't have to use the same lawyer. There are plenty who use
email and know what a bbs is. There are also plenty who do not charge $200
an hour. In any case, since you are the one requesting such drastic
action, I can't get too worked up about the cost. Again what we are
getting, at least in my opinion, are excuses and insufficient reasons to
justify the extreme action you are requesting
|
naftee
|
|
response 117 of 424:
|
Jan 13 02:04 UTC 2004 |
I agree with cyklone. Hire a new lawyer who actually knows something.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 118 of 424:
|
Jan 13 03:40 UTC 2004 |
What useful purpose would restoring the response, minus JEP's comments, serve?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 119 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:23 UTC 2004 |
The same purpose that would be served if an addict wrote an item that
received lots of responses about addiction and recovery. Jep himself said
he wished there was an item like his already in existence that he could've
read during his divorce.
There is a considerable benefit to keeping such items readable. Ya'll want
to do the easy or nice thing rather than the principled or rational thing,
however.
|
jep
|
|
response 120 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:37 UTC 2004 |
It's so easy to be principled at the expense of someone else.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 121 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:40 UTC 2004 |
Its also very easy to lose your principles when you have to apply them to
yourself.
|