I keep hearing about this Amazon thing. Maybe some day I will try it.

Ryan park caved?

The "Whatever Happened to ?Off! The Whole Story" no longer has the actual ?Off posts from McKinstry.  He does not say why he pulled them, but if you email him privately and tell him why you want to read it he might send it to you.

Any speculation as to why he pulled the logs?
Permalink XYZZY 
February 15th, 2006 9:27pm
In private emails (I believe initiated by the Notorious T.A.W.) Joel urged the posts to be pulled to avoid copycat suicides (e.g. social proof), and several people agreed with the premise.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 9:33pm
you have *got* to be shitting me.

that has to be the stupidest, most fucking moronic reasoning ever.

can we know the names of the rest of the dumbshits involved in this discussion?

MarkTAW, Joel....who else?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 10:03pm
you have *got* to be shitting me.

The whole guy committed suicide on my forum (even without the I called the people who tried to save him psychipaths angle) is bad publicity for the holy roman fogcreek empire.

That's why Joel wants them off the web.
Permalink Nananana 
February 15th, 2006 10:16pm
Well, apparently Dennis was involved...  or maybe MarkTAW filled him in.

It's pretty weak, if Joel suggested it, it's because he didn't want any risk of bad PR.  I'm sure Joel cares about a suicide as much as anyone, but his primary concern would've been his own marketing.

How would it look if it got out that Chris posted to ?Off even before his own blog? *  But as it is, that info is gone, and I bet Joel keeps an eye on Wikipedia...

What was that web site with the scrapes of all the ?Off threads?

*I'm pretty sure I can check this, but the things I captured when Chris posted are at work, so it'll have to be tomorrow.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
February 15th, 2006 10:17pm
Chris posted to his blog, the forum, and the AI list he's on more or less simultaneously. I think it's some defect in the blogger software that it didn't appear for 20 minutes. The blogger time stamp was more or less identical to when it turned up on the forum.
Permalink  
February 15th, 2006 10:21pm
If someone has the transcripts, i'd be happy to host them on my website.  I'm not scared of Joel, and don't give a fuck if anyone else wants to copy Chris.
Permalink Send private email Phil 
February 15th, 2006 10:27pm
do we still have a copy of the transcripts anywhere?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 10:28pm
You're probably right, but I'll be curious to check...

His blog is gone, but it's in Google's cache: 12:08pm and 1:41pm on 20 Jan.  The thing is, I got the first post after Chris' and I thought the thread might get moderated away, so I did some PDFs of it.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
February 15th, 2006 10:29pm
un fucking believable.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
February 15th, 2006 10:31pm
Like I said, someone scraped all the ?Off threads, there was a link posted here a while back.  But w/out a working search...
Permalink Send private email Ward 
February 15th, 2006 10:32pm
Ryan Park's blog indicates people who want them can email him and explain why they want it. "Dear Ryan, I'm planning a copy cat suicide and want to get all the details right."
Permalink Nananana 
February 15th, 2006 10:33pm
Worst case, I can email you the PDFs.

In a back-assward sort of way, it shows how bright Joel is: a fairly obscure, but real, threat to his promotional efforts and he springs into action to counter it.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
February 15th, 2006 10:41pm
It shows how easily he is giving ammo to his enemies.  Making a stink about this is really easy now, and his censorship is worse for his marketing publicity than the original difficulty.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
February 15th, 2006 10:44pm
I can't wait to buy google ads on "Joel" and "Spolsky" with some lurid headline like "The Fogbugz Suicide -- Joel's sloppy coverup."
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 10:46pm
what fascinates me is that there were people who agreed with the possibility of the whole copy cat scenario.

its *totally ludricous*, I mean..if Im in suicide mode on the internet, I can either chase down an obscure thread in a now defunct (and never well known) forum, *or* I can visit www.howtocommitsuicide.com (or whatever) and learn how to blow my brains out.

wtf was dumbTAW thinking?  I had credited him with more brains than that.
christ there is nothing more foolish than someone who wants to take themselves eriously and is looking for permission.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 10:46pm
You know that marktaw always fell into some kind of hypnotic trance when joel sent an email.  This is just more of the same. 

Wow Joel being assinine and self-serving?  Move along folks, no news here.
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 10:48pm
I was a part of the email thread, and honestly I did agree with the supposition - It is an incontestable fact that suicides do beget suicides. Within a peer group, be it teenagers, or crazed running-from-debtors AI researchers, there is a tendency for people who are _already_ on the edge to see someone else's actions as validation for something they might be considering. This has been demonstrated in quite a few studies (see the Power of Persuasion. Social proof is enormously influential. No, it isn't going to make a psychologically healthy individual end it all, but it CAN push the on the edge person over the edge).
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 10:52pm
bull.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
February 15th, 2006 10:53pm
Social proof applies across the board, for instance, which is why things like spree killings, vandalism outbreaks, arson, etc, often happen in clusters. It isn't one person, but a bunch of idiots that all see the actions of others as validating of their own.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 10:54pm
You, DumbTAW, and Joel were swapping some spit about this issue and decided that you would do you little bit to save a life.

Exactly how likely do you think a copycat was with those posting out on the internet?

Which do you think is more likely to save a life?  Removing them or each of you spending the time calling a completely random phone number and asking them not to kill themselves?
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 10:55pm
Do facism & censorship work the  same way?
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 10:56pm
So is the bigger concern that someone copycats, or that someone copycats on Joel's property?
Permalink Send private email Phil 
February 15th, 2006 10:57pm
Joel petitioned Ryan to remove them, which was revealed when Mark email conversed with Joel. We then chatted about it, with Ryan and others involved in the conversation, and in the end Ryan decided that he wanted to remove it. No one coerced anyone.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 10:58pm
The copycat thing sounds lame... Ryan and wikipedia still outline enough details about what would happen so that a copycat could do his thing.  The transcript contained nothing but the suicide note (which can be found elsewhere) and people trying to save (and in some cases mock) Chris.  What was in the transcript that would be copied exactly?  Random online strangers trying to save another strangers life?
Permalink Send private email Phil 
February 15th, 2006 11:04pm
"I was a part of the email thread, and honestly I did agree with the supposition"

ok, so thats dumbshit number 3. dennis dumbshit.  congratulations.

"there is a tendency for people who are _already_ on the edge to see someone else's actions as validation for something they might be considering."

yep.  Ive read that study as well.  IIRC it was based around teh advisibility of reporting suicides in newspapers, and the problem of suicide avoidance groups in schools tending to have a higher suicide rate than those without.

None of the studies Ive seen have come close to covering the effect that a suicide post on a defunct blog in an obscure corner of the internet would have, relative to..for instance...the suicide websites where you can make contacts, gather together and just off yourself in company.

Ill take a leap though and claim that its probably a vanishingly small effect overall.

you fucking numbnutted, ditsy, brainless freak.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 11:04pm
I think it was the wrong decision, and I think the social proof argument is a little ridiculous. What was being kept there was a public record of what had happened. Peoples' actions should not influence such records, IMO.
Permalink Send private email BigJigger 
February 15th, 2006 11:10pm
"Joel petitioned Ryan to remove them,"

now *theres* a fucking surprise.


"and in the end Ryan decided that he wanted to remove it. No one coerced anyone."

nah, just lots of peer pressure. 

incredible, what is it with self-important drongoes?

I had thought more of both dumbshit dennis and dumbTAW.  oddly enough, I dont blame ryan at all...when half a dozen dickheads are all claiming that you are killing someone it can be surprisingly hard to deny.

what the fuck makes dumbTAW think he has a chance of being a fucking psychologist when he cannot recognise pure self-serving drivel from a BS artist like Joel.

fucking numbnuts, the lot of you.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 11:10pm
FullNameRequired,

So you're telling me that the WHO advisories don't cover blog cross posts with obscure unlinked discussion groups? Damn! I was sure there was a bullet point in there somewhere covering that.

We chatted about it and could see some rationale behind the argument, and Ryan decided, on his own volition, to pull his own archives. No one censored anyone, and if you have a copy feel free to post it all you want. What's the big pissy fit about? Because someone else made a decision about their own site that doesn't conform with your view of the world?
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 11:11pm
"Joel petitioned Ryan to remove them,"

Joel was just sitting around thinking how he could improve the world. Donate to charity? Volunteer at a soup kitchen?

Oh, I know, I should try to reduce the number of suicides internet suicides?  Hmm. should I donate to a hotline?  research and write an article on prevention? Hey, I know, let's get that note that happens to mention fogcreek off the internet -- that'll save some lives.
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 11:13pm
Oh, and at the time it wasn't just a unseen random archive of the history of ?off -- It was one of the hottest items on Reddit, and was seeing thousands of visitors. Visitors who knew nothing about ?off, but suddenly were exposed to someone's suicide drama.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 11:15pm
"We chatted about it and could see some rationale behind the argument,"

as I think Ive already explained, thats because between you all exists the brain power of a chestnut.  you *fucking clowns*

"and if you have a copy feel free to post it all you want"

if I had, I would.  Does anyone else have a copy?

"What's the big pissy fit about?"

because now there is, to my knowledge, no record of chris's suicide on the internet as it relates to ?off

"Because someone else made a decision about their own site that doesn't conform with your view of the world?"

pretty much, yes.  and because what I considered to be interesting internet has been removed.  and becaues Ive discovered that you and dumbTAW are VASTLY more stupid that I had expected.  and because Joel has, with just a little manipulation, achieved his desired result.
*and* because you fucking numbnuts made it so sodding easy.

oh please.  wont someone think of the children.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 11:16pm
But the damage is done now... that whole story has hit its peak in popularity, any copy cats occur?  No?  Ok, well lets put it back up.  Like I said i'll host it if Ryan is worried about a FogCreek lawsuit.
Permalink Send private email Phil 
February 15th, 2006 11:17pm
if nothing else I am *embarrassed* by it all.  Joel steps in, manipulates things jsut a little, and ta-dah...the world is as he desires it.

*christ* what a pack of brainless fucking clowns.


*does* anyone know of an existing copy of those threads?  or has dumbTAW and his moronic sidekick Dipshit Dennis managed to ensure that they've disappeared entirely?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 11:18pm
Actually, I committed suicide last week. THANKS Chris! Without you, I never would have had the courage.
Permalink  
February 15th, 2006 11:19pm
"and because Joel has, with just a little manipulation, achieved his desired result. "

I think this galls me the most.  He is an arrogant prick.  Joel says "take that down" and you knuckleheads oblige? WTF?
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
February 15th, 2006 11:20pm
GOSH blank. You really did it.  I've been thinking about offing myself, but without a note from the fogcreek off topic forum I just can't muster the courage. I guess I really should thank Dennis.
Permalink _ 
February 15th, 2006 11:21pm
FullName,

Suicide is socially contagious. Whatever your misinformed opinion of this, it's pretty much universally accepted as true. We happened to be chatting about Joel's argument, mostly cynically deriding it, and I (and others) AGREED that it is a recognized phenomena (e.g. we didn't just discount it because it didn't fit our current self-serving world view), and Ryan decided to take down his posts. The agreement of the observation is outside of specifics of this event, again irrelevant of whatever self-serving rhetoric we might have wanted to spout, and is incontestable. Attacking me, or pretending that anyone was trying to save the children is pretty inane in that context.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 11:24pm
Yeah, it's great. And you know what else? In death, I learned that we never really did land on the moon. I can't believe all you dumbshits fell for that.
Permalink  
February 15th, 2006 11:24pm
"But the damage is done now... that whole story has hit its peak in popularity, any copy cats occur?  No?"

You know this how?

Again, it is irrelevant for the basic observation that suicides are contagious. Have the fun, kids, but you're just making asses of yourselves.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 11:25pm
But just to get the story straight it was Joel...who's primary backround is in computer science who first suggested the "suicide might be contagious" and we should take it down theory? 

Something tells me Joel was in the psych ops division of the Israeli army.
Permalink Send private email Phil 
February 15th, 2006 11:26pm
It might have been the Center for Disease Control, but let's not be pedantic.
Permalink  
February 15th, 2006 11:26pm
"You know this how?"

Because I don't think I would have missed a suicide on reddit or JoS?  If your just talking about suicide in general, i'm sure there are still quite a few first hand ancedotes of suicide and suicide notes freely available on the web.
Permalink Send private email Phil 
February 15th, 2006 11:27pm
Sure it was Joel, and the reality is probably that he was reaching for whatever material he had to try to achieve his selfish ends. Nonetheless, in this case he had some valid material to draw from. The source (or in this case the messenger) doesn't invalidate the facts.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 11:27pm
I think we should find the threads and re-post them, period.    A handful of people made a decision about what the rest of the world should see.  Welcome to China, folks. 

I, for one, am sick of this conservative agenda to protect me from reality.

If you don't like the planet, get the fuck off.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
February 15th, 2006 11:28pm
Dennis, don't be rediculous, the messenger totally invalidates the facts.

EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE IT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. I can't believe you guys let a bunch of schoolteachers pull a fast one on you.

Dumb moronic shits.
Permalink No Name Required 
February 15th, 2006 11:28pm
sharkfish,

Joel gave hours before he shut down the site, during which time you could have archived all you want. As for Ryan, he's making choices about his own damn site. What you're really demanding is the right for you to make choices for other people.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 11:29pm
Yeah, I password-protected the archived ?off threads after about 5 days.  I had never intended to keep them online indefinitely.  I wrote my blog post as a "news story" because it was newsworthy to a couple specific online communities: people who knew Chris, people from ?off, etc.  After a few days, I figured that most people who would care had already heard the news.  (Hits had tapered off significantly.)  At that point I figured the impact of pulling the archived threads would be minimal.  And I hadn't heard any complaints until just now.

The night ?off went offline, Joel contacted me with a link from the CDC, suggesting that certain types of publicization of suicide may encourage additional pople to attempt it.  At first I thought Joel's concern was motivated by a desire to protect his professional image.  After a little more discussion, I decided that he truly believed in this theory.  I declined to remove anything at the beginning, although I did ensure my writing met the CDC guidelines for responsible reporting.  However, I couldn't ensure that the ?off threads met those standards.

I'm not convinced of this theory myself, but I can't rule it out either.  Let's say the theory has a 1 in 3 chance of being correct, and that 1 in 5000 people might be suicidal.  Well, that means that if I got 30,000 viewers to that page over the years, a couple people might attempt suicide because of it.  I decided that *any risk* of influencing someone to attempt suicide is worse than no risk at all.  Right?  I figured it had lived out its newsworthiness, and didn't really need to be on the Internet for all eternity.

I have had a small number of people request access, and I've given it to every one of them.  Most of those were people who knew Chris personally, or who had some other connection to the issue.  (For example, one person deals with depressed people on the web, and wanted to see how ?off handled this so that she'd have an idea of what to do in the future.)

If you do want access to these threads, please email me and I'll be happy to provide it.
Permalink Send private email Ryan 
February 15th, 2006 11:30pm
sharkfish,

Don't you understand, Joel has profits to protect.  I don't know why you think being able to read what you want is more important than him making sure that a dead kid doesn't show up in the google results for fogcrap software.

Think of joels $$$ for god sake.
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 11:33pm
"Suicide is socially contagious. Whatever your misinformed opinion of this, it's pretty much universally accepted as true."

dont be more of a dipshit that you can help dennis.  they've shown (statistically) that it tends to be true for suicides reported in specific ways...theres no magic about it.

They haven't ever even looked at the effect of obscure things like the forum, for the simple reason reason that statistically the effect almost cetainly doesn't rise above backgorund noise.

talk about giving simple statistics the power of magic, its a *specific* effect measured in a *specific* way and there is NO FUCKING WAY IT APPLIES HERE.



"Attacking me, or pretending that anyone was trying to save the children is pretty inane in that context."

you *weren't* trying to save the children?

Im not just attacking you, Im attacking everyone in that email thread sufficiently PIGSHIT STUPID or atteh very least SELF-IMPORTANT AND IGNORANT enough to agree with that is bloody clearly a SODDING STUPID SUGGESTION.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 11:33pm
FullNameRequired - refresh my memory. Did you believe Chris' suicide note was real or fake?
Permalink  
February 15th, 2006 11:35pm
Among all the new features of Crazy -- no facist gay overload, unlimited double posting at the same low price, friendly orange color -- my favorite is the way people being discussed just magically apear in the threads.  That's fricking grrrrrrreat.

Click this maybe Sumana will make another appearance.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sumanah/ces.shtml
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 11:38pm
"I decided that *any risk* of influencing someone to attempt suicide is worse than no risk at all.  Right?"

yeah, right.  theres at least a 1/12 chance that your mere personality might affect 1/30000 people sufficiently negatively to cause them to kill themselves.
I suggest you wipe yourself out ryan.

my apologies Dennis.  Ryan is just a moral coward.  nothing to see here.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 15th, 2006 11:39pm
Under certain circumstances, exposure to suicidal behavior may protect individuals from attempting suicide. The new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study finds that in some cases being acquainted with someone who has committed suicide or being exposed to suicide in news, books or films may actually decrease the risk for suicidal behavior.

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r010724.htm
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 11:40pm
"Our findings also suggest that this reduction in risk was most prominent when study participants did not feel emotionally close to the person to whose suicidal behavior they were exposed."

Like say, maybe, some random guy on the internet.

On the other hand, people who knew him, well, they probably felt close to him.  Whoops, YOU GAVE THE NOTE TO EXACTLY THE WRONG PEOPLE.
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 11:42pm
You know, just the day before Chris' suicide note, there was a news article about some kid in an online forum that committed suicide. I always wondered whether or not Chris' may have been a copycat suicide.
Permalink No Name Required 
February 15th, 2006 11:46pm
It may very well invalidate the prior study, however I find it a little odd - The study is based upon INTERVIEWS with 153 people who ATTEMPTED SUICIDE (in one town in Texas). Maybe their findings were that those who were exposed to a suicide did a worse job of it? Weird.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 15th, 2006 11:47pm
Yeah. There was wasn't there.

I think it was posted in one of his last two threads.
Permalink _ 
February 15th, 2006 11:48pm
Yeah. There was wasn't there.

I think it was posted in one of his last two threads.
Permalink _ 
February 15th, 2006 11:48pm
Well, at least you were able to help Fogcreek's PR efforts, even if it means a few more suicides....  What the heck, right?
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 11:51pm
Ryan didn't have to make the attempt to preserve the posts in the first place.  Anyone could have.  And he doesn't have to justify to anyone why he removed them.

You want freedom of the press?  That means him having control over his own website, including the ability to remove things on a whim.

If you want to call it caving in to pressure, fine, you can do that, but Ryan doesn't answer to you, or any of the rest of us, and he's under no obligation to give anyone access to those threads, or to preserve them.  If he wants to wipe them totally, that's his prerogative, just as much as it is to post them.  At this point, republicizing them would be "caving in to pressure" just as much, if not more so, as removing them in the first place.

What makes you people think you have the right to read whatever you want just because the press has the right to publish whatever it wants?  The two are not the same.  This is the kind of crap that encourages paparazzi to take topless photos of British royalty.  The press should be able to act without censorship, but they should also be able to not print what they don't feel like, without offering explanation.
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 15th, 2006 11:52pm
"This is the kind of crap that encourages paparazzi to take topless photos of British royalty."

I would pay to have that censored.
Permalink No Name Required 
February 15th, 2006 11:54pm
Of course Ryan is free to post or not post anything he wants, and if we find out the reason he posted them is because joel wants to make money and convinced Ryan of something that isn't true then we can mercilessly mock him as a dumbshit!  So it goes! Welcome to ?off 2.0 Dr. Stanton.
Permalink Kasey 
February 15th, 2006 11:55pm
Yup, mock him all you want.  You're free to do so.

Just as he's free to ignore it.
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 15th, 2006 11:57pm
Of course!  He's a dumbshit for taking it down. Joel's a prick for asking him to!  Now you can get off your I-know-what-free-speech-is horse....

The ?crazy crowd is pretty well informed that the classic solution to the "problem" of free speech is more speech.
Permalink Kasey 
February 16th, 2006 12:00am
Or we could stop assuming things about people's motives and act in the real world for a minute and base our decisions on the guidelines & best practices established by those who have done the research.
Permalink No Name Required 
February 16th, 2006 12:00am
"Ryan didn't have to make the attempt to preserve the posts in the first place. "

quite right.

"And he doesn't have to justify to anyone why he removed them. "

no, clearly not.  there is no need.  he removed them because hes a lameass moral coward.
I wonder if he believes that we should have suppressed reports of the abuse of the prisoners as well?  you know, just in case it inspired copycats, or negatively motivated our boys abroad.

"You want freedom of the press? "

this isn't about freedom of the press you incredible prat.  its about whether or not there remain any record of those threads.

"That means him having control over his own website, including the ability to remove things on a whim. "

fine, he can remove them.  but if removing them means I lose access to them altogether then he can BLOODY WELL BE ASSURED that I will call him a fucking retard.


"What makes you people think you have the right to read whatever you want just because the press has the right to publish whatever it wants? "

wtf?  what trip are you on Aaron? what does this have to do with a damn thing?

"The press should be able to act without censorship, but they should also be able to not print what they don't feel like, without offering explanation."

whatever.  the perss can do what it likes.  Ryan isn't press.  he is just a blog.  he retains control over the lsat copies of those ?off threads and if I want a copy I have to justify my desire to him.
fuck that.

and mr bloody righteous Joel manipulates otherwise grown men with a single idea.  just amazing.  you feel good bunch of weak minded *prats*.

moral cowards every bloody one.  heres a newsflash.  everything we do every day affects *someone* negatively. 
get over it.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 16th, 2006 12:00am
Right.
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 16th, 2006 12:01am
We've got the research about suicide -- exposure may REDUCE the chance of copycat http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r010724.htm  ---  we're not sure about the effect of the note of fog creek's PR efforts.
Permalink Kasey 
February 16th, 2006 12:02am
"guidelines & best practices established by those who have done the researc"

fine.  find some research done on the effect blogs have on the suicide rates and Ill be happy.
show me research performed on the effect newspapers and friends have on the suicide rates to justify a stupid ass action like this and Ill call you a dipshit.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 16th, 2006 12:02am
Wow, you really amuse me with that self righteous indignation.
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 16th, 2006 12:02am
I'm also bored and tired, and this whole thing is pretty sophomoric anyway, including my own comments, so I am going to bed.
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 16th, 2006 12:04am
And you amuse with your thin venner of smug superiority.
Permalink Kasey 
February 16th, 2006 12:05am
I think Joel was probably looking after his image more than protecting against copycats, but Ryan's changed his writeup so that's that.

However, thse threads are available from Ryan (unless he gets annoyed by the abuse here), they're in that other archive of ?Off, or worst case from me.

Get them, write up a different "What happened to ?off" article and either post it, or add it to Wikipedia (its lifetime there would be interesting), submit it to Slashdot...
Permalink Send private email Ward 
February 16th, 2006 12:09am
>>> I think Joel was probably

Oh my god, an almost rational post. I can't believe someone here doesn't claim to know the inner workings of Joel's recesses in intimate detail. Even muppet has had "a lot of interaction with Joel's back end."
Permalink  
February 16th, 2006 12:17am
Wow, a new record for # of replies!
Permalink Send private email Ward 
February 16th, 2006 12:36am
Whew.  Thanks Ward.  We almost went 20 minutes without a message there.
Permalink  
February 16th, 2006 12:37am
Yeah, it's a real shame muppet wasn't around for this thread, we really could have used another hard-headed moron to up the post count.
Permalink  
February 16th, 2006 12:48am
I'm sorry I asked.

If I were Joel, I'd have asked Ryan to remove the logs for multiple reasons.  I would not want my name associated even tangentially with a suicide.  I would not want my business image tarnished. I would not want to have anything that used to be on my server even remotely implicated in giving some other looney the idea to off himself.

FNR and others can complain all they want. I can see their points about free press and unrestrained access to information. But I would still support yanking access.
Permalink XYZZY 
February 16th, 2006 12:54am
Joel never asked Ryan to do anything. All he did was point to the CDC webpage about the suicide contagion.

It was during later discussion around the validity of the report that Ryan decided to pull the pages.
Permalink  
February 16th, 2006 12:58am
I have no problem with ryan yanking it.  I have every problem with him doing so without giving us a chance to copy it if we wanted to, and now lording over it and somehow making a moral decision on which of us should be allowed to read it.

Ive read those threads a number of times since Ryan posted them, and I would definitely have wanted to read them again eventually.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 16th, 2006 12:59am
"All he did was point to the CDC webpage about the suicide contagion"

yeah, such a little amount of manipulatoin and he got what he wanted.
weak minded morons.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 16th, 2006 1:00am
As I said in the other thread, gaining access to those pages is as easy as emailing Ryan. That's been the policy since he posted the notice about him removing it.

All I'm seeing in this thread is one group reading into the motives of another (Joel's, Ryan's etc.), and another group pointing out the *undisputed* facts that went into their decision.

You can continue reading all you like in to the motives of those around you, but it's an ultimately fruitless and frustrating behavior.
Permalink  
February 16th, 2006 1:05am
You have all been infected with Chris McKinstry's suicide mind virus.

So which of you is going to off yourselves next?

Come to think of it ... in the process of sweet-talking Ryan into taking down the information did Joel read the posts himself?

Fearless leader might be at risk himself. :/
Permalink possibly maybe 
February 16th, 2006 1:11am
"As I said in the other thread, gaining access to those pages is as easy as emailing Ryan. That's been the policy since he posted the notice about him removing it. "

Ive read that.  apparently I have to justify myself to him.  little lord weak mind.

frankly Id rather eat my cat.

"All I'm seeing... <snip>...and another group pointing out the *undisputed* facts that went into their decision. "

*what* undisputed facts?  even the studies themselves are not based in an internet world where finding someone to kill yourself with is as easy as looking..

you are an idiot.  I dont know which regular you are really, but I *want* you to understand what a totally boring and mindless post you have made.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 16th, 2006 1:22am
Well FNR, Ryan is the one who had the forethought to save those topics.  Had you done that yourself, you would not have to justify yourself to lord weak mind...
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
February 16th, 2006 1:27am
Will someone just publicly request a copy of the stuff here?

If Ryan follows through on his coquettish hints to being willing to provide it, then you can mirror it online and post a link.

If he admonishes you that only the pure of heart can drink from the Grail and live or asks you who the Holy Grail serves or imposes some other weird test of purity, then you can go back to flogging him here.

Personaly, I suspect that he won't simply give anyone who asks a copy and/or that he will try to extract some sort of promise not to mirror it online.

... but let's try and see.
Permalink possibly maybe 
February 16th, 2006 1:30am
*thats* why Im so pissed you fucking jackass.  if Id known the weak minded ninny was going to take the fucking thing down I *would* have taken a copy.

I thought there was a copy there so it was OK.

forgive me if I didn't think of it just after chris killed himself, but I was distracted.
Oddly enough not everyone sees things like that as an opportunity to whore their blog to digg.

why not just a little warning before he took the fucking thing down?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 16th, 2006 1:32am
"everything we do every day affects *someone* negatively.
get over it."

Get over it.
Permalink  
February 16th, 2006 1:33am
fuck it.  I cannot find a single copy even of his original suicide note online.


*sod* you ryan, dumbTAW and dipshit dennis.

fucking self-righteous, patronising little ivory tower pillocks.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
February 16th, 2006 1:35am
Ok, posted:

"Ryan Park: Req for a copy of original 'Whatever Happened to ...'"

http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=907&Posts=0
Permalink Send private email possibly maybe 
February 16th, 2006 1:40am
Interestingly, if someone caves in to FNR's intimidation, that person could once again be called a weak minded moron.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

By the way, it's "veneer" and not "venner".
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 16th, 2006 8:57am
> By the way, it's "veneer" and not "venner".

It should be "weak-minded" not "weak minded."

You pedantic fuck.  Hyphenated Adjectives bitches.
Permalink Kasey 
February 16th, 2006 12:09pm
I'd be more smug right about now if it were possible.
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 16th, 2006 12:51pm
smug? why?
Permalink Kasey 
February 16th, 2006 12:54pm
I'm curious - what do you think is under the veneer of smug superiority?
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 16th, 2006 12:59pm
It better be a giant penis or else it's entirely unjustified.
Permalink Send private email Dr. Richy Waffle 
February 16th, 2006 1:01pm
So what's your point?
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
February 16th, 2006 1:23pm
compulsive need to reach...
Permalink Kasey 
February 16th, 2006 7:12pm
100.
Permalink Kasey 
February 16th, 2006 7:12pm
Depeche Mode 101 was an interesting concert film.
Permalink Send private email Dennis Forbes 
February 16th, 2006 7:22pm
102 Dalmatians was a pretty shite film starring Glenn Close.
Permalink Kasey 
February 16th, 2006 7:39pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: February, 2006 Other topics: February, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics