 | | | | | | |
| |
|
First off I would like to publicly apologize to Jude. I do that more
for Jude than I do for me. I killed my emotions a long time ago, so
sometimes it's hard to remember that everyone else still feels them.
I think the reason I picked Jude and the particular time was that if I
did it I wouldn't really be attacking anything. Jude didn't have
anything on the webpage, I have no doubt that at some point there will
be many interesting additions to the Lego community and I wouldn't
dare attack those. As far as the rant on my site I saw myself doing
mostly the same thing. Attacking what I considered to be the worst
designs. That doesn't make it right either, but I felt that some
right may come of it in one form or another. I mean to me a person
could attack the Behemoth on my site and I wouldn't mind. Why?
Because it's vastly incomplete, needs to be redesigned to look
smoother, more fluid, and there are a lot of ideas that can still be
integrated into it. And actually I haven't even done anything to the
interior yet. To me attacking something that is unfinished isn't
really attacking anything. I know others disagree with me on that and
I know that my opinions have the ability to hurt feelings. Again, I
am sorry for that, I do not want to cause hurt feelings. However I am
not sorry for what my actions caused. Yes I was rude, yes I was
brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
yourselves. I'm not going to lie to you, many people do not see me as
a nice person, I try to get people to think differently and sometimes
my methods are very fringe. Did I deserve to get banned? In your
minds I'd have to say yes. I think that perhaps I hit a little too
close to home...in fact I think I hit it right on. I knew what such
an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
consequences for it. Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
my harsh opinions?
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
One thing that I would like to add is that if my posting privileges
are reinstated I will only post updates about my webpage, nothing
else. And only updates that do not undermine the harmony and sanctity
of Lugnet and it's users.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> One thing that I would like to add is that if my posting privileges
> are reinstated I will only post updates about my webpage, nothing
> else. And only updates that do not undermine the harmony and sanctity
> of Lugnet and it's users.
>
> -Matthew
If ANYONE believes this... please reconsider.
Mike Stanley has pretty much said it all.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > One thing that I would like to add is that if my posting privileges
> > are reinstated I will only post updates about my webpage, nothing
> > else. And only updates that do not undermine the harmony and sanctity
> > of Lugnet and it's users.
> >
> > -Matthew
>
> If ANYONE believes this... please reconsider.
>
> Mike Stanley has pretty much said it all.
I think webpage updates need be few and far between. I do not know if Todd is
able to limit the number of posts MM can make to (say) once a month/week?
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I think webpage updates need be few and far between. I do not know if Todd is
> > able to limit the number of posts MM can make to (say) once a month/week?
>
> If you're actually suggesting that this guy be allowed to post here AT ALL
> (outside of this group for a very short period of time until you overly nice
> people come to your senses and realize what a pointless waste of time this
> farce of an apology is) then you need to take a break from playing devil's
> advocate because you aren't just suggesting a course of action contrary to
> what may seem to be the popular opinion, you're suggesting something that is
> 100% wrong and unacceptable.
I'm tending to side with Mike here.
I remember the RTL instruction scans incident all too well. Matt has glossed
over that, but my recollection (Ka On Lee posted a deja reference to it) was
that anyone that said ANYTHING that suggested that maybe what Matt was about
to do wasn't a completely brilliant idea or who said that maybe BrickShelf
didn't "suck" but actually was a good thing... had the flame turned on them by
Matt.
Nothing has yet convinced me that there has been any fundamental change in
Matt's underlying attitude or propensity to do it again. Yes, RTL isn't here.
Yes I don't believe in prior restraint, but this isn't prior restraint. What
Matt did HERE is bad enough to banish him from HERE, with no offsetting
positive contribution to make up for it (some of our group do tend to flame a
bit but it's lower intensity over longer periods, instead of one fast blast).
Ultimately it's Todd's call. Kudos to him for looking for community
consensus... but it's his call.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G2ps0v.7xy@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > I think webpage updates need be few and far between. I do not know if • Todd is
> > > able to limit the number of posts MM can make to (say) once a • month/week?
> >
> > If you're actually suggesting that this guy be allowed to post here AT • ALL
> > (outside of this group for a very short period of time until you overly • nice
> > people come to your senses and realize what a pointless waste of time • this
> > farce of an apology is) then you need to take a break from playing • devil's
> > advocate because you aren't just suggesting a course of action contrary • to
> > what may seem to be the popular opinion, you're suggesting something that • is
> > 100% wrong and unacceptable.
>
> I'm tending to side with Mike here.
>
> I remember the RTL instruction scans incident all too well. Matt has • glossed
> over that, but my recollection (Ka On Lee posted a deja reference to it) • was
> that anyone that said ANYTHING that suggested that maybe what Matt was • about
> to do wasn't a completely brilliant idea or who said that maybe BrickShelf
> didn't "suck" but actually was a good thing... had the flame turned on • them by
> Matt.
Well if you think it will be productive, perhaps we should crawl over
everyone's past, and use it against them. Perhaps we should draw up a table
of the 10 most inflammatory posts for both here and RTL... and have those
guys tossed out too. I have just done a reach on LUGNET for:
b*st*rd - 35 hits
f*ck hits 3 hits
Lets start by having everyone of those posters thrown out of LUGNET?
Scott A
>
> Nothing has yet convinced me that there has been any fundamental change in
> Matt's underlying attitude or propensity to do it again. Yes, RTL isn't • here.
> Yes I don't believe in prior restraint, but this isn't prior restraint. • What
> Matt did HERE is bad enough to banish him from HERE, with no offsetting
> positive contribution to make up for it (some of our group do tend to • flame a
> bit but it's lower intensity over longer periods, instead of one fast • blast).
>
> Ultimately it's Todd's call. Kudos to him for looking for community
> consensus... but it's his call.
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Scott A wrote:
>
> Well if you think it will be productive, perhaps we should crawl over
> everyone's past, and use it against them. Perhaps we should draw up a table
> of the 10 most inflammatory posts for both here and RTL... and have those
> guys tossed out too. I have just done a reach on LUGNET for:
>
> b*st*rd - 35 hits
> f*ck hits 3 hits
>
> Lets start by having everyone of those posters thrown out of LUGNET?
>
> Scott A
Scott, do you think this is an appropriate example? I never care much
some f words in a post, since I'm using bad language in my everyday
life, (but still trying to not use them in my post here since TOS banned
them) but is this the key actually? Do you really believe that he got
the response and banned here just he use some bad words in his posts?
Are just he was a bad person some time ago?
Please go and READ THE ENTIRE THREAD both here and RTL. For a summary,
he started a thread suggesting that he will built a new web site,
someone like brickshelf, but better than that. Some other people there
replied him as brickshelf is not that bad. And from this point (his
second post), he started acting like a fully configured *** ****. The
dialog between him and a German guy (Hoerst Lehner?) is especially
worthy of note.
Then of course he got the response that he deserved, then with the hate
of it he placed a document in his web site, and just to have a live
"evidence" that supports his sick thoughts about how evil we are as a
community, he KNOWINGLY started this flame war. And this is not my
comments, he said all this things.
So the ENTIRE thing is RECENT, including RTL incident, by his own words.
I consider him as a total waste of terran resources, not just resources
here in Lugnet.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
>
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > f*ck hits 3 hits
> >
> > Lets start by having everyone of those posters thrown out of LUGNET?
>
> Scott, do you think this is an appropriate example? I never care much
> some f words in a post, since I'm using bad language in my everyday
> life, (but still trying to not use them in my post here since TOS banned
> them) but is this the key actually?
Even more pertinent, glancing over the three posts in question for the "f word"
(well, two, since one is cancelled) will show that they are about whether or
not the word is offensive... in other words, they were talking about whether or
not it's necessary to have a ban on the words, or where to draw the line. It's
not like these people were cursing up a storm in a conversational post, or
slinging the words at other users.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> >
> > Scott A wrote:
> >
> > > f*ck hits 3 hits
> > >
> > > Lets start by having everyone of those posters thrown out of LUGNET?
> >
> > Scott, do you think this is an appropriate example? I never care much
> > some f words in a post, since I'm using bad language in my everyday
> > life, (but still trying to not use them in my post here since TOS banned
> > them) but is this the key actually?
>
> Even more pertinent, glancing over the three posts in question for the "f • word"
> (well, two, since one is cancelled) will show that they are about whether or
> not the word is offensive... in other words, they were talking about whether • or
> not it's necessary to have a ban on the words, or where to draw the line. • It's
> not like these people were cursing up a storm in a conversational post, or
> slinging the words at other users.
Sorry I did not read them, and still have not. I'll accept your word for it.
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
>
> Scott A wrote:
> >
> > Well if you think it will be productive, perhaps we should crawl over
> > everyone's past, and use it against them. Perhaps we should draw up a table
> > of the 10 most inflammatory posts for both here and RTL... and have those
> > guys tossed out too. I have just done a reach on LUGNET for:
> >
> > b*st*rd - 35 hits
> > f*ck hits 3 hits
> >
> > Lets start by having everyone of those posters thrown out of LUGNET?
> >
> > Scott A
>
>
> Scott, do you think this is an appropriate example? I never care much
> some f words in a post, since I'm using bad language in my everyday
> life, (but still trying to not use them in my post here since TOS banned
> them) but is this the key actually? Do you really believe that he got
> the response and banned here just he use some bad words in his posts?
This issue aside, I don't think it is acceptable to use "bad words" here, and
I doubt most people here do either. I don't swear in front of my kids, or
anyone else’s. Kids do read Lugnet.
Sure Matt did a bad thing. But others fanned his flames. (excuse the pun)
Scott A
> Are just he was a bad person some time ago?
>
> Please go and READ THE ENTIRE THREAD both here and RTL. For a summary,
> he started a thread suggesting that he will built a new web site,
> someone like brickshelf, but better than that. Some other people there
> replied him as brickshelf is not that bad. And from this point (his
> second post), he started acting like a fully configured *** ****. The
> dialog between him and a German guy (Hoerst Lehner?) is especially
> worthy of note.
>
> Then of course he got the response that he deserved, then with the hate
> of it he placed a document in his web site, and just to have a live
> "evidence" that supports his sick thoughts about how evil we are as a
> community, he KNOWINGLY started this flame war. And this is not my
> comments, he said all this things.
>
> So the ENTIRE thing is RECENT, including RTL incident, by his own words.
>
> I consider him as a total waste of terran resources, not just resources
> here in Lugnet.
>
> Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I think webpage updates need be few and far between. I do not know if Todd is
> > able to limit the number of posts MM can make to (say) once a month/week?
>
> If you're actually suggesting that this guy be allowed to post here AT ALL
> (outside of this group for a very short period of time until you overly nice
> people come to your senses and realize what a pointless waste of time this
> farce of an apology is) then you need to take a break from playing devil's
> advocate because you aren't just suggesting a course of action contrary to
> what may seem to be the popular opinion, you're suggesting something that is
> 100% wrong and unacceptable.
I'll give people the benifit of the doubt every day of the week, 24 hours a
day. I may be a mug. I'm not the only one who thinks MM is just a poor sap who
*perhaps* should get another chance in some sort of limited way.
I have read your other posts on this issue, I think you make a lot of good
points. But the bitter tone you give it all may make others think you are
lacking objectivity.
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
LUGNET has many things, and it needs many things. However, I don't feel it
needs "loathing animosity" of any kind.
I may be wrong?
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mike, could you please keep this hateful rubbish off LUGNET?!?
Thank you.
Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > LUGNET has many things, and it needs many things. However, I don't feel it
> > needs "loathing animosity" of any kind.
> >
> > I may be wrong?
>
> You're actually quite right. I don't feel any loathing animosity towards
> anyone connected to LUGNET - member, poster, or lurker.
>
> I feel it towards this person who, imo and that of plenty of others • (including
> Todd as of a few days ago and, pardon me for seeming arrogant in assuming
> this, as of a short while from now) who ARE truly a part of the LUGNET
> community.
>
> I'm willing to group this person in with some other groups of people I bear
> loathing animosity towards (and might have occasion to express it on groups
> like off-topic.debate) - like the KKK for instance.
>
> But no, I don't think loathing animosity between members of our AFOL • community
> is an appropriate thing. Then again, that's not what I'm expressing when I
> express my loathing animosity towards this person, as he has willingly • removed
> himself (by his actions, words, and opinions) from our community, both • LUGNET
> and RTL-based. He selected himself out by his choices. The fact that Todd
> can enforce that selection on LUGNET doesn't change the fact that this • person
> is responsible for his own actions.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> You're one of the few, trust me. And in this instance I'd say the overly-nice
> willingness of a few to make another misguided attempt to allow this person
> disrupt our community is FAR outweighed by the offense and outrage of the many
> who most certainly don't want daily reminders of the hatred and disrespect he
> has shown for our community and for James.
So, what you're really saying isn't that you're worried that he'll disrupt the
community, but that you don't like his beliefs, so you don't want him here?
I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. I just can't. And I dare you to defend
that position without coming across as a thought policing thug.
Guess what? I don't give a rat's ah, behind about James Jessiman. To be
completely frank, I found the little button amusing, in a black humour sort of
way. Any amusement I felt was quashed by Matt's overly in-your-face attitude
about it, however, and the amount I was upset about his stated purpose of
trying to hurt Lugnet as a community.
But, if you don't want him here because he has such a disrespect for James,
where do you plan to draw the line? As I said, I really don't care about
James (other than the fact that I like his product, LDraw)- does that mean you
want to see me banned as well?
To take it to another level- personally, I think Kennedy was a lousy President,
who brought us closer to tactical nuclear exchange than we've ever been. Does
that mean (assuming you love Kennedy) that you don't want me here?
Assuming you're a devout christian, and I said I really didn't care what a
carpenter who lived 2000 years ago said, would you want me gone?
I suspect the answer to the last few questions is no (at least, I hope so). Do
you really think there's any difference between that and wanting to see Matt
gone just because he doesn't idolise the same person you do? Just because he
has a belief, or says something that makes you angry?
I think, if you look at it that way, you'll relaise that *you're* the one who's
in the minority.
And your status in the community doesn't make your beliefs or thoughts any more
valid than Matt's. The very fact that you'd try to use that as an argument for
why you're entitled to demand he be removed, just because you don't like what
he has to say, or what he thinks, is both exceedingly ironic, and proves his
point about exclusionary behaviour. Think about *that* for a minute as well.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Eric,
I think a not so slight difference between not liking someone, and
ridiculing him/her with ugly ways just because you don't like his/her
software. I don't like Ldraw much, I use LeoCAD from the very beginning,
and think it is superior to Ldraw but I'm OFFENDED by his ugly graphic,
and more by his pathetic comments about James.
And even if I had been offended by the web page, I find natural that
most of the people here including Mike would offended by it, since many
people here knows James personally, and he was a respected friend for
them. I'm sure you can already feel that a prophet and a president is
much more different than a friend that you personally know and respect.
Selçuk
Lorbaat wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
>
> > You're one of the few, trust me. And in this instance I'd say the overly-nice
> > willingness of a few to make another misguided attempt to allow this person
> > disrupt our community is FAR outweighed by the offense and outrage of the many
> > who most certainly don't want daily reminders of the hatred and disrespect he
> > has shown for our community and for James.
>
> So, what you're really saying isn't that you're worried that he'll disrupt the
> community, but that you don't like his beliefs, so you don't want him here?
> I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. I just can't. And I dare you to defend
> that position without coming across as a thought policing thug.
>
> Guess what? I don't give a rat's ah, behind about James Jessiman. To be
> completely frank, I found the little button amusing, in a black humour sort of
> way. Any amusement I felt was quashed by Matt's overly in-your-face attitude
> about it, however, and the amount I was upset about his stated purpose of
> trying to hurt Lugnet as a community.
>
> But, if you don't want him here because he has such a disrespect for James,
> where do you plan to draw the line? As I said, I really don't care about
> James (other than the fact that I like his product, LDraw)- does that mean you
> want to see me banned as well?
>
> To take it to another level- personally, I think Kennedy was a lousy President,
> who brought us closer to tactical nuclear exchange than we've ever been. Does
> that mean (assuming you love Kennedy) that you don't want me here?
>
> Assuming you're a devout christian, and I said I really didn't care what a
> carpenter who lived 2000 years ago said, would you want me gone?
>
> I suspect the answer to the last few questions is no (at least, I hope so). Do
> you really think there's any difference between that and wanting to see Matt
> gone just because he doesn't idolise the same person you do? Just because he
> has a belief, or says something that makes you angry?
>
> I think, if you look at it that way, you'll relaise that *you're* the one who's
> in the minority.
>
> And your status in the community doesn't make your beliefs or thoughts any more
> valid than Matt's. The very fact that you'd try to use that as an argument for
> why you're entitled to demand he be removed, just because you don't like what
> he has to say, or what he thinks, is both exceedingly ironic, and proves his
> point about exclusionary behaviour. Think about *that* for a minute as well.
>
> eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> I think a not so slight difference between not liking someone, and
> ridiculing him/her with ugly ways just because you don't like his/her
> software. I don't like Ldraw much, I use LeoCAD from the very beginning,
> and think it is superior to Ldraw but I'm OFFENDED by his ugly graphic,
> and more by his pathetic comments about James.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended. I'm just saying that your offense at
his beliefs, or thoughts, or graphics on his webpage, or even what he says
here, doesn't constitute a good enough reason to ToSs him, IMHO.
To think otherwise is to open the door to all kinds of censorous behaviours and
activities.
Be offended. Dislike him. Loathe him.
Decry everything he says, tell him every one of his models is the worst thing
you've ever seen.
Or ignore him, and have no interaction with him at all.
But don't try and say that just because he has a thought that differs from
yours that he doesn't have a right to take part in the Lugnet community.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Lorbaat wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
> > I think a not so slight difference between not liking someone, and
> > ridiculing him/her with ugly ways just because you don't like his/her
> > software. I don't like Ldraw much, I use LeoCAD from the very beginning,
> > and think it is superior to Ldraw but I'm OFFENDED by his ugly graphic,
> > and more by his pathetic comments about James.
>
> I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended. I'm just saying that your offense at
> his beliefs, or thoughts, or graphics on his webpage, or even what he says
> here, doesn't constitute a good enough reason to ToSs him, IMHO.
Of course not. I posted several posts here about the subject, about how
much a good thing that he banned, and about how unnecessary to allow him
to post again even in admin, but I never mentioned his sick hatred as an
only reason or not a reason at all. Actually, I can't see it in Mike's
post (as an only reason), so just tried to explain how he can feel that
this outweighs MM's other actions.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
> > I think a not so slight difference between not liking someone, and
> > ridiculing him/her with ugly ways just because you don't like his/her
> > software. I don't like Ldraw much, I use LeoCAD from the very beginning,
> > and think it is superior to Ldraw but I'm OFFENDED by his ugly graphic,
> > and more by his pathetic comments about James.
>
> I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended. I'm just saying that your offense at
> his beliefs, or thoughts, or graphics on his webpage, or even what he says
> here, doesn't constitute a good enough reason to ToSs him, IMHO.
>
> To think otherwise is to open the door to all kinds of censorous behaviours and
> activities.
I fully supported the ban on his posting privileges. His repeated diatribes
that "James is dead. Deal with it", or whatever was reason enough - not because
he in fact holds that uncompassionate and cruel sentiment, but because his
repeated expression of it was objectively calculated to flame and offend. The
really clear and unacceptable violation was his implied threats. He should have
been banned for that if nothing else, but since his posting privileges have been
(at least partially?) restored, I do not believe that they should be revoked.
Another chance he has found, but there should be zero tolerance for any future
misconduct of that sort.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, James Simpson writes:
> I fully supported the ban on his posting privileges. His repeated diatribes
> that "James is dead. Deal with it", or whatever was reason enough - not
> because
> he in fact holds that uncompassionate and cruel sentiment, but because his
> repeated expression of it was objectively calculated to flame and offend.
Your right. And for that reason, I would support banning him, as well.
I would not support banning him *simply* because he maintains that graphic on
his website, however. Nor would I support banning him simply because it's what
he believes.
If he continues to post in a way that is designed only to offend, I would be
one of the first asking to see him gone, as I was before. But if he's really
learned that kind of behaviour won't fly on Lugnet, and he wants to stay and
abide by the social order we have here, why not give him a second chance?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, James Simpson writes:
>
> > I fully supported the ban on his posting privileges. His repeated diatribes
> > that "James is dead. Deal with it", or whatever was reason enough - not
> > because
> > he in fact holds that uncompassionate and cruel sentiment, but because his
> > repeated expression of it was objectively calculated to flame and offend.
>
> Your right. And for that reason, I would support banning him, as well.
> If he continues to post in a way that is designed only to offend, I would be
> one of the first asking to see him gone, as I was before. But if he's really
> learned that kind of behaviour won't fly on Lugnet, and he wants to stay and
> abide by the social order we have here, why not give him a second chance?
>
> eric
Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
Don't fall for plastic sentiment, faux remorse, and hollow words...
John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
First of all, I'm not 100% sure the term "second chance" applies. After all,
he is a new member. We're not talking about "fool me once, shame on you, fool
me twice, shame on me" here. I'm also not suggesting that *every* time he acts
up Lugnet should be forgiving. He is a new member, he is used to The Ways of
Usenet (which are *not even close* to The Ways of Lugnet) and I am willing to
believe him when he says he sees the difference and wants to participate in
Lugnet.
Second, and much more importantly, his posts are not going to kill anyone, like
cancer or a terrorist would.
> Don't fall for plastic sentiment, faux remorse, and hollow words...
Until he proves it one way or the other, how can you be so sure they're
plastic, faux, or hollow?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Well I promised I wouldn't get to involved in this discussion and I won't in a
detailed way. I just wanted to say that I have agreed with just about
everything Eric J. has had to say in this discussion.
Certain things have been brought into this discussion that never should have
including anything Matthew has on his site no matter how inappropriate. The
only thing in question here are Matthew's posts which as Eric said can't
physically hurt anyone.
Yes, I have my doubts as to if Matthew can change his ways and I can't say I
would care one way or the other if he was given another chance. I just don't
think we should ostracize someone for having a disgusting graphic on their
site. It is their right and we shouldn't ban him because of, or in part
because of it. We should only look at this in terms of what he posted on
LUGNET and then it is up to Todd to determine if Matthew should be let back in
because to paraphrase Matthew "This is Todd's house and he can do what he
wants".
I realize some of my post does not apply directly to this part of the thread.
I am just posting my feelings about the thread in general and will go back to
reading it for now.
Eric Kingsley
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
>
> > Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
>
> First of all, I'm not 100% sure the term "second chance" applies. After all,
> he is a new member. We're not talking about "fool me once, shame on you, fool
> me twice, shame on me" here. I'm also not suggesting that *every* time he
> acts up Lugnet should be forgiving. He is a new member, he is used to The
> Ways of Usenet (which are *not even close* to The Ways of Lugnet) and I am
> willing to believe him when he says he sees the difference and wants to
> participate in Lugnet.
>
> Second, and much more importantly, his posts are not going to kill anyone,
> like cancer or a terrorist would.
>
> > Don't fall for plastic sentiment, faux remorse, and hollow words...
>
> Until he proves it one way or the other, how can you be so sure they're
> plastic, faux, or hollow?
>
> eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> > Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
>
> First of all, I'm not 100% sure the term "second chance" applies. After
> all, he is a new member. We're not talking about "fool me once, shame on
> you, fool me twice, shame on me" here. I'm also not suggesting that *every*
> time he acts up Lugnet should be forgiving. He is a new member, he is used
> to The Ways of Usenet (which are *not even close* to The Ways of Lugnet) and
> I am willing to believe him when he says he sees the difference and wants to
> participate in Lugnet.
I'm sure the phrase "new member" must means different things to different
people -- perhaps two weeks to one person, two months to another, or even two
years to another. In any case, for the record, Matthew's first post here was
on April 9, 2000 -- some 6 1/2 months ago. Not that it has any bearing on
what happened (IMHO).
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> I'm sure the phrase "new member" must means different things to different
> people -- perhaps two weeks to one person, two months to another, or even two
> years to another. In any case, for the record, Matthew's first post here was
> on April 9, 2000 -- some 6 1/2 months ago.
Agreed. I went and looked using the search function. I may have missed some
but I found a number of posts from Matthew going quite a ways back. Some were
hyperbolic, but none (that I found, but I may have missed some) were
vitriolic. Nothing wrong with hyperbole, mind you.
> Not that it has any bearing on
> what happened (IMHO).
Actually it does, I think. If you've been around a while there is no longer
the "well I'm new and didn't know how things work" excuse. Not that it is a
valid one even for the most rank newcomer, because the posting setup screen
requires you to verify that you have read the ToS.
So, OK, it doesn't have any bearing.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: • <snip?
> > Not that it has any bearing on
> > what happened (IMHO).
>
> Actually it does, I think. If you've been around a while there is no longer
> the "well I'm new and didn't know how things work" excuse. Not that it is a
> valid one even for the most rank newcomer, because the posting setup screen
> requires you to verify that you have read the ToS.
OK quick question(1).
Now I don't think many/any of us know much of Matthew other than he has some
personal issues to work out and that he likes to cause havoc. So here's the
question.
Assume that Matthew is say 14 and he is banned "for Life". That would make
hime young and probably pretty immature. What if say 4-6 years down the road
he wants reinstatement because he has trully "seen the error of his ways".
Will there be a mechanism for that?(2)
Also say Matthew is 30 but receives counceling and decides to change his ways
what then?
Eric Kingsley
1. In my experiance there is no such thing as a quick question ;-).
2. I have accepted the fact that Matthew is going to be banned and I am OK with
that. I just want to make sure everything has been thought through first.
This is a precedent setting move and I think you (Todd) need to be very careful
in the way you handle the issue because people will refer back to this
discussion for years to come as other situations arrise.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> 2. I have accepted the fact that Matthew is going to be banned and I am OK
> with that. I just want to make sure everything has been thought through
> first. This is a precedent setting move and I think you (Todd) need to be
> very careful in the way you handle the issue because people will refer back
> to this discussion for years to come as other situations arrise.
It's very difficult -- and I'm not even going to try -- to sum everything up
in a nice simple pat statement (not that you're asking for one), since, to
various extents, I agree with almost everything that everyone here has said.
My opinions are most in line with these posts which stood out in my mind as
I got caught up on reading today:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6688
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8125
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8016
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8039
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8060
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8042
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8000
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8095
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8100
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8119
In terms of a bottom line, take the sandbox-in-the-backyard analogy. "There's
always one in the crowd." Occasionally there is just going to be some bully
or troublemaker in the neighborhood who simply refuses to play well with
others. For whatever deep underlying reasons, they can't or don't want to
get along and clearly don't belong. They can go start their own sandbox and
play in it and make up whatever rules best fit them. Maybe others will go
join them...fine...not here.
At this time, Matthew is persona non grata. Not for his opinions, not for
what he has on his website, and not for his being personally disliked by many
people, but for how he has intentionally disrupted peace and harmony, attacked
people, used foul language, made what are judged by many to be threats,
admitted that he plotted to cause a large commotion, and relished in self-
described past mischief elsewhere. Those are things that this site is not
about. Although we the community have generally been tolerant of a little
vitriol here and there, never before has someone calculatedly done so much
in such a short amount of time.
That's where things stand.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> 2. I have accepted the fact that Matthew is going to be banned and I am OK
> with that.
Me too.
> I just want to make sure everything has been thought through first.
> This is a precedent setting move and I think you (Todd) need to be very
> careful in the way you handle the issue because people will refer back to this
> discussion for years to come as other situations arrise.
Not sure why he needs to be very careful, since the decision years from now
whether or not to banish someone else will still be Todd's decision to make,
not mine or yours or anyone else's (unless Todd decides to make it someone
else's).
That's not to say Todd ISN'T careful, for his own reasons, but I don't think
his caution is forced on him from any external source.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> That's not to say Todd ISN'T careful, for his own reasons, but I don't think
> his caution is forced on him from any external source.
I think Eric meant it as wise advice.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > He is a new member,
> I'm sure the phrase "new member" must means different things to different
> people -- perhaps two weeks to one person, two months to another, or even two
> years to another. In any case, for the record, Matthew's first post here was
> on April 9, 2000 -- some 6 1/2 months ago. Not that it has any bearing on
> what happened (IMHO).
D'oh. I don't know where I got the impression that he was fairly new (to
posting, at least, because there's no way to tell how long someone's been
lurking).
That does color things slightly- after all, it means he's been here long enough
to know what kind of behaviour is deemed appropriate, and what kind isn't, and
on the other, it means that he's not a new member, so every post he makes isn't
going to have some ulterior motive.
I'm not sure if that changes how I feel, but frankly I'm just kind of tired of
the whole situation. I've said before, I won't be upset if he stays and I
won't be upset if he goes. He did, in my opinion, violate the spirit of the
T&C, and that makes it up to you what to do with him.
The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
disagree about.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> disagree about.
I agree. However...
I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
judge opinions and not behaviour?
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> > disagree about.
>
> I agree. However...
>
> I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
> judge opinions and not behaviour?
I just wanted to add that I agree with Eric J. once again. I know I and a few
others were playing a bit of devils advocate durring this discussion. Thats
mostly because I thought several peoples reasoning for banishment were
misguided.
There was one other thing that bothered me durring the discussion however and
that is the fact that it seems some people decided to tell Todd privately that
if Matthew was not banished that they would leave. Because this was done
privately I can't quote word for word but it all sounds like threats to me and
we don't need that here. I still feel that some people need to learn how to
disagree (politely of course). We are not all going to agree all the time and
trying to force a viewpoint with threats of any kind is not the right way to go
about it. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and be done with it.
Finally I would like to say that I am not in any way sad to see Matthew go. I
just wanted to try and do my part to ensure that he was banished for the right
reasons.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> I just wanted to add that I agree with Eric J. once again. I know I and a few
> others were playing a bit of devils advocate durring this discussion. Thats
> mostly because I thought several peoples reasoning for banishment were
> misguided.
And/or perhaps in some cases overstated. Or overly stressed.
> There was one other thing that bothered me durring the discussion however and
> that is the fact that it seems some people decided to tell Todd privately that
> if Matthew was not banished that they would leave. Because this was done
> privately I can't quote word for word but it all sounds like threats to me and
> we don't need that here.
I sent Todd a few private e-mails on this subject (most of which dealt pretty
specifically with apologizing for blowing my top and asking him to remove my
emotionally charged posts) but I never "threatened" to leave in them.
But I'm not so sure I would take a statement like this:
If people who revel in disruptive behaviour are allowed to stay here and
remain disruptive I may have to stop participating in these discussions.
as a threat. Far from it, in fact. I'd see that as a very honest request for
action. I know you're member #15 but I'm not sure (poor memory on my part -
forgive me) how near the beginning of LUGNET you began participating here. As
far back as what I guess is now called the alpha testing phase it was clear
that one of the hopes for LUGNET was to bring back to the community people who
had felt compelled to leave it because of various problems with RTL - be they
mean-spirited diatribes or the semi-constant flood of commerce-related
postings.
So now, especially given that Todd has stated clearly that if it had been
obvious at the time that Matthew was the same person as the Mad Hatter of 1998
(9?) RTL infamy, he would have not been allowed in the door, to hear that some
might express their dissatisfaction by, as you put it "threatening" to leave,
I'm not surprised, or even bothered. In this specific case we had a person
who had a proven track record of disruptive, rude, antisocial behaviour. Many
people claimed that such a track record shouldn't come into play ToS-wise, but
I'm sorry, if it is good enough for Todd, it's good enough for me. This
person did something that certainly could have led to the sort of full-scale
slugfest he caused (and he DID cause it - make no mistake - even without his
posts available it is clear that he drove the flamefest) on RTL. Given all
that, I'm not surprised that some might choose to leave were he allowed to
stay - in fact I'd be surprised if some didn't. Talk about cheapening the
neighborhood.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
<snip>
> > There was one other thing that bothered me durring the discussion however and
> > that is the fact that it seems some people decided to tell Todd privately
> > that if Matthew was not banished that they would leave. Because this was
> > done privately I can't quote word for word but it all sounds like threats to
> > me and we don't need that here.
>
> I sent Todd a few private e-mails on this subject (most of which dealt pretty
> specifically with apologizing for blowing my top and asking him to remove my
> emotionally charged posts) but I never "threatened" to leave in them.
>
> But I'm not so sure I would take a statement like this:
>
> If people who revel in disruptive behaviour are allowed to stay here and
> remain disruptive I may have to stop participating in these discussions.
That statement I would not take as being a threat but like I said I don't know
what people said to Todd privately and I assume there were many people writing
Todd privately about the topic and some of those may or may not have threatened
to leave.
Actually I may have missremembered the "threaten" part. As Todd's post that I
remember only said people said "some have indicated that they may leave if he
stays". It does not say threaten so I could be mistaken in my assumption that
they were threats.
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8113
>
> as a threat. Far from it, in fact. I'd see that as a very honest request for
> action. I know you're member #15 but I'm not sure (poor memory on my part -
> forgive me) how near the beginning of LUGNET you began participating here. As
> far back as what I guess is now called the alpha testing phase it was clear
> that one of the hopes for LUGNET was to bring back to the community people who
> had felt compelled to leave it because of various problems with RTL - be they
> mean-spirited diatribes or the semi-constant flood of commerce-related
> postings.
My being member #15 or member #2015 or not a paying member at all has nothing
to do with it. In fact I try to avoid posting my member # because I find it
elitest and I don't see the value add of doing so. Anyway I know what the
hopes for LUGNET were and still are and I agree with them. That does not make
LUGNET immune from people like Matthew. All that can be done is to deal with
the situation quickly as Todd did and leave it at that. To try and force Todd,
not that that would ever happen, into an action as serious as bannishment is
just wrong in my opinion.
Actually, I am glad that Todd thinks for himself in these issues because if
memory serves there were quite a few people that would have liked to have
bannished Jonathan Wilson a year or two ago but through patience and some
ground rules being set Jonathan is now a valuable member of the community.
>
> So now, especially given that Todd has stated clearly that if it had been
> obvious at the time that Matthew was the same person as the Mad Hatter of 1998
> (9?) RTL infamy, he would have not been allowed in the door, to hear that some
> might express their dissatisfaction by, as you put it "threatening" to leave,
> I'm not surprised, or even bothered.
I am not sure I totally agree with Todd's statement that if he had known
Matthew were the Mad Hatter that he would not have let him in but that is
Todd's choice. I personally like to give 2nd chances as much as possible as
long and it doesn't put someone in danger of physical harm. That being said I
think Matthew was unwittingly given a 2nd chance and he blew it so the end
result is he isn't here.
> In this specific case we had a person
> who had a proven track record of disruptive, rude, antisocial behaviour. Many
> people claimed that such a track record shouldn't come into play ToS-wise, but
> I'm sorry, if it is good enough for Todd, it's good enough for me.
I agree that if its good enough for Todd then thats good enough because its his
ball and he can do with it as he wishes. It doesn't matter what I or anyone
else thinks, Todd is just good to let people to have their say but in the end
I don't think it will change Todd's mind either way unless some compelling
evidence is given.
> This
> person did something that certainly could have led to the sort of full-scale
> slugfest he caused (and he DID cause it - make no mistake - even without his
> posts available it is clear that he drove the flamefest) on RTL. Given all
> that, I'm not surprised that some might choose to leave were he allowed to
> stay - in fact I'd be surprised if some didn't. Talk about cheapening the
> neighborhood.
Well fortunately we won't have to worry about that.
Actually now that an official decision seems to have been made I don't know how
much longer I want to keep discussing it so unless I have a compelling reason
to post to this thread again I am going to try not to because I think it is
time for it to die.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> My being member #15 or member #2015 or not a paying member at all has nothing
> to do with it. In fact I try to avoid posting my member # because I find it
> elitest and I don't see the value add of doing so.
I think you may have misunderstood why I mentioned your member number (note I
didn't mention mine). I also don't think your number should necessarily
indicate you have some sort of status or "power" here. I referenced it simply
because I think, in some cases, a fairly high number may indicate you came to
the LUGNET community a little later than some. Nothing wrong with that, but
being here from the beginning does provide a different sort of perspective.
Not always a better perspective, mind you, but certainly a different one.
And I meant all that in the sense that those of us who remember people leaving
RTL because of the actions of others (whatever they might have been) might
have a different take on someone feeling the need to leave if LUGNET were
allowed to become a not-so-friendly place. That's all - no implied elitism,
although I'm mostly in Larry's camp when it comes to elitism not necessarily
being a bad thing, as long as it is merit-based.
> To try and force Todd,
> not that that would ever happen, into an action as serious as bannishment is
> just wrong in my opinion.
To try to force Todd to do anything would be futile, I assure you. :) To try
to influence Todd, though, is not necessarily wrong, imo. Especially if
you're just stating your opinion and perhaps offering your perspective. I
snipped what you wrote about possibly assuming a threatening nature to the
comments about leaving, but I think it is important to note that *Todd* did
not characterize them as threats, so I would not characterize them as attempts
to *force* him to do anything either.
> I am not sure I totally agree with Todd's statement that if he had known
> Matthew were the Mad Hatter that he would not have let him in but that is
> Todd's choice. I personally like to give 2nd chances as much as possible as
I'm sure I totally agree with Todd's statement, but I'm ok with you tending
towards 2nd chances.
> Well fortunately we won't have to worry about that.
Yup. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> My being member #15 or member #2015 or not a paying member at all has nothing
> to do with it. In fact I try to avoid posting my member # because I find it
> elitest and I don't see the value add of doing so. Anyway I know what the
G'day Eric,
I find it interesting that you call this elitist. In a way I
guess I can see your point, but I personally don't see it
as a bad thing. When I first got on LUGNET (start of this
year) I thought that all people posting to LUGNET had to be
members. Eventually I found out that wasn't true of course.
But I find it useful in the marketplace groups to indicate
that I am a member of LUGNET in my posts. Because I know
some people just pop in and post things from time to time,
and they aren't a "regular" here. Saying your a member helps
add a little bit of comfort level (for the reader) to a
marketplace post, IMO.
It just sort of stuck and now I post it in all my messages.
I especially use it in off-LUGNET posts/email involving
LEGO (usually marketplace activity).
Wow, #15..., you're *OLD* :]
KDJ
______________________________________
Kyle D. Jackson, LUGNETer #203, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Kyle D. Jackson" wrote:
>
> Wow, #15..., you're *OLD* :]
>
> KDJ
#15?.. Heh!..:-)
Selçuk, #4
> ______________________________________
> Kyle D. Jackson, LUGNETer #203, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> There was one other thing that bothered me durring the discussion however
> and that is the fact that it seems some people decided to tell Todd
> privately that if Matthew was not banished that they would leave.
One person said that, but I'm not sure how serious they were. A couple of
other people hinted at it. Two or three people (I think two) said that they
would set up a killfile.
> Because this was done
> privately I can't quote word for word but it all sounds like threats to me
> and we don't need that here.
I don't think they meant it as a threat. I certainly didn't see it that way.
It was preceded by "It's your call, but I also want to say that I would be
likely to pack up and leave if he stays and continues to act this way" (this
is from memory -- not a direct quote -- and paraphrased) and I think it was
intended as something to take into consideration -- something to illustrate
the level of frustration.
> I still feel that some people need to learn how to
> disagree (politely of course). We are not all going to agree all the time
> and trying to force a viewpoint with threats of any kind is not the right
> way to go about it. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and be
> done with it.
I agree, and I'm no saint on this point, either. I also like what ScottA
wrote earlier about trying not to say things online that you wouldn't say to
someone in person. (That advice assumes a generally polite personality to
start with, and probably won't work so well with rude dispositions, but I
think most people are generally polite in real life, as long as their mad
buttons aren't pushed. :-)
> Finally I would like to say that I am not in any way sad to see Matthew go.
> I just wanted to try and do my part to ensure that he was banished for the
> right reasons.
I am personally sad that someone has been thrown out who put up space models
that I really enjoyed (especially the weaponry sections). I would still feel
that way even if the commotion had been 10x what it was.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> > disagree about.
>
> I agree. However...
>
> I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
> judge opinions and not behaviour?
>
> ++Lar
Actually I'm not including myself to that a few remaining, but in case
of any doubt, here is my reasoning, in which I tried to word it as much
clear as possible:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8125
If there is any flaws, replies would be really appreciated.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> > disagree about.
>
> I agree. However...
>
> I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
> judge opinions and not behaviour?
Wow, what a loaded question, especially given what seems(ed) like a reverse-
witch-hunt.
I'd like to state first that I realized Friday that I got WAY too worked up
about this and posted some things that were, in some cases, petty and
childish, and in almost every case, detrimental to maintaining calm and
civility during this discussion. That's why I sent Todd a request to remove
every single post I had made on this subject.
Now I'm fairly calm about it, well, that's not true, some of the stuff still
angers me, but I can BE calm about it. So I'll respond to this.
I'll not identify myself as someone who thinks we (by we I assume you mean
LUGNET) need to judge opinions and not behaviour, at least not in the way that
I think you mean it. If you mean that WE ought to go around banishing people
from LUGNET for holding unpopular opinions then no, I'm not one of those
people.
If, however, you (or anyone else) are suggesting (and I doubt you are) that
*I* ought not to judge people based on opinions they publicly espouse, then
I'd have to disagree with that. I have as much right to pick and choose who I
like, respond to, etc, based on whatever reason, as any person has to hold any
opinion. Maybe this is a subject for off-topic.debate, but with respect to
opinions, it might be politically incorrect to say so, but they're not created
equal. People who hold unpopular opinions and choose to make an issue of them
(especially in the way these were - sarcastically, arrogantly, and in a mean-
spirited manner) SHOULD expect to be held accountable for them, not
necessarily (as in this specific case) in the sense of the ToS, but by other
people who have as much "right" (not suggesting LUGNET is obligated to provide
anyone a forum) to espouse their opinions as the person with the unpopular
opinion.
I did not then nor am I now saying that Matthew should have been ousted solely
for his opinions. For me, internally, it was the final straw with respect to
how *I* would deal with him, and I'm not ashamed of that. But as many have
pointed out, Todd (and Suz - I suppose) is the only person involved in this
discussion who ultimately got to decide what to do about Matthew, so the fact
that I personally would have chosen to disassociate myself with him had he
stayed here (including pushing for some sort of filtering capability - I think
it has other uses as well) wouldn't have mattered much.
So do I think people ought to be banished because of their opinions? Nope,
not directly. Do I forsee scenarios (like this one) where their opinions and
their actions will be fairly well intertwined, possibly to the point where it
may APPEAR as if they are being ousted because of their opinions? Yup. Do I
think that it just might be possible that someone with the gaul to willfully
spout disrespectful crap about a popular dead guy might just also tend to do
things that ARE ToS-able? Seems to have happened here. Does that suggest a
causal relationship? Dunno - I'm no psychologist.
Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet. Does
at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
either - or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
or who have opinions that offend you?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> If, however, you (or anyone else) are suggesting (and I doubt you are) that
> *I* ought not to judge people based on opinions they publicly espouse, then
> I'd have to disagree with that.
So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
like.
> Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet. Does
> at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
> fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
> sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
> either -
Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
> or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> or who have opinions that offend you?
Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must* associate
with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
opinions.
Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
> like.
People seem to be suggesting, though, that one should not choose to voice that
opinion. If person A can voice an opinion that persons B, C, and D find
offensive (and to be honest - persons E, F, and G couldn't care less about)
I'd say B, C, or D have just as much right to discuss it. Yay, even to even
argue about it.
> > Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet. • Does
> > at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
> > fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
> > sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
> > either -
>
> Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
Really? You're able to divest yourself so fully from your personal beliefs or
opinions that someone who held one that offended you - pick one - here's an
easy one. If Randolf the Racist believed that only purple people truly
belonged in this country and that all other races should be forcibly tossed
from it, and that belief offended you, made you sick to your stomach even. If
Randolf were then tossed from LUGNET because he broke the rules, you wouldn't
feel a teensy bit of satisfaction that someone who turned your stomach was no
longer around to turn it? If so, I think we need to put your dossier on the
fast track for Sainthood. :)
> > or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> > or who have opinions that offend you?
>
> Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must* associate
> with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
> him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
> opinions.
Yes, there are. And there's room for discussion, possibly even arguments,
about those opinions, especially if they are conducted with the respect of
both parties in mind. I'd say Matthew and I fell a little short of that mark
more than once, although I'd probably try to point out that "he started it",
realizing that two wrongs don't make a right.
> Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
> been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
> whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
On the question of ToSing him, I agree. Well, maybe. I'm not prepared to
tell LUGNET's owner what criteria he may use to make his decision, especially
since he has a blanket "I can toss you if I think you need to" clause. But
yes, in the abstract sense, were we to have any real say in who gets ToSed and
who doesn't, I'd say personal opinions shouldn't come into play.
I think I'd just be more willing to notice correlations between opinions and
actions. And what I mean by that is that while you say you're not concerned
about James Jessiman one way or the other, you don't seem to feel a desire to
run around making fun of people who do respect and yes, perhaps revere him.
Matthew seemed to take a petty sort of glee in trying to humiliate people for
respecting James and his contribution to the LCAD community. You may feel it
is just as silly, but you stop short of trying to rudely and arrogantly rub
someone else's nose in it. You have an opinion that differs from mine (that I
can respect) and you respect my right to hold it. He had an opinion that is
different from mine (the right to hold the opinion I can respect) and he
thought it fun to turn that into a weapon of sorts, obviously having no
respect for others' rights to their opinions.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
> > like.
>
> People seem to be suggesting, though, that one should not choose to voice that
> opinion. If person A can voice an opinion that persons B, C, and D find
> offensive (and to be honest - persons E, F, and G couldn't care less about)
> I'd say B, C, or D have just as much right to discuss it. Yay, even to even
> argue about it.
So would I. Of course, discussing it would imply the person with the negative
opinion was around to discuss it. :D
I'm really not saying that you should be forced to agree in any way with
anything anyone says, or that you should not have the right to argue it with
them (in lugnet.off-topic.debate, or where ever it might be on-topic).
Everyone ha a right to their opinions, and to express themselves (IMHO).
> > > Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet.
> > > Does
> > > at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
> > > fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
> > > sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
> > > either -
> >
> > Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
>
> Really? You're able to divest yourself so fully from your personal beliefs or
> opinions that someone who held one that offended you - pick one - here's an
> easy one. If Randolf the Racist believed that only purple people truly
> belonged in this country and that all other races should be forcibly tossed
> from it, and that belief offended you, made you sick to your stomach even. If
> Randolf were then tossed from LUGNET because he broke the rules, you wouldn't
> feel a teensy bit of satisfaction that someone who turned your stomach was no
> longer around to turn it? If so, I think we need to put your dossier on the
> fast track for Sainthood. :)
If Randolph broke the rules, or was disruptive (ie, constatly espoused his
beliefs in an off-topic way), I would be glad he was gone because he was
disruptive. I wouldn't be glad he was gone because he was a racist. I
personally like it when people who hold ignorant beliefs are allowed to express
them, because 9 times out of 10 it shows just how ignorant the beliefs are more
than anything else.
But I don't think that qualifies me for Sainthood. Believe me, anyone who
knows me well could give you about 800 reasons why that dossier would get
stopped in it's tracks. :D
> > > or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> > > or who have opinions that offend you?
> >
> > Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must*
> > associate
> > with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
> > him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
> > opinions.
>
> Yes, there are. And there's room for discussion, possibly even arguments,
> about those opinions, especially if they are conducted with the respect of
> both parties in mind. I'd say Matthew and I fell a little short of that mark
> more than once, although I'd probably try to point out that "he started it",
> realizing that two wrongs don't make a right.
I agree with you, except for the respect part. If conversations are carried
out in accordance with the T&C, respect for the other person isn't necessary.
Respect for the T&C (in spirit as well as letter) is, though.
> > Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
> > been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
> > whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
>
> On the question of ToSing him, I agree. Well, maybe. I'm not prepared to
> tell LUGNET's owner what criteria he may use to make his decision, especially
> since he has a blanket "I can toss you if I think you need to" clause.
That kind of clause is always needed in T&C as a butt-covering device. I don't
really think that Todd *would* ToSs someone just for their beliefs. If I did
think that, I wouldn't want to be part of the community, to be honest.
> I think I'd just be more willing to notice correlations between opinions and
> actions. And what I mean by that is that while you say you're not concerned
> about James Jessiman one way or the other, you don't seem to feel a desire to
> run around making fun of people who do respect and yes, perhaps revere him.
There's always room to question that kind of loyalty. I really don't think
Jessiman should be "revered". I'm not as passionate about making people
question it as Matt seemed to be, though.
> Matthew seemed to take a petty sort of glee in trying to humiliate people for
> respecting James and his contribution to the LCAD community. You may feel it
> is just as silly,
Probably for entirely different reasons. For example, as great as LDraw was in
it's time, it's pretty outdated now, and I think that if people didn't "revere"
James so much (ie, if he were still alive) there would probably be a much more
updated version of LDraw, or something even better. But because to make
something better would be to question James, the majority of the community is
still using LDraw.
But frankly, I couldn't care either way. I think LDraw is too much of a pain
to use, but I can't program up anything better, so it's really not my place to
say that.
> but you stop short of trying to rudely and arrogantly rub
> someone else's nose in it. You have an opinion that differs from mine (that I
> can respect) and you respect my right to hold it. He had an opinion that is
> different from mine (the right to hold the opinion I can respect) and he
> thought it fun to turn that into a weapon of sorts, obviously having no
> respect for others' rights to their opinions.
The only difference as I see it s that Matt cared enough about his opinion to
do something about it, and I don't. Which doesn't make Matt a martyr or
anything, I'm not suggesting that... I think he went overboard in other ways.
I think he could have argued about Jessiman all day long in a different way
and I would actually be upset that he's gone.
As it stands, I don't really think that Matt cared about Jessiman either, it
was just a convenient way to jab at the community.
eric
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> As it stands, I don't really think that Matt cared about Jessiman either, it
> was just a convenient way to jab at the community.
Which is a succinct way of saying that he was basically a jerk. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> >
> > > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I • strongly
> > > disagree about.
> >
> > I agree. However...
> >
> > I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> > not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> > the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need • to
> > judge opinions and not behaviour?
>
> Wow, what a loaded question, especially given what seems(ed) like a reverse-
> witch-hunt.
Well it wasn't *intended* as a witch hunt. More of a rhetorical question,
because i'm not sure there *are* any people who still feel that someone should
be tossed soley for opinions.
<snip Mike's eloquent distinction between disliking someone for their opinions
and between using those opinions as the basis for a ToSs>
The snipped part demonstrates that you're not one...
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> I'd like to state first that I realized Friday that I got WAY too worked up
> about this and posted some things that were, in some cases, petty and
> childish, and in almost every case, detrimental to maintaining calm and
> civility during this discussion. That's why I sent Todd a request to remove
> every single post I had made on this subject.
As did I...I think a day or two earlier. I didn't remove all my posts but
two or three that were particularly sour. It's interesting how quickly we
(humans) can blow up, even when we don't want to. That's probably what I
dislike most about myself online.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> > So, what you're really saying isn't that you're worried that he'll disrupt
> > the
> > community, but that you don't like his beliefs, so you don't want him here?
>
> No, that's how you're interpreting what I said. That's not what I said and
> it's not what I meant. And I think you know that.
No, I don't know that. Not based on what you said. If that's not how you
feel, I suggest you stop obsessing over his disrespect for James, because
that's certainly how it's sounding.
> What tore it for me, or perhaps was the straw that broke the camel's back, was
> the disrespect for James. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. I don't
> believe he was TOS'ed for that alone, or, to be honest, that that disrespect
> played a major role in his being TOS'ed, except for maybe in the sense that
> its continued drumming up had a detrimental effect on the community. But for
> ME, as an individual, an individual who didn't make the actual decision to TOS
> him but certainly agrees with it, for ME, the final straw was the disrespect.
Fine, that was the final straw. But if he's learned that the destructive
ranting posts are detrimental to the community, and he wants to be a productive
part of it, and (this is the really important part) he actually manages to keep
his anger at what he feels are slights from the online LEGO community in the
past from making him act destructively, then why ToSs him now?
Your answer seems to be "because he still has no respect for James Jessiman".
Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough answer.
I'm certainly not saying you don't have the right to be pissed as heck over the
way he talks about James, or to argue with him about it (in off-topic.debate,
of course) all day and night, but his beleifs and the fact that you see them as
disgusting or wrong are no reason to throw him out of the community- or, more
accurately, to tell him he can't enter the community.
> Up to the point I "could handle it" although I would have thought him an a**.
> But then again, I know plenty of people who think me an a** (including you,
> perhaps) but I know I'm still an ok person.
I don't think you're an ass, but I do believe that currently you're suffering
from the same amount of needless rage that caused Matt to go on his little
rampage, and your rampage is no less ugly.
> I think if I tried to look at it in this tunnel-vision way you've jumped on
> that one particular point, sure, I'd probably agree with you.
I'm only responding to your most recent posts, which have been focussed on the
issue of Matt's lack of respect for James, which (IMHO) is a non-issue.
> But considering
> you and I rarely fall on the same side of an issue (fine with me - either you
> or I are wrong or at least entitled to different opinions during those times -
> who knows what it means when/if we ever agree on something)
Eh? I have to admit, I don't really remember disagreeing over something with
you before.
> If I'm in the
> minority for saying that, FOR ME, I personally don't want to have him around,
> given his other hateful and antisocial actions (and if you'll read the other
> posts I made you'll see I'm fully aware of those) and that, FOR ME, the final
> straw was his disrespect for James, that's ok with me.
If this is really what you're trying to say, then try to be more clear about
it.
For the record, you and I disagree on this, too. I happen to think that Todd
pulled his plug a little prematurely (although it may have been the best way to
get him to calm down, in retrospect). I fully believe in giving someone enough
rope to hang themselves. To my knowledge, Matt was simply shut off (some of
Todd's posts make reference to Matt trying to post and discovering that his
access was gone). Matt never heard from the Lugnet Admins saying "If you
continue in this way, you will be ToSsed", it just happened.
But he's back now, and he is saying he's repentant, and he has gone so far as
to say that if he didn't really want to be part of Lugnet, he wouldn't be here
in admin.general taking lumps for his actions. I think he should be given the
opportunity to really show us what he intends to do. What's the worst that
could happen? His posting privs could get turned back on, and he could then
say "Muhahahah! Fools! I still think you all suck and Jessiman is still
wormbait! Muhahahahaha!" and start another flamewar, and then Todd can shut
him off and we can all rest easy in the knowledge that Matt was, in fact, just
an annoying troll with no other intentions.
> I don't need your
> approval or your confirmation of my opinions to feel comfortable with them,
> after all, nor do I need it from anyone else,
I didn't say you did. But I'm also not going to let your posts (which seemed
to be) suggesting that Matt's feelings on Jessiman were reason enough to ToSs
him go unchallenged.
> including this majority I assume
> you feel don't give a rat's behind for James or his memory. I'd say you're
> wrong if you think there is such a majority, but you can certainly believe
> that if you want.
I didn't say I beleived that, and I don't beleive it.
I do beleive that most of the people on Lugnet wouldn't try to say that
someone's beliefs are reason enough to ToSs them, though. If I'm wrong about
that... well, to say I'd be disappointed is not nearly a strong enough
sentiment.
> You'd say that someone who has proven himself to be a
> relatively upstanding positive member of a community (I'm no saint, and I'm no
> Todd or Larry or Kevin or any number of other truly cool people - but I'm not
> on the other end of that scale either (I hope)) - that sort of person's
> opinions about the hateful actions of someone who has openly admitted a desire
> to harm that same community (then backed off on that and lied about his desire
> to defend the community - like his former words weren't available to convict
> him) don't carry just a tiny bit more weight than the self-serving remarks of
> the person whose actions have been hateful and harmful?
No, but I would say that your beliefs are no more or less valid than his.
As I've said before, I'm willing- for now- to take him at his word that he
wants to be a member of the community. I'm willing to let him prove me right
*or* wrong based on his actions.
> In short, I'm expressing my opinions here. I'm entitled to them, as are you
> yours.
Once again, I'm not saying you're not. In fact, if you think about it, what
I'm saying is that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and to share them,
without being excluded based solely on them.
> I fully support Todd's decision to banish this person - for whatever
> reason he decided to do it.
I think I may have actually been the first one to call for Matt's banishment,
in fact.
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=3868
> But if it makes you feel any better, since I know you like to argue,
Actually, no, I really don't. Some things I feel are important enough to speak
up over.
> That's not me, though, that's just the picture you might be
> trying to paint of me.
I'm not trying to paint any picture of you, I was just responding to your
posts. Personally, I don't think my misinterpretation of them is the fault of
the reader.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > But if he's learned that the destructive
> > ranting posts are detrimental to the community, and he wants to be a
> > productive
> > part of it, and (this is the really important part) he actually manages to
> > keep
> > his anger at what he feels are slights from the online LEGO community in the
> > past from making him act destructively, then why ToSs him now?
>
> He WAS TOSed.
And now he might be let back in. So my question stands.
> In this opportunity to "defend" or "explain" his actions he has
> attempted to do so, in an obvious dishonest manner.
How can you be so sure that he's being dishonest? What do you stand to lose if
he's given a chance to really show what he wants to do on Lugnet?
> He's contradicted
> himself,
Where?
> offered hollow meaningless apologies,
How can you be sure they're hollow and meaningless?
> and basically misrepresented
> his history of this sort of thing in the past.
Actually, he's been quite forthright in representing his past- as he sees it.
He might be in denial about certain aspects of it (for example, I highly doubt
he was as victorious as he claims in his flame wars- no one wins a flame war,
and anyone who thinks they did is self-delusional) but I don't think he's
actively lying, and I don't think anyone here can say they are fully
self-aware, nor should it be a qualification for entry. This isn't a Buddhist
temple of enlightenment, it's a place to talk about LEGO.
The balance, snipped and flushed. I'm not going to argue in circles with you.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> ...the entire interchange was mostly pointless anyway. You have
> your opinion, I have mine. It riled me because I think you misrepresented and
> stretched mine, but you probably don't think you did. No big deal.
I think that I misunderstood how you felt, and I reacted to that.
> And to think, I stayed home from work with a migraine this morning.
I'm sorry. <:( Although, I'm at work... which of us do you think has it
better? :D
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Mike Stanley" <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:G2qJ13.95M@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I'll give people the benifit of the doubt every day of the week, 24 hours • a
> > day. I may be a mug. I'm not the only one who thinks MM is just a poor • sap who
> > *perhaps* should get another chance in some sort of limited way.
>
> You're one of the few, trust me. And in this instance I'd say the • overly-nice
> willingness of a few to make another misguided attempt to allow this • person
> disrupt our community is FAR outweighed by the offense and outrage of the • many
> who most certainly don't want daily reminders of the hatred and disrespect • he
> has shown for our community and for James.
>
> Almost nobody has touched on that issue since the original flamefest. How • can
> ANYONE trust even for a second anything this person has to say knowing • that he
> not only left that hateful garbage on his site while posting his • "apology" -
> after being called on it he CONTINUES to have it there and, in fact, has
> attempted to mount a lame defense of it as being in "his house" and • therefore
> ok?
I'm a bit unsure on the entire issue of reinstating Matthew after reading
the posts from both sides over the past 24 hours. But let me take a little
bit of time to expound on my opinions with his disrespect towards James
Jessiman and others here;
I am outraged that anyone has the gall to post something to a group like
this. His image 'James Jessiman is dead...DEAL WITH IT NOW' is the reason I
got started the other day in the flamewar against Matthew. I also don't
believe that such an opinion should be advertised on his personal page when
he intends to use that page to display his work to this commuinty.
Its his right to hold such an opinion, no matter how disgusting it is, no
one can really say anything about it.
On the contrary, I believe if he truly desires to continue in this community
he should remove such references on his site, because they are extremely
offensive and the wound is still there from the other day. I also believe
the other pages he has put up should be taken down in his spirit of
repentance - if it is sincere - in an effort to prove himself and to become
a positive contributor.
Honestly, I was hurt by some of his comments on his site - esp. in the made
up chat session. I've addressed those issues with him over email, though I
chose not to address them in the flamefest the other day. However, I feel
that he has done others a much greater disservice than he has done me - take
Kyle Keppler and Zlatko Unger for example. He spent far more time ripping
apart Kyle than he did me for sure. Kyle's also 4 years younger than I am
(which doesn't mean anything if you don't know that I'm only 18). Both of
those guys are great and have a lot to offer here, and don't deserve that
treatment.
So the burden of proof IMO lies with Matthew - if he really does want to
become a positive contributor and he truly is sorry for his actions, he
should remove his disgusting drivel from his site. I'm willing to give
Matthew a chance, provided he proves himself to us.
> Yes sir, I am bitter. I lack objectivity. I've paid my dues and made a
> contribution or two to this community - I'm allowed a little rage over • this
> attack on our community and one of our most beloved members. You bet I
am.
It may be allowed to you, but in my personal opinion I think its sad when
someone loses their clear-headed thinking over a bit of bitterness, and then
shoves it down the throats of those concerned with this issue.
I can say truthfully that I think this is a sad day in Lugnet, if not a sad
week. And not just because of Matthew either.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> I am outraged that anyone has the gall to post something to a group like
> this. His image 'James Jessiman is dead...DEAL WITH IT NOW' is the reason I
> got started the other day in the flamewar against Matthew. I also don't
> believe that such an opinion should be advertised on his personal page when
> he intends to use that page to display his work to this commuinty.
>
> Its his right to hold such an opinion, no matter how disgusting it is, no
> one can really say anything about it.
>
> On the contrary, I believe if he truly desires to continue in this community
> he should remove such references on his site, because they are extremely
> offensive and the wound is still there from the other day.
Why should he not express how he feels?
If he leaves it there, and you don't like it, no one is forcing you to go to
his site and look at it, or to say that it's right.
Why should taking that off his site be a contingency of his being accepted in
the community? Do you really think that if he takes it down just because you
and other people think say that will make it ok for him to be a member of the
Lugnet community, that it will mean he feels differently about it?
If I were to get his permission to place it on *my* site, and I did, would you
say I should leave Lugnet?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message
news:G2qso5.AAH@lugnet.com...
> Why should he not express how he feels?
Why should he express that in a manner that attacks the community he claims
to want to be a part of?
> If he leaves it there, and you don't like it, no one is forcing you to go • to
> his site and look at it, or to say that it's right.
And no one is forcing me to accept his apology either, but I have. I think
that from the grave offenses he has already done us, this is the least of
what he owes to make up for it and show his sincerity.
> Why should taking that off his site be a contingency of his being accepted • in
> the community? Do you really think that if he takes it down just because • you
> and other people think say that will make it ok for him to be a member of • the
> Lugnet community, that it will mean he feels differently about it?
It should be removed because he's still publicly slandering members of the
community - which is something he's apologized for doing. Doing so or not
doing so shows his sincerity (or lack thereof).
> If I were to get his permission to place it on *my* site, and I did, would • you
> say I should leave Lugnet?
That's way besides the point, and IMO a silly question with the intention of
playing Devil's advocate.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message
> news:G2qso5.AAH@lugnet.com...
> > Why should he not express how he feels?
>
> Why should he express that in a manner that attacks the community he claims
> to want to be a part of?
I think you're confusing the Lugnet community with the LDraw community. Don't.
> And no one is forcing me to accept his apology either, but I have. I think
> that from the grave offenses he has already done us, this is the least of
> what he owes to make up for it and show his sincerity.
I would think removing it, when he's made it clear he still doesn't feel it was
wrong, would be insincere.
> > Why should taking that off his site be a contingency of his being accepted
> > in
> > the community? Do you really think that if he takes it down just because
> > you
> > and other people think say that will make it ok for him to be a member of
> > the
> > Lugnet community, that it will mean he feels differently about it?
>
> It should be removed because he's still publicly slandering members of the
> community - which is something he's apologized for doing. Doing so or not
> doing so shows his sincerity (or lack thereof).
Do you actually know the definition of the word slander?
From www.dictionary.com:
+++
slan·der (slander)
n.
1.Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's
reputation.
2.A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
+++
I'm pretty sure that James Jessiman is, in fact, dead. To say that he is does
not constitute slander.
> > If I were to get his permission to place it on *my* site, and I did, would
> > you
> > say I should leave Lugnet?
>
> That's way besides the point,
In what way?
> and IMO a silly question with the intention of
> playing Devil's advocate.
Yes, it's playing Devil's Advocate. It's an important thought excercise,
though. If it'll make it easier for you to think about, I could actually grab
it and throw it up, though.
How quickly will you then call for me to leave Lugnet as well?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Lorbaat wrote:
<snip>
> > > If I were to get his permission to place it on *my* site, and I did, would
> > > you
> > > say I should leave Lugnet?
> >
> > That's way besides the point,
>
> In what way?
>
> > and IMO a silly question with the intention of
> > playing Devil's advocate.
>
> Yes, it's playing Devil's Advocate. It's an important thought excercise,
> though. If it'll make it easier for you to think about, I could actually grab
> it and throw it up, though.
>
> How quickly will you then call for me to leave Lugnet as well?
>
> eric
I think you are stretching a bit Eric. Forget about the JJ icon and look
at his "document" about "My views about the self entitled "Lego
Community"."
http://my.ispchannel.com/~mmoulton/lego/hate.html (note the name of the
html!!)
You respected a community and want to become part of it, so what?
I can't see any consistency with it.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> I think you are stretching a bit Eric.
Sorry, but I don't.
> Forget about the JJ icon and look
> at his "document" about "My views about the self entitled "Lego
> Community"."
>
> http://my.ispchannel.com/~mmoulton/lego/hate.html (note the name of the
> html!!)
>
> You respected a community and want to become part of it, so what?
>
> I can't see any consistency with it.
He's simply stating some things he doesn't like about the Lego community as he
sees it. What's the problem with that?
Once again, what it comes down to is this: Over on *his* site, which you are
under no obligation to visit, he says some things that *you* don't agree with.
That doesn't mean (IMHO) that he should be excluded from Lugnet.
He's apologised profusely for his recent behaviour, and says that he
understands that rudeness is not welcome here. If he comes here to Lugnet and
posts more tirades, or uses profanity, *then* I'll agree that he should be
ToSsed.
If, on the other hand, he comes here and strongly (but civilly) says that he
sees no problem with gluing/painting LEGO, or that he doesn't think LDraw is
all everyone makes it out to be, or that he enjoys simplicity of designs... I
will support his right to say any of those things. The fact that you disagree
with what he says doesn't mean he should be excluded.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
> He's simply stating some things he doesn't like about the Lego community as he
> sees it. What's the problem with that?
> Once again, what it comes down to is this: Over on *his* site, which you are
> under no obligation to visit, he says some things that *you* don't agree with.
> That doesn't mean (IMHO) that he should be excluded from Lugnet.
I think we are not talking about "excluding him from Lugnet", he is already
excluded in some way, and not for his web content. What we are talking about is
whether his apologies are sincere or not. And his web content makes me
believing the otherwise.
> If, on the other hand, he comes here and strongly (but civilly) says that he
> sees no problem with gluing/painting LEGO, or that he doesn't think LDraw is
> all everyone makes it out to be, or that he enjoys simplicity of designs... I
> will support his right to say any of those things. The fact that you disagree
> with what he says doesn't mean he should be excluded.
He is not the first one in none of his complainings. There are people who are
using glue or paint in their creations. I remeber an CLSoTW at some date
featuring mechas from painted, glued and modified bricks. I can't recall anyone
jumping on another just because he/she uses paint/glue in his/her creations.
Actually I'm one of the people who don't like Ldraw so much, and also
complained about following the old format in this much extend. I always
commented about how LeoCAD is better in many ways than Ldraw, even in L-CAD
listserv group way before Lugnet. I don't have any problem with his
complainings but I have too much problem with his pathetic way, and being this
documents still online in the same form as before, makes me believing that
nothing was changed at his side, and that his apologies (which have also some
flaws and stopendous approaches in them) are hollow words.
Actually, considering his very nice background, I'm not sure I will be
forgiving him even if he put them down. Could I believe that you are not
taking those personally? I just trying to clear myself about my point, nothing
more. I feel a bit bittering in your postings (not exactly in this one). I wish
I was wrong.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> I think we are not talking about "excluding him from Lugnet", he is already
> excluded in some way, and not for his web content.
No, I'm pretty sure we are, since there are people that are still telling Todd
they want to see him banned permanently. I don't think that's right, and
apparently (based on other people's posts here) I'm not alone in thinking that.
Based on previous examples of this kind of situation, I'm relatively sure Todd
is still considering what to do next, and I do know he takes public opinion
into account.
> What we are talking about
> is
> whether his apologies are sincere or not. And his web content makes me
> believing the otherwise.
I'm sorry, but I don't connect one to the other. Matt has said he's sorry, and
that he wants to participate in Lugnet in a constructive manner; he's also said
that he does believe the things on his website. I don't think he should have
to renounce those beliefs or hide them to participate in the Lugnet community,
I just think he should play nicely. Which he's said he's willing to do.
Since I can' read his mind, I'm willing to believe his initial posts were a
mistake on his part, and that he will try to follow Lugnet conventions- until
he proves otherwise by his own actions here on Lugnet.
> Actually, considering his very nice background, I'm not sure I will be
> forgiving him even if he put them down. Could I believe that you are not
> taking those personally? I just trying to clear myself about my point, nothing
> more. I feel a bit bittering in your postings (not exactly in this one). I
> wish
> I was wrong.
Uh. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you mean here.
I don't take any of the things Matt said on an individual basis personally, no.
I don't take personally people saying they don't think Matt should be allowed a
second chance, either.
I don't feel bitter towards any party in this whole affair, really. I will
admit a certain amount of disbelief at the irony of the situation, though.
Matt comes along and does something wrong in a (very misguided) attempt to show
up the online LEGO community as being exclusionary towards newcomers, or people
who don't feel exactly the way the majority does about certain issues- and at
first I thought he was very wrong. Now here we are, though, with his apology
for his previous actions, and his promise to restrain himself in the future,
and people are arguing that he should not be allowed back onto Lugnet because
he has things on his website they find offensive- and I'm no longer sure how
wrong he was.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> I'm a bit unsure on the entire issue of reinstating Matthew after reading
> the posts from both sides over the past 24 hours. But let me take a little
> bit of time to expound on my opinions with his disrespect towards James
> Jessiman and others here;
>
> I am outraged that anyone has the gall to post something to a group like
> this. His image 'James Jessiman is dead...DEAL WITH IT NOW' is the reason I
> got started the other day in the flamewar against Matthew. I also don't
> believe that such an opinion should be advertised on his personal page when
> he intends to use that page to display his work to this commuinty.
>
> Its his right to hold such an opinion, no matter how disgusting it is, no
> one can really say anything about it.
>
> On the contrary, I believe if he truly desires to continue in this community
> he should remove such references on his site, because they are extremely
> offensive and the wound is still there from the other day. I also believe
> the other pages he has put up should be taken down in his spirit of
> repentance - if it is sincere - in an effort to prove himself and to become
> a positive contributor.
>
> Honestly, I was hurt by some of his comments on his site - esp. in the made
> up chat session. I've addressed those issues with him over email, though I
> chose not to address them in the flamefest the other day. However, I feel
> that he has done others a much greater disservice than he has done me - take
> Kyle Keppler and Zlatko Unger for example. He spent far more time ripping
> apart Kyle than he did me for sure. Kyle's also 4 years younger than I am
> (which doesn't mean anything if you don't know that I'm only 18). Both of
> those guys are great and have a lot to offer here, and don't deserve that
> treatment.
>
> So the burden of proof IMO lies with Matthew - if he really does want to
> become a positive contributor and he truly is sorry for his actions, he
> should remove his disgusting drivel from his site. I'm willing to give
> Matthew a chance, provided he proves himself to us.
Sorry Tim but I think you are wrong here. Do I think the graphic on Matthew's
site is distasteful? Yes. Do I care about the other text there? Not really.
We cannot make the content of someone's personal site a prerequisite for
inclusion in the community otherwise we have no community. If you don't like
what is on his site just don't go there anymore, I know I won't.
Matthew has the right to put anything he wants on his site as long as it is
within the TOS of his ISP. We cannot be judge and jury in terms of accepting
him based on the content of his site. I realize that you probably take his
statements about James a bit more personally than most of us do so I am sure
that clouds your judgement a bit.
We should not feel obligated to like everyone in the community. That's just
not a reasonable wish in any community and heck what fun would it be if
everyone agreed with everyone else on every issue.
Now if it is decided to TOS Matthew based on his statements/threats made here
on LUGNET then Todd has that right but that doesn't mean he looses his site or
the ability to read LUGNET or to post to RTL (who would want to do that?). I
have no problem TOSsing Matthew based on Todd's rules in LUGNETs TOS. I have a
big problem however if Matthew was not allowed in the community based on the
content of his site.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message
news:G2qtCJ.CHJ@lugnet.com...
> > So the burden of proof IMO lies with Matthew - if he really does want to
> > become a positive contributor and he truly is sorry for his actions, he
> > should remove his disgusting drivel from his site. I'm willing to give
> > Matthew a chance, provided he proves himself to us.
>
> Sorry Tim but I think you are wrong here. Do I think the graphic on • Matthew's
> site is distasteful? Yes. Do I care about the other text there? Not • really.
>
> We cannot make the content of someone's personal site a prerequisite for
> inclusion in the community otherwise we have no community. If you don't • like
> what is on his site just don't go there anymore, I know I won't.
I should correct myself - not *should* in the sense of a clearcut condition,
but as a willful action to demonstrate to the community that he means what
he has said here.
> Matthew has the right to put anything he wants on his site as long as it • is
> within the TOS of his ISP. We cannot be judge and jury in terms of • accepting
> him based on the content of his site. I realize that you probably take • his
> statements about James a bit more personally than most of us do so I am • sure
> that clouds your judgement a bit.
On the contrary, I don't believe my judgement is clouded by his disrespect
towards James. I have my own opinions on the legacy of James Jessiman, and
though he and his work is dear to my heart, as well as his family, I can
separate myself and look at the attitude portrayed rather than just an
attack on something I've devoted a lot of time to.
I was put off originally by his JJ graphic and still am, but I am not
looking on this as a single-sided issue either. Its terribly disrespectful
and unfortunate to everyone.
I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
his true condition.
> We should not feel obligated to like everyone in the community. That's • just
> not a reasonable wish in any community and heck what fun would it be if
> everyone agreed with everyone else on every issue.
Yup, I agree. And yes, there are people here in Lugnet who I do not like.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message • <snip?
> > Matthew has the right to put anything he wants on his site as long as it
> > is within the TOS of his ISP. We cannot be judge and jury in terms of
> > accepting him based on the content of his site. I realize that you probably
> > take his statements about James a bit more personally than most of us do so I
> > am sure that clouds your judgement a bit.
First I should appoligize because "Clouds" was not the right word. What I was
trying to say is that I think you feel a closer connection with James and his
legacy than many of us do. That makes what Matthew did more personal to you I
think. I might be wrong but thats what I think. Like I said I think it is
disgusting myself but I probably didn't take it as personally as you and others
may have.
>
> On the contrary, I don't believe my judgement is clouded by his disrespect
> towards James. I have my own opinions on the legacy of James Jessiman, and
> though he and his work is dear to my heart, as well as his family, I can
> separate myself and look at the attitude portrayed rather than just an
> attack on something I've devoted a lot of time to.
>
> I was put off originally by his JJ graphic and still am, but I am not
> looking on this as a single-sided issue either. Its terribly disrespectful
> and unfortunate to everyone.
Sure it is but just realize there are probably members of this community who
don't even know who James is and what his contribution was. I am sure there
are plenty of FOLs out there who have never used LDraw and probably have no
desire to. The graphic to these people probably didn't strike as raw a nerve
as it did in some of the rest of us (Although I hope people found it
inappropriate none the less).
>
> I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
> should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
> his true condition.
Well we can just disagree on that I guess. I think as long as he carries
himself properly on LUGNET and follows LUGNET's TOS then I could care less what
he has on his site.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Eric Kingsley wrote:
<snip>
>
> > I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
> > should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
> > his true condition.
>
> Well we can just disagree on that I guess. I think as long as he carries
> himself properly on LUGNET and follows LUGNET's TOS then I could care less what
> he has on his site.
>
> Eric Kingsley
I will be agreeing you on this for a different case but not this. We are
not trying to rationalize to TOS him because of his web content. It's
just his web content is another evidence for making his (in my mind)
suspicious apologies more suspicious than ever.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Selçuk Göre skrev i meddelandet <39F0D9E8.9A73C9F@superonline.com>...
>
> Eric Kingsley wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > > I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
> > > should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
> > > his true condition.
> >
> > Well we can just disagree on that I guess. I think as long as he carries
> > himself properly on LUGNET and follows LUGNET's TOS then I could care less • what
> > he has on his site.
> >
> > Eric Kingsley
>
> I will be agreeing you on this for a different case but not this. We are
> not trying to rationalize to TOS him because of his web content. It's
> just his web content is another evidence for making his (in my mind)
> suspicious apologies more suspicious than ever.
I don't think 'suspicions' are enough to judge anyone. 'Evidence' is what's
used for that. The evidence in this case are the messages posted on lugnet,
nothing else. A web site, paper on the wall, speech on the radio, etc. etc.
has nothing to do with the lugnet ToS, and cannot IMO be used as an argument
for excluding anyone.
As for the sincerity of his apologies, who are we to judge on suspicions? Only
his actions on lugnet can tell...
If you asked me how to proceed, I would say: Let him in again, and throw him
out for good if the ToS are violated again.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Anders Isaksson wrote:
>
> Selçuk Göre skrev i meddelandet <39F0D9E8.9A73C9F@superonline.com>...
> >
> > Eric Kingsley wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
> > > > should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
> > > > his true condition.
> > >
> > > Well we can just disagree on that I guess. I think as long as he carries
> > > himself properly on LUGNET and follows LUGNET's TOS then I could care less • what
> > > he has on his site.
> > >
> > > Eric Kingsley
> >
> > I will be agreeing you on this for a different case but not this. We are
> > not trying to rationalize to TOS him because of his web content. It's
> > just his web content is another evidence for making his (in my mind)
> > suspicious apologies more suspicious than ever.
Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to
me, so I rewording it again:
He started a flame war. He did that knowingly, and he even chose the
person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake
of starting a flame war, not for the purpose of flaming a given
individual. He also knew that what he would get as a response, and
actually all his purpose was getting this response. Why? Because he had
a revenge in his head (for an event that took place at least a year
ago), he already had some thoughts about the "community" as he published
at his web site, and he thought that he should better had a live
evidence for his point.
The above is not conspiracy. All of the above from HIS OWN WORDS, from
the messages that HE POSTED HERE IN LUGNET, which are EVIDENCE, as you
already said. If you don't believe me, you should reread his postings.
He even dare enough to say that all this fabricated revenge was to help
us, when trying to rationalize his actions.
And this fabricated revenge thing is why he had been banned I believe,
from Todd's postings. Yes, he already banned. So I have nothing to do
with banning him again.
POINT: I believe no one here could be punished because of anything out
of Lugnet that related to him/her. Do you remember Huw? I was with him.
Do you remember Remy? I was with him. I already believe that, and I
already proved my belief with my past actions.
So, why I still continue to talk about his web content? Because:
His web content is just the proud publication of his fabricated revenge.
In his apologies, he mentioned that it was a wrong thing to do. So why
is the content is still there if he wanted us to believe that he
admitted to himself that he was wrong? I think this is an EVIDENCE.
Besides, I believe that I have right to have my own suspicions about
anything, and have right to express them wherever I find
appropriate.
So, as I already explained that I don't have anything to the with
banning him again, what is my purpose on doing this? I just don't want
him to be allowed here AGAIN, and I'm trying to made myself clear about
the reasoning behind my choice (and yes, it is a choice, just personal
choice). All the EVIDENCE made believing that we are dealing with a
flawed personality, and since this not a therapy club, I don't want some
sick personality lurking around me. That's it.
Regards,
Selçuk
> I don't think 'suspicions' are enough to judge anyone. 'Evidence' is what's
> used for that. The evidence in this case are the messages posted on lugnet,
> nothing else. A web site, paper on the wall, speech on the radio, etc. etc.
> has nothing to do with the lugnet ToS, and cannot IMO be used as an argument
> for excluding anyone.
>
> As for the sincerity of his apologies, who are we to judge on suspicions? Only
> his actions on lugnet can tell...
>
> If you asked me how to proceed, I would say: Let him in again, and throw him
> out for good if the ToS are violated again.
> --
> Anders Isaksson, Sweden
> BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
> Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:54:26 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E7uk=20G=F6re?=
<ssgore@superonline.com> wrote:
> Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to
> me, so I rewording it again:
> He started a flame war.
So the ENTIRE flame war was all me, huh? No one else participated at
all? No one else helped add fuel to the fodder? That's kinda funny
cause that's not exactly how I remember it.
> He did that knowingly, and he even chose the
> person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake
> of starting a flame war, not for the purpose of flaming a given
> individual. He also knew that what he would get as a response, and
> actually all his purpose was getting this response. Why? Because he had
> a revenge in his head (for an event that took place at least a year
> ago), he already had some thoughts about the "community" as he published
> at his web site, and he thought that he should better had a live
> evidence for his point.
Hey look, a conspiracy theory. Oh hey, here's a thought, when did I
say I did it on purpose to try and prove a point? Was
it....uh....before I got really ticked off....or after?
> The above is not conspiracy. All of the above from HIS OWN WORDS, from
> the messages that HE POSTED HERE IN LUGNET, which are EVIDENCE, as you
> already said. If you don't believe me, you should reread his postings.
> He even dare enough to say that all this fabricated revenge was to help
> us, when trying to rationalize his actions.
Again did I say this BEFORE or AFTER all THIS:
I was called rude, little, egotistical, childish, insulting, clueless,
a troll, immature, unintelligent, sarcastic, a jerk, and inarticulate.
I was then accused of not having any friends, of having a rotten
attitude, of needing counseling, of having psychological issues,
making noise, having a one-dimensional warped perception of reality,
and of not having a life. I was also told that my opinions didn't
count, that all I had to contribute was drivel, that no one cared
about my thoughts or ideas, that I should be completely banned from
Lugnet, ousted, alienated at any opportunity, told to shut up, that I
wasn't welcome, that I should be shunned, banished, and that my
parents might be alcoholics, etc, etc.
At that point what I wanted most was a way of getting back at
everyone, to try and show everyone up one.
> And this fabricated revenge thing is why he had been banned I believe,
> from Todd's postings. Yes, he already banned. So I have nothing to do
> with banning him again.
Actually (according to Todd) I was banned because there were a bunch
of people who were outraged at my views and opinions and they e-mailed
him emotionally charged letters calling for my banishment. (correct
me if that's not accurate).
> POINT: I believe no one here could be punished because of anything out
> of Lugnet that related to him/her. Do you remember Huw? I was with him.
> Do you remember Remy? I was with him. I already believe that, and I
> already proved my belief with my past actions.
>
> So, why I still continue to talk about his web content? Because:
>
> His web content is just the proud publication of his fabricated revenge.
> In his apologies, he mentioned that it was a wrong thing to do. So why
> is the content is still there if he wanted us to believe that he
> admitted to himself that he was wrong? I think this is an EVIDENCE.
> Besides, I believe that I have right to have my own suspicions about
> anything, and have right to express them wherever I find
> appropriate.
I think there is some confusion. I apologized to JUDE, because that's
what I did wrong. I made a mean personal remark about a website,
that's it. Well that and I should have been posting everything after
to the off topic group. The content that you speak of on my webpage
was there BEFORE I did anything here. The one section about a simple
point is just something really ironic that I thought some people would
find interesting. Actually though I'm going to take it down and
instead recreate all the posts and threads about all this on there.
That way people can read the situation as it occurred and decide for
themselves what they think. As far as my conspiring, well, not
really. In all actuality that was just something I came up with after
Todd started posting and I got really upset. It seemed like a good
way of either "getting back at everyone" or avoiding looking like I
did something bad.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> Actually (according to Todd) I was banned because there were a bunch
> of people who were outraged at my views and opinions and they e-mailed
> him emotionally charged letters calling for my banishment. (correct
> me if that's not accurate).
Not accurate, no. Beside the point, nobody who wrote me was upset by
your views -- only by your attitude and immature behavior level .space and
.off-topic.debate.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Matthew wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:54:26 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E7uk=20G=F6re?=
> <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote:
>
> > Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to
> > me, so I rewording it again:
>
> > He started a flame war. He did that knowingly, and he even chose the
> > person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake
> > of starting a flame war, not for the purpose of flaming a given
> > individual. He also knew that what he would get as a response, and
> > actually all his purpose was getting this response. Why? Because he had
> > a revenge in his head (for an event that took place at least a year
> > ago), he already had some thoughts about the "community" as he published
> > at his web site, and he thought that he should better had a live
> > evidence for his point.
>
> So the ENTIRE flame war was all me, huh? No one else participated at
> all? No one else helped add fuel to the fodder? That's kinda funny
> cause that's not exactly how I remember it.
I don't mean even a bit by the above paragraph it was all you, and the
flame war is not a big thing to me as alone. The paragraph is just a
chronology, so I put it back to it's original form.
> Hey look, a conspiracy theory. Oh hey, here's a thought, when did I
> say I did it on purpose to try and prove a point? Was
> it....uh....before I got really ticked off....or after?
Read below. Besides, bet I care even a bit exactly when you did say it.
> > The above is not conspiracy. All of the above from HIS OWN WORDS, from
> > the messages that HE POSTED HERE IN LUGNET, which are EVIDENCE, as you
> > already said. If you don't believe me, you should reread his postings.
> > He even dare enough to say that all this fabricated revenge was to help
> > us, when trying to rationalize his actions.
>
> Again did I say this BEFORE or AFTER all THIS:
Is this made you less sick? And what are you trying to say? "Don't judge
me for the things that I said here in Lugnet" Baaahhhh, me says. Your
excuse even more than your actions before.
> I was called rude, ........
<snipped because it had already been copied and pasted more than twice>
> At that point what I wanted most was a way of getting back at
> everyone, to try and show everyone up one.
In case if it is true, is there any evidence from you that you will
never want to "get back at everyone" and "show everyone up one"?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
> > And this fabricated revenge thing is why he had been banned I believe,
> > from Todd's postings. Yes, he already banned. So I have nothing to do
> > with banning him again.
>
> Actually (according to Todd) I was banned because there were a bunch
> of people who were outraged at my views and opinions and they e-mailed
> him emotionally charged letters calling for my banishment. (correct
> me if that's not accurate).
You are not accurate. Go read
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=7992. I'm sure you already know
what "threshold breaker" means, so please go read your "threshold
breakers", too.
> > POINT: I believe no one here could be punished because of anything out
> > of Lugnet that related to him/her. Do you remember Huw? I was with him.
> > Do you remember Remy? I was with him. I already believe that, and I
> > already proved my belief with my past actions.
> >
> > So, why I still continue to talk about his web content? Because:
> >
> > His web content is just the proud publication of his fabricated revenge.
> > In his apologies, he mentioned that it was a wrong thing to do. So why
> > is the content is still there if he wanted us to believe that he
> > admitted to himself that he was wrong? I think this is an EVIDENCE.
> > Besides, I believe that I have right to have my own suspicions about
> > anything, and have right to express them wherever I find
> > appropriate.
>
> I think there is some confusion. I apologized to JUDE, because that's
> what I did wrong. I made a mean personal remark about a website,
> that's it. Well that and I should have been posting everything after
> to the off topic group. The content that you speak of on my webpage
> was there BEFORE I did anything here. The one section about a simple
> point is just something really ironic that I thought some people would
> find interesting. Actually though I'm going to take it down and
> instead recreate all the posts and threads about all this on there.
> That way people can read the situation as it occurred and decide for
> themselves what they think. As far as my conspiring, well, not
> really. In all actuality that was just something I came up with after
> Todd started posting and I got really upset. It seemed like a good
> way of either "getting back at everyone" or avoiding looking like I
> did something bad.
>
> -Matthew
I exactly mean the second document
http://my.ispchannel.com/~mmoulton/lego/mypoint.html
It was not there, and cannot be there too, since it is physically
impossible. And, as you just reminded me, if this is not a planned
revenge as you said WHY IS STILL THERE, me asks.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Now if it is decided to TOS Matthew based on his statements/threats made here
> on LUGNET then Todd has that right but that doesn't mean he looses his site or
> the ability to read LUGNET or to post to RTL (who would want to do that?). I
> have no problem TOSsing Matthew based on Todd's rules in LUGNETs TOS. I have
> a big problem however if Matthew was not allowed in the community based on the
> content of his site.
In general, I agree with you. However, Matthew used his website (in my
opinion) as a tool to damage and disrupt the community. He crafted lies and
misdirections, then posted something designed to stand out and direct traffic
at his site. I don't believe his apology is sincere. He has said he will
tone down the commentary on his web page to accurately reflect his opinion,
but has not done so. He has claimed (sorry, don't recall exactly which post)
that he's got other things he has to do before changing the things on his
webpage, but that's a hollow excuse. He *HAS* updated his webpage, at least
once - there's new content there - but hasn't taken down or changed any of the
things he's claiming to apologize for.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for his opinions.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for whatever he feels like putting on
his webpage.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for his actual posts on Lugnet (there's
been worse offenders, IMHO).
I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious attack
on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
Like I said somewhere else, this probably makes me look like a jerk, but oh
well.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
<snip>
>
> I don't think Matthew should be banned for his opinions.
Agreed.
>
> I don't think Matthew should be banned for whatever he feels like putting on
> his webpage.
Agreed.
>
> I don't think Matthew should be banned for his actual posts on Lugnet (there's
> been worse offenders, IMHO).
Definitely Agree.
>
> I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious attack
> on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have been
posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I don't
think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL flame
war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may* have
outgrown it. Now I think he did directly threaten Todd and/or LUGNET but not
in a post so I don't know if the LUGNET TOS applies, thats up to Todd to
determine.
So all in all I don't think I agree with you here although that depends how
things are interpreted.
>
> Like I said somewhere else, this probably makes me look like a jerk, but oh
> well.
Doesn't make you look like a jerk to me. I am sure more people think Eric J.
and myself are jerks then people think you are a jerk. When you weed out some
unfortunate posts in this thread I think all in all it has been a good debate
and it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is. Either way I
won't be devistated because of it.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Doesn't make you look like a jerk to me. I am sure more people think Eric J.
> and myself are jerks then people think you are a jerk.
For what it's worth (not much) I'd wager I got you both beat on that issue. ;)
> When you weed out some
> unfortunate posts in this thread I think all in all it has been a good debate
> and it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is. Either way I
I've requested that all of my posts (well, not counting this one, I guess) on
this topic be removed. I didn't add anything productive to this discussion,
and I apologize for the ill will my posts might have caused.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
> > I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious attack
> > on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
>
> If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have
> been posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I
> don't think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL
> flame war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may*
> have outgrown it. Now I think he did directly threaten Todd and/or LUGNET
> but not in a post so I don't know if the LUGNET TOS applies, thats up to
> Todd to determine.
I can't recall where exactly he said it (in a couple places, I think), but
Matthew admitted in a post on Lugnet that he faked the content on his website
and made the inflamatory remarks that he did specifically to damage the Lego
community. IMO, that's where he crossed the line. (my personal line - I don't
know about other people, or where exactly he crossed the line WRT Lugnet ToS)
If that sort of activity *isn't* ToSable, it should be.
(checking... it is)
<excerpt from: http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement >
Although we hope that everyone can play well together, we must reserve the
right to allow or to refuse access to this site to anyone, for any reason,
with or without prior warning or explanation.
There ya go. Black and white acknowledgement of the right of refusal, with
implication (as I read it, anyway) that it may be used for people who
don't "play well"
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
> > > I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious
> > > attack on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
> >
> > If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have
> > been posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I
> > don't think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL
> > flame war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may*
> > have outgrown it. Now I think he did directly threaten Todd and/or LUGNET
> > but not in a post so I don't know if the LUGNET TOS applies, thats up to
> > Todd to determine.
>
> I can't recall where exactly he said it (in a couple places, I think), but
> Matthew admitted in a post on Lugnet that he faked the content on his website
> and made the inflamatory remarks that he did specifically to damage the Lego
> community. IMO, that's where he crossed the line. (my personal line - I don't
> know about other people, or where exactly he crossed the line WRT Lugnet ToS)
Well that definitely wasn't nice if thats how it happened. *But* how much
damage do you think he could have done to us from his site? From a technical
standpoint his site is nice but not something that is going to generate a ton
of hits on its own so I don't think it is much to worry about. Besides I don't
know how anyone useing a clear head and judgement could find the LEGO community
malicious anyway no matter how much he tried to portray it that way.
>
> If that sort of activity *isn't* ToSable, it should be.
>
> (checking... it is)
> <excerpt from: http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement >
> Although we hope that everyone can play well together, we must reserve the
> right to allow or to refuse access to this site to anyone, for any reason,
> with or without prior warning or explanation.
>
> There ya go. Black and white acknowledgement of the right of refusal, with
> implication (as I read it, anyway) that it may be used for people who
> don't "play well"
Actually that makes just about anything TOS'able. Just from that one part of
the TOS Todd could "refuse access" to anyone he wanted for any reason he
wanted. So yes Todd would be well within his rights to TOS Matthew and like I
said I don't really care one way or another but it would set a precedent seeing
I don't think anyone has been TOS'ed from 100% of LUGNET in its history and if
they have it hasn't held with time. I know some people have been TOS'ed
temporarily from sections of LUGNET but that is all.
No 100% ban should be taken lightly (and I don't think it is thats why Todd
opened .admin.general back up to Matthew). I just think any 100% ban on anyone
could eventually look very bad for LUGNET and Todd may have to justify the ban
for some time to come.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have • been
> posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I don't
> think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL flame
> war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may* have
> outgrown it.
It was actually only one year ago. He remembered it wrong.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
> banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
> my harsh opinions?
You have a right to your opinions, be they harsh or not. You do have a
responsibility, however (within this group at least), to state those opinions
without resorting to implied threats and mean-spirited attacks. This Lugnet
member did not *want* you banned, but I believe that there is no place here for
the malicious I'll-make-you-all-sorry kind of statements that you made. As for
myself, I extend to you a hand of welcome, provided that your intent is indeed
to become a supportive member of this community.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:58:06 GMT, "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu>
wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
> > banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
> > my harsh opinions?
>
> You have a right to your opinions, be they harsh or not. You do have a
> responsibility, however (within this group at least), to state those opinions
> without resorting to implied threats and mean-spirited attacks. This Lugnet
> member did not *want* you banned, but I believe that there is no place here for
> the malicious I'll-make-you-all-sorry kind of statements that you made. As for
> myself, I extend to you a hand of welcome, provided that your intent is indeed
> to become a supportive member of this community.
>
> James
You are correct, I should have stopped while I was ahead, instead I
chose to "try and get back at people". That was mistake, one which I
am sorry for making.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> First off I would like to publicly apologize to Jude. I do that more
> for Jude than I do for me. I killed my emotions a long time ago, so
> sometimes it's hard to remember that everyone else still feels them.
> I think the reason I picked Jude and the particular time was that if I
> did it I wouldn't really be attacking anything. Jude didn't have
> anything on the webpage, I have no doubt that at some point there will
> be many interesting additions to the Lego community and I wouldn't
> dare attack those. As far as the rant on my site I saw myself doing
> mostly the same thing. Attacking what I considered to be the worst
> designs. That doesn't make it right either, but I felt that some
> right may come of it in one form or another. I mean to me a person
> could attack the Behemoth on my site and I wouldn't mind. Why?
> Because it's vastly incomplete, needs to be redesigned to look
> smoother, more fluid, and there are a lot of ideas that can still be
> integrated into it. And actually I haven't even done anything to the
> interior yet. To me attacking something that is unfinished isn't
> really attacking anything. I know others disagree with me on that and
> I know that my opinions have the ability to hurt feelings. Again, I
> am sorry for that, I do not want to cause hurt feelings. However I am
> not sorry for what my actions caused. Yes I was rude, yes I was
> brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
> yourselves. I'm not going to lie to you, many people do not see me as
> a nice person, I try to get people to think differently and sometimes
> my methods are very fringe. Did I deserve to get banned? In your
> minds I'd have to say yes. I think that perhaps I hit a little too
> close to home...in fact I think I hit it right on. I knew what such
> an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
> consequences for it. Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
> banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
> my harsh opinions?
>
> -Matthew
Matthew,
I have to admit I was mad and hurt. You do not have much of my respect right
now considering the manner in which you pulled your 'stunt'. As far as you
being banned, I am glad Todd did it and I am glad he is giving you the chance
to voice yourself now.
Yesterday I posted a page flaming you and the events that transpired. But Todd
asked me to take it down to not fuel the fire and in fact he replied three
times to my post announcing it each each calmer then the one previous :-). He
was right and I took it down within less than an hour of putting it up.
Even now writing this, I find it hard not to get emotional (angry). But
emotions aside you made a good point, but you did it in a *totally wrong way*.
And you have to suffer the consequences of that, whatever they may be.
I hope we all can come out of this for the better and no, I do not think your
ban should be permanent.
Frankly, you have to decide if you want to forgive the people who crossed you
years ago on RTL. I say this realizing I have to chose to forgive you. And
there are others here that have to do the same.
I know you want to remain part of the community or you would have not
responded to Todd's olive branch. Therefore, I am going to publicly say I
accept your apology and I ask you to accept mine for something you may or may
not have seen (the page I put up).
I hope one day I can call you a friend, and that you will become a positive
participant in the on-line LEGO community. The very time you took to start the
flamewar you could have taken to encourage someone and made a difference that
way.
Jude
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:42:06 GMT, "Jude Beaudin"
<shiningblade@home.com> wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> I have to admit I was mad and hurt. You do not have much of my respect right
> now considering the manner in which you pulled your 'stunt'. As far as you
> being banned, I am glad Todd did it and I am glad he is giving you the chance
> to voice yourself now.
As am I.
> Yesterday I posted a page flaming you and the events that transpired. But Todd
> asked me to take it down to not fuel the fire and in fact he replied three
> times to my post announcing it each each calmer then the one previous :-). He
> was right and I took it down within less than an hour of putting it up.
You had a right to have it. Your webpage is like your home, and when
people visit it, it's no different from inviting people into your
house. In your house you can express yourself the way you want, be
who you are, if people disrespect that they should leave your home. I
now understand though that you shouldn't use another persons house to
advertise yours. In other words I should not have advertised the
opinions on my website here. I should have just put them up and not
said anything.
> Even now writing this, I find it hard not to get emotional (angry). But
> emotions aside you made a good point, but you did it in a *totally wrong way*.
> And you have to suffer the consequences of that, whatever they may be.
I knew that from the start. But perhaps then I was less concerned
with the consequences and more concerned with trying to get my point
across. All of this has really affected me, mainly because it caused
me to remember something in my past. A long time ago when I was a
junior in High School this girl named Susa and I were both running for
ASB president. We had a past history of not liking each other very
much but that year we finally got to know each other and realized we
were very much alike. She didn't know I was going to run for
president, she thought I was going for Treasurer and we would work
together to do some neat things. She found out about it, but wasn't
angry at all. At that point I only saw her as my rival, I wanted an
adversary more than anything. It went to my head. For our speeches
she gave a rather amusing and comedic speech that although didn't
cover any issues was fun and interesting. I took the opportunity to
rip her apart when it was my turn. This was a mistake. People saw
her as a victim and she won by a few extra sympathy votes. At one
point later in the day she was crying. At the time I thought she was
upset at me, later when I finally got around to talking with her she
told me that she wasn't crying because I hurt her, but because people
were saying that they were going to vote for her because of what I
did. She said it was unfair and that she knew the reasons why I had
done it. That however didn't make it right. I did the wrong thing.
I should have talked with her and explained my feelings, if I had done
that things would have come out much smoother. Because of my actions
I had lost the election, lost respect from some people, and gained
respect from people that shouldn't have been giving it to me, and I
almost lost a friend. We all make mistakes, the problem is we don't
see them as such until it's too late, and then you can't take them
back.
> I hope we all can come out of this for the better and no, I do not think your
> ban should be permanent.
I've learned through this that the Lego Community is unlike the
majority of other genre groups I've participated in.
> Frankly, you have to decide if you want to forgive the people who crossed you
> years ago on RTL. I say this realizing I have to chose to forgive you. And
> there are others here that have to do the same.
I based the current views of the Lego Group with those I experienced
in RTL some time ago. Perhaps I was incorrect to assume so. You do
not need to forgive me though, as I said before I have suppressed my
emotions and buried them so deeply it's likely I'll never experience
them again.
> I know you want to remain part of the community or you would have not
> responded to Todd's olive branch. Therefore, I am going to publicly say I
> accept your apology and I ask you to accept mine for something you may or may
> not have seen (the page I put up).
I accept your apology, however if I was in your position I would think
I was undeserving of such. It is you whom deserve the apology, my
apology. But I have learned that saying your sorry doesn't take back
what was said. And it is that aspect which concerns me the most. I
said some things that probably should not have been said, I should I
gone about my point much more carefully and directly without using
destruction to initiate creation. The concept works, and it works
well, but not here. Other groups (that I am used to) where the idea
of actually being able to hurt someone's feelings is not an issue it's
okay. Here, it is not. Sometimes I guess it's hard to remember that
there are real people on the other end, people who are much more than
just the text they type on the screen.
> I hope one day I can call you a friend, and that you will become a positive
> participant in the on-line LEGO community. The very time you took to start the
> flamewar you could have taken to encourage someone and made a difference that
> way.
>
> Jude
I hope so too, but first I must learn to control my opinions and
ideals. I must learn to express myself without responding in a harsh
way to peoples feedback. I still believe in many of the things I
discussed, I know a lot of people disagree with those opinions and I
must be willing to accept that and not try to force people through
flaming that I am right. I will no longer discuss any shaky issues
here or on any forum, I will however continue to express my opinions
about things on my webpage (although I am in the process of revising
some of those opinions to reflect my true opinion rather than my
inflamed one).
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Matthew wrote:
<snip>
>
> I hope so too, but first I must learn to control my opinions and
> ideals. I must learn to express myself without responding in a harsh
> way to peoples feedback. I still believe in many of the things I
> discussed, I know a lot of people disagree with those opinions and I
> must be willing to accept that and not try to force people through
> flaming that I am right. I will no longer discuss any shaky issues
> here or on any forum, I will however continue to express my opinions
> about things on my webpage (although I am in the process of revising
> some of those opinions to reflect my true opinion rather than my
> inflamed one).
>
> -Matthew
Sorry for being ignorant from time to time, but I'll ignore your well
worded schweety talk. I have just a question, though. You already made
your "point". You proved that we are a bunch of pathetic losers of an
evil community, so why do you still want to be here?
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:35:43 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E7uk=20G=F6re?=
<ssgore@superonline.com> wrote:
> Sorry for being ignorant from time to time, but I'll ignore your well
> worded schweety talk. I have just a question, though. You already made
> your "point". You proved that we are a bunch of pathetic losers of an
> evil community, so why do you still want to be here?
If I believed that, I wouldn't be here. However I don't, and that's
why I'm here, and that's why I want to try and fix whatever dammage I
did. If you were a "bunch of...blah...blah...community" then my
attacks would not have affected anyone, you would have all laughed
them off.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Matthew" <moulton@hscis.net> wrote in message
news:39ef2b6f.1375076@news.lugnet.com...
[snip]
> However I am
> not sorry for what my actions caused. Yes I was rude, yes I was
> brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
> yourselves.
While that is the truth, I think that there was way too much attacking on
your part going on. Nevertheless, as you said, you were out to prove a
point, and in a sense, thanks to a few people here, we have been able to
look at ourselves.
> I'm not going to lie to you, many people do not see me as
> a nice person, I try to get people to think differently and sometimes
> my methods are very fringe. Did I deserve to get banned? In your
> minds I'd have to say yes.
I would say that on Tuesday night, you needed to be banned because there was
no end in sight. I know that many people were very upset by your comments
(I had some AIM conversations and some phone conversations about it) and at
the very least we all needed some time to cool off. Whether you can show
that you can behave in the future or not is up to you, and whether you can
be accepted here in the future is up to everyone here.
> I think that perhaps I hit a little too
> close to home...in fact I think I hit it right on. I knew what such
> an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
> consequences for it.
You hit right on, but were your methods too harsh? I think that they were.
But oh well, its water under the bridge now.
> Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
> banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
> my harsh opinions?
The obvious answer is your harsh opinions. Your insult to Jude was just the
beginning of a whole tirade of opinions attacking a few long standing
institutions within the community which people know and love, and feeling
indignant about it.
Well, lets move on. If you can prove yourself and this discussion goes
well, I probably won't have a problem with you being allowed back into the
community. Still, it all depends on others' feelings here.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:32:59 GMT, "Mike Stanley"
<cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
Mike, when you talk about my webpage you are talking about my home.
In my home I express myself the way I want. Granted I was wrong to
try and advertise the opinions in my home here, in someone else's
home. However as I said I must learn to control my expressions and
opinions in other peoples homes because I must respect their wishes.
However I will not change all of my core values and beliefs because I
am not what you want me to be. The most I can do is to act the way
that is appropriate to act in this forum and keep my opinions to
myself. By keeping them to myself I mean in my home. I will admit
though that many of the opinions that are in my home do not truly
express what I feel and I am in the process of revising them to
reflect my rational view rather than my inflamed one.
-Matthew
> In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> > Well, lets move on. If you can prove yourself and this discussion goes
> > well, I probably won't have a problem with you being allowed back into the
> > community. Still, it all depends on others' feelings here.
>
> You're far too forgiving. I'll chalk that up to you being young (and being
> young and forgiving aren't bad things, although they can lead to more pain for
> the forgiving one).
>
> This guy isn't ready to "move on". He hasn't "moved on".
>
> At the time that he posted this, and during which time you guys are doing the
> typical "I'm a nice person and I want to act like a nice person so I'll give
> even the biggest blankety-blank jerk in the world a second chance if he can
> just act nice too" this guys STILL has his horribly disrespectful graphic
> about James Jessiman on his website.
>
> He can put whatever he wants on his website, but do you think for a MINUTE,
> that someone with the lack of respect, the sheer spite, the ill will he must
> harbor (and has made clear he harbors) for this community, that the same
> person who could put that graphic up, post ad nauseam about James being our
> tin god, etc, could then turn around and just make nice and be an accepted
> member of this community?
>
> Maybe some of you could answer yes to that (I couldn't). But could that
> person, with any honest legitimate interest in apologizing or earning back his
> posting privileges on LUGNET keep the freaking thing on his website after he's
> been offered the chance to make his case here?
>
> Some of you guys are trying WAY to hard to be nice and understanding, probably
> because you read what he wrote about the community and can't stand the thought
> that he might even in a tiny way be right, so you're willing to bend over
> backwards to prove to yourselves and to him that we're good people.
>
> I suffer from no such need to prove myself. Some think me a good person, some
> think me a bastard. In some ways both groups are right (you guys know Mike
> the Lego Guy, you don't know Mike the Mad He's Been Called at 2AM Because Some
> Moron Crashed His Server and Didn't Prepare for a Disaster and Thinks its
> Mike's Problem Guy). I know I'm a decent person. And I know the vast
> majority of you guys are great people - some of the nicest, most welcoming,
> friendly, trustworthy people I know. Truth be told, the extreme offense I
> take at the slander of James' memory is second only to the offense that I take
> that some of the best people I've come into contact with online have been so
> roundly attacked by this loser.
>
> No, he's not changed. He wasn't misunderstood. He IS a prime example of the
> word I used to describe him in my more angry response a couple days ago. And
> he DOESN'T need to be here. And none of you need to feel guilty about
> agreeing with that. Period.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > Mike, when you talk about my webpage you are talking about my home.
> > In my home I express myself the way I want.
>
> Wow, you are dumb, aren't you?
Oh, well done, Mike. Just slipped out, did it? Doesn't really cast a good
light on your whole stance regarding Matthew's recent transgressions, now
does it?
Perhaps you should APOLOGISE TO MATTHEW RIGHT NOW!!!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > > Mike, when you talk about my webpage you are talking about my home.
> > > In my home I express myself the way I want.
> >
> > Wow, you are dumb, aren't you?
>
>
> Oh, well done, Mike. Just slipped out, did it? Doesn't really cast a good
> light on your whole stance regarding Matthew's recent transgressions, now
> does it?
> Perhaps you should APOLOGISE TO MATTHEW RIGHT NOW!!!
Sorry, I'm in debate mode right now and that's not what we need. I just
deleted a fairly lengthy response in which I defended my actions (namecalling
in this case) as acceptable for various reasons, but I don't want to post
that, because more than anything, I don't want to stir up the sort of ill
feelings your post implies that you (and maybe others) feel about my zeal on
this issue.
For the record, yes, I think it was a little childish of me to call this
person dumb. I won't defend it.
I will not apologize to this person, though, because I honestly don't think he
deserves an apology from any of us.
I will, though, apologize to you and to any other member of the LUGNET
community if the zeal with which I have responded to this incident has caused
any hard feelings or disappointment. I should have read the calm and learned
email another longtime member here sent me this morning, echoing my basic
opinion but urging me to "let it go". I did not, and for that, inasmuch as it
has obviously upset some people, I'm sorry.
What I'm going to do is try to ignore the rest of this discussion (not
guaranteeing I will be able to - but I will try) and concentrate on more
positive things. One of which is browsing member pages and checking out the
neat things they have to say and their websites and MOCs.
I'd close with a thought to you - I'd also describe myself as Blunt,
Argumentative, and Reasonable. Maybe more of the first two than the third
sometimes, though.
Peace.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Apology accepted, Mike. That's all I ever see is necessary.
Cheers,
Paul
Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Paul Baulch writes:
> >
> > Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > > > Mike, when you talk about my webpage you are talking about my home.
> > > > In my home I express myself the way I want.
> > >
> > > Wow, you are dumb, aren't you?
> >
> >
> > Oh, well done, Mike. Just slipped out, did it? Doesn't really cast a good
> > light on your whole stance regarding Matthew's recent transgressions, now
> > does it?
>
> > Perhaps you should APOLOGISE TO MATTHEW RIGHT NOW!!!
>
> Sorry, I'm in debate mode right now and that's not what we need. I just
> deleted a fairly lengthy response in which I defended my actions • (namecalling
> in this case) as acceptable for various reasons, but I don't want to post
> that, because more than anything, I don't want to stir up the sort of ill
> feelings your post implies that you (and maybe others) feel about my zeal • on
> this issue.
>
> For the record, yes, I think it was a little childish of me to call this
> person dumb. I won't defend it.
>
> I will not apologize to this person, though, because I honestly don't think • he
> deserves an apology from any of us.
>
> I will, though, apologize to you and to any other member of the LUGNET
> community if the zeal with which I have responded to this incident has • caused
> any hard feelings or disappointment. I should have read the calm and • learned
> email another longtime member here sent me this morning, echoing my basic
> opinion but urging me to "let it go". I did not, and for that, inasmuch as • it
> has obviously upset some people, I'm sorry.
>
> What I'm going to do is try to ignore the rest of this discussion (not
> guaranteeing I will be able to - but I will try) and concentrate on more
> positive things. One of which is browsing member pages and checking out • the
> neat things they have to say and their websites and MOCs.
>
> I'd close with a thought to you - I'd also describe myself as Blunt,
> Argumentative, and Reasonable. Maybe more of the first two than the third
> sometimes, though.
>
> Peace.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> First off I would like to publicly apologize to Jude. I do that more
> for Jude than I do for me. I killed my emotions a long time ago, so
> sometimes it's hard to remember that everyone else still feels them.
Well, theres a start.
An apology is only part of the act of contrition... one must strive to be
better.
Regarding emotions...I generally have the emotional range of a turnip, but
that does not mean I can be offensive, callous, insensitive, and
gratuitously vicious. I am a gentleman, despite my rough edges, and I try
to maintain a modicum of respect and courtesy towards others.
On rare occasions I can be insensed... this was one of them...
> I think the reason I picked Jude and the particular time was that if I
> did it I wouldn't really be attacking anything. Jude didn't have
> anything on the webpage,
Poor excuse... flawed rationale ... "cruel joke"
Overall, a "stunt" that injured one person and angered others ... which has
been your stated intent.
> I have no doubt that at some point there will
> be many interesting additions to the Lego community and I wouldn't
> dare attack those.
Based on past experience, I think you will attack anything you want when you
are bored or whenever it strikes your fancy.
Your principle form of communication seems to be antagonism.
> As far as the rant on my site I saw myself doing
> mostly the same thing. Attacking what I considered to be the worst
> designs. That doesn't make it right either, but I felt that some
> right may come of it in one form or another. I mean to me a person
> could attack the Behemoth on my site and I wouldn't mind.
That's the point .... No one would "attack" it.
There is a school of thought that all art, progress, and technological
advancement are born of conflict, suffering, and war. To an extent, some of
that is true.
HOWEVER,
Lugnet is not a place I go to indulge self-righteous narcissism, conduct
experiments in social Darwinism or expound the Neitchean virtues of "what
doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
(been there, did that in the 'hood)
> Why?
> Because it's vastly incomplete, needs to be redesigned to look
> smoother, more fluid, and there are a lot of ideas that can still be
> integrated into it. And actually I haven't even done anything to the
> interior yet. To me attacking something that is unfinished isn't
> really attacking anything.
I disagree ... You, yourself, have admitted that "harsh" criticism
discouraged you from realizing your vision of a new Lego database... that
"the Lego community" attacked what did not exist and destroyed the "what
could have been"
> I know others disagree with me on that and
> I know that my opinions have the ability to hurt feelings.
I disagree with you...
Your opinions and your method of communication is inefficient and damaging.
Again, I
> am sorry for that, I do not want to cause hurt feelings. However I am
> not sorry for what my actions caused.
^^^^THE ABOVE STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL!^^^^
(the most compelling reason why Matt should not have his posting priveledges
reinstated.... EVER)
You have made a public apology (for jude's sake?), but you are not sorry?
(remember that contrition requires acknowledgement of the transgression, an
apology for the damage caused, and a pledge to yourself and the community
not do it again)
If you are not sorry, then you are merely giving lipservice to your apology.
In essence, your apology means nothing if you do not acknowledge you are
wrong AND sorry.
> Yes I was rude, yes I was
> brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
> yourselves.
It is possible to discuss the elephant in the room without kicking it...You
never tried.
You pulled a stunt for the purpos of stirring controversy (similar to the
one in rtl awhile ago, that you still brag about all over usenet)
You enjoy "screamig FIRE" in the virtual theater and then tripping and
ridiculing those that leave.
I do not subscribe to your martyr-like crusade of self righteous indignation
towards the LUGNET community of Lego enthuiasts. If this incident revealed
something about us...
WHAT DOES IT REVEAL ABOUT YOU?
> I'm not going to lie to you, many people do not see me as
> a nice person, I try to get people to think differently and sometimes
> my methods are very fringe. Did I deserve to get banned?
YES... I believe you should be permanently banned. Let's not play the
persecuted artist, the misunderstood philosopher, or the persecuted
revolutionary crap... You are none of these things. Your rationale is
flawed, your reasoning is circular, and your attitude blows. You enjoy
manipulating people and situations in the on-line world on a level that is
perverse and pathological (AND BEYOND REDEMPTION)
For 3 years you have travelled from one end of the internet to the other
building a reputation that is offensive by the most liberal of thinkers (how
many isps, name changes, scams, troll posts, stunts, wars, etc.?) Well, you
only get one reputation in this life...LIVE WITH YOURS...enjoy it, but not here.
> In your
> minds I'd have to say yes. I think that perhaps I hit a little too
> close to home...in fact I think I hit it right on.
Thanks for the faux-enlightenment ... now take the bag of tricks and
travellig road show to another venue.
> I knew what such
> an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
> consequences for it.
LIVE WITH YOUR CHOICE, if you are a true martyr and not a coward. Have the
courage of your convictions. Stand up for what you believe in...and leave.
All of life's decisions have consequences ... you lack the maturity to live
with yours, it seems.
> Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
> banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
> my harsh opinions?
>
> -Matthew
Hack Pyschology 101, "don't hate the playa', hate the game" drivel (Been
there seen that 10 years ago) try again...
Your opinions have nothing to do with it... (You ain't Aristotle, Newton,
Davinci, Marx, Joan of Ark or even George Carlin.)
You employ Machiavellian antics in group interactions for the sole purpose
of creating anarchy, ridiculing "the ignorance of others", and couch it in
the guise of being a revolutionray or intuitive reformer
Bahhhhhh...
You are manipulative and disengenous
You ARE disrespectful
You lack maturity
You don't play well with the other children ...
Your attitude is negative
You show no remorse
You have ingendered much ill-will that CAN'T be undone
You have made threats
I could go on, but you get the point.
I further assert that you lack credibility and the ability to change your
behavior based on your current and previous conduct
I want you banned FOREVER. Case closed.
John
(Todd, I think it's a BIG mistake to not remove a cancer before it spreads)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:45:05 GMT, "John Robert-Blaze Kanehl"
<johnNYblaze44@webtv.net> wrote:
Uh, rather than go through all this I'll discuss it in general. I
feel you are comparing me to a "legend" more than anything. Yes, I am
the Mad Hatter. Have I done some deliberate mean and nasty things to
people? Yes, I have. Were those people deserving of such action?
Most people believe so. Take alt.usenet.kooks. They were a group
that preyed on people like us, people who enjoy nonmainstream art
forms, such as building with Legos. They see us as kooks, they attack
people like us, relentlessly, and without any compassion or remorse.
I gave alt.usenet.kooks exactly what it wanted. I spent two years
creating and building what would be their most prized kook, what would
look like an absolute feast to them. Once I had them gathered around
me, I destroyed them. I took their entire group on myself, the group
that destroys people like us. I was posting in excess of over a
hundred messages a day in order to keep up the level of intensity they
were trying to put on me. I kept it up for 5 months and used the hate
they had fostered with other people to help bring that group to it's
knees. Been to AUK lately? No one is really posting anymore, the
group is mostly dead. They will no longer be able to attack people
like us. Not without me there to stop them should they try again. My
methodology of that attack caused many people to see me as a ruthless,
maniacal, destroyer who would obliterate any group for the sheer fun
of it. That is not true and it is not who I am. And even with AUK I
was asked by the group alt.hackers.malicious to help them, it was not
a decision that I made on my own accord. I helped them because I felt
AUK should not have the power to try and destroy an entire groups of
people whom they consider kooks. What I did here is NOTHING like what
I did in those groups like alt.flame,
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, alt.romath, the nose, etc. What
I did here was a form of SE (social engineering). However looking at
the situation now and how things unfolded I realize that it was in
poor taste and not necessary to express my opinion. Have those Usenet
groups I discussed influenced who I am, as it turns out yes, and it
will be very hard for me to learn to not express myself in that way.
At one point I had over 30 people who are considered to be some of the
best flamers on Usenet attacking me, I can't say that it hasn't made
me a little dead inside. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for your
forgiveness, in my frame of mind I don't think I really deserve it.
But I am glad that I have gotten this chance to really express to you
who I am.
-Matthew
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > First off I would like to publicly apologize to Jude. I do that more
> > for Jude than I do for me. I killed my emotions a long time ago, so
> > sometimes it's hard to remember that everyone else still feels them.
>
> Well, theres a start.
> An apology is only part of the act of contrition... one must strive to be
> better.
>
> Regarding emotions...I generally have the emotional range of a turnip, but
> that does not mean I can be offensive, callous, insensitive, and
> gratuitously vicious. I am a gentleman, despite my rough edges, and I try
> to maintain a modicum of respect and courtesy towards others.
>
> On rare occasions I can be insensed... this was one of them...
>
> > I think the reason I picked Jude and the particular time was that if I
> > did it I wouldn't really be attacking anything. Jude didn't have
> > anything on the webpage,
>
> Poor excuse... flawed rationale ... "cruel joke"
>
> Overall, a "stunt" that injured one person and angered others ... which has
> been your stated intent.
>
> > I have no doubt that at some point there will
> > be many interesting additions to the Lego community and I wouldn't
> > dare attack those.
>
> Based on past experience, I think you will attack anything you want when you
> are bored or whenever it strikes your fancy.
>
> Your principle form of communication seems to be antagonism.
>
> > As far as the rant on my site I saw myself doing
> > mostly the same thing. Attacking what I considered to be the worst
> > designs. That doesn't make it right either, but I felt that some
> > right may come of it in one form or another. I mean to me a person
> > could attack the Behemoth on my site and I wouldn't mind.
>
> That's the point .... No one would "attack" it.
> There is a school of thought that all art, progress, and technological
> advancement are born of conflict, suffering, and war. To an extent, some of
> that is true.
>
> HOWEVER,
>
> Lugnet is not a place I go to indulge self-righteous narcissism, conduct
> experiments in social Darwinism or expound the Neitchean virtues of "what
> doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
>
> (been there, did that in the 'hood)
>
> > Why?
> > Because it's vastly incomplete, needs to be redesigned to look
> > smoother, more fluid, and there are a lot of ideas that can still be
> > integrated into it. And actually I haven't even done anything to the
> > interior yet. To me attacking something that is unfinished isn't
> > really attacking anything.
>
> I disagree ... You, yourself, have admitted that "harsh" criticism
> discouraged you from realizing your vision of a new Lego database... that
> "the Lego community" attacked what did not exist and destroyed the "what
> could have been"
>
> > I know others disagree with me on that and
> > I know that my opinions have the ability to hurt feelings.
>
> I disagree with you...
> Your opinions and your method of communication is inefficient and damaging.
>
> Again, I
> > am sorry for that, I do not want to cause hurt feelings. However I am
> > not sorry for what my actions caused.
>
> ^^^^THE ABOVE STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL!^^^^
> (the most compelling reason why Matt should not have his posting priveledges
> reinstated.... EVER)
>
> You have made a public apology (for jude's sake?), but you are not sorry?
> (remember that contrition requires acknowledgement of the transgression, an
> apology for the damage caused, and a pledge to yourself and the community
> not do it again)
>
> If you are not sorry, then you are merely giving lipservice to your apology.
> In essence, your apology means nothing if you do not acknowledge you are
> wrong AND sorry.
>
> > Yes I was rude, yes I was
> > brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
> > yourselves.
>
> It is possible to discuss the elephant in the room without kicking it...You
> never tried.
>
> You pulled a stunt for the purpos of stirring controversy (similar to the
> one in rtl awhile ago, that you still brag about all over usenet)
>
> You enjoy "screamig FIRE" in the virtual theater and then tripping and
> ridiculing those that leave.
>
> I do not subscribe to your martyr-like crusade of self righteous indignation
> towards the LUGNET community of Lego enthuiasts. If this incident revealed
> something about us...
>
> WHAT DOES IT REVEAL ABOUT YOU?
>
> > I'm not going to lie to you, many people do not see me as
> > a nice person, I try to get people to think differently and sometimes
> > my methods are very fringe. Did I deserve to get banned?
>
> YES... I believe you should be permanently banned. Let's not play the
> persecuted artist, the misunderstood philosopher, or the persecuted
> revolutionary crap... You are none of these things. Your rationale is
> flawed, your reasoning is circular, and your attitude blows. You enjoy
> manipulating people and situations in the on-line world on a level that is
> perverse and pathological (AND BEYOND REDEMPTION)
>
> For 3 years you have travelled from one end of the internet to the other
> building a reputation that is offensive by the most liberal of thinkers (how
> many isps, name changes, scams, troll posts, stunts, wars, etc.?) Well, you
> only get one reputation in this life...LIVE WITH YOURS...enjoy it, but not here.
>
> > In your
> > minds I'd have to say yes. I think that perhaps I hit a little too
> > close to home...in fact I think I hit it right on.
>
> Thanks for the faux-enlightenment ... now take the bag of tricks and
> travellig road show to another venue.
>
> > I knew what such
> > an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
> > consequences for it.
>
> LIVE WITH YOUR CHOICE, if you are a true martyr and not a coward. Have the
> courage of your convictions. Stand up for what you believe in...and leave.
>
> All of life's decisions have consequences ... you lack the maturity to live
> with yours, it seems.
>
> > Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
> > banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
> > my harsh opinions?
> >
> > -Matthew
>
> Hack Pyschology 101, "don't hate the playa', hate the game" drivel (Been
> there seen that 10 years ago) try again...
>
> Your opinions have nothing to do with it... (You ain't Aristotle, Newton,
> Davinci, Marx, Joan of Ark or even George Carlin.)
>
> You employ Machiavellian antics in group interactions for the sole purpose
> of creating anarchy, ridiculing "the ignorance of others", and couch it in
> the guise of being a revolutionray or intuitive reformer
>
> Bahhhhhh...
>
> You are manipulative and disengenous
> You ARE disrespectful
> You lack maturity
> You don't play well with the other children ...
> Your attitude is negative
> You show no remorse
> You have ingendered much ill-will that CAN'T be undone
> You have made threats
>
> I could go on, but you get the point.
>
> I further assert that you lack credibility and the ability to change your
> behavior based on your current and previous conduct
>
> I want you banned FOREVER. Case closed.
>
>
> John
> (Todd, I think it's a BIG mistake to not remove a cancer before it spreads)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
Todd,
I respect that you have the final "judgement" in this case. I have accepted
that from day one here on Lugnet, so be it. Discussion has gone on long
enough, almost as long or longer than the controversy. It is time to put
this issue to rest and make a decision regarding Matt's posting priveledges.
There hasn't been an overwhelming, endless discussion of this issue by ALL
members/participants. Fine by me.
Analyze the facts in anyway you see fit. Render a decision and inform Matt
FIRST. A memo briefly detailig the rulng is incumbant and should be made
forwith.
In parliamentary procedure, it is referred to as "calling the question."
You are chair and you decide whether the debate ends...and you decide the
outcome.
Please don't drag this process on any further. Render a verdict (for lack
of a better term) and let's be done with this unfortunate episode.
I have SNIPped aspects of a previous post to highlight essential
issues...Please consider the WHOLE thread as well as the following:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > First off I would like to publicly apologize to Jude. I do that more
> > for Jude than I do for me. I killed my emotions a long time ago, so
> > sometimes it's hard to remember that everyone else still feels them.
>
> Well, theres a start.
> An apology is only part of the act of contrition... one must strive to be
> better.
The problem is these words of apology are hollow and devoid of meaning.
As this thread progresses into esoteric arguments of "precedent",
"open-mindedness", "forgiveness"...will you forget that Matt said:
> > I think the reason I picked Jude and the particular time was that if I
> > did it I wouldn't really be attacking anything. Jude didn't have
> > anything on the webpage,
>
> Poor excuse... flawed rationale ... "cruel joke"
>
> Overall, a "stunt" that injured one person and angered others ... which has
> been your stated intent.
>
> > As far as the rant on my site I saw myself doing
> > mostly the same thing. Attacking what I considered to be the worst
> > designs. That doesn't make it right either, but I felt that some
> > right may come of it in one form or another. I mean to me a person
> > could attack the Behemoth on my site and I wouldn't mind.
I said the following because I don't think Matt grasps the concept of the
"sharing" and fairplay" atmosphere...
This is an inefficient, negative, anti-social, destructive form of
feedback/communication that destroys the objectives of the community.
> That's the point .... No one would "attack" it.
> There is a school of thought that all art, progress, and technological
> advancement are born of conflict, suffering, and war. To an extent, some of
> that is true.
>
> HOWEVER,
>
> Lugnet is not a place I go to indulge self-righteous narcissism, conduct
> experiments in social Darwinism or expound the Neitchean virtues of "what
> doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
>
> (been there, did that in the 'hood)
The above comment on experiments is expounded upon, revelled in, and worn as
a badge of honor in later thread posts. When Matt decides to "experiment"
in Lugnet...will it be for "righteous" and "altruistic reasons? (AND I MEAN
WHEN)
> > I know others disagree with me on that and
> > I know that my opinions have the ability to hurt feelings.
He admits that he KNOWS he is out of line
(i.e. makes a conscious/deliberate decision)
I think the following exchange says it all:
> Again, I
> > am sorry for that, I do not want to cause hurt feelings. However I am
> > not sorry for what my actions caused.
>
> ^^^^THE ABOVE STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL!^^^^
> (the most compelling reason why Matt should not have his posting priveledges
> reinstated.... EVER)
I can not vehemently highlight Matt's pathos above enough...read it. Think
about it. Do you think this will ever end?
> You have made a public apology (for jude's sake?), but you are not sorry?
> (remember that contrition requires acknowledgement of the transgression, an
> apology for the damage caused, and a pledge to yourself and the community
> not do it again)
>
> If you are not sorry, then you are merely giving lipservice to your apology.
> In essence, your apology means nothing if you do not acknowledge you are
> wrong AND sorry.
Is this type of "apology" acceptable in your family, from your spouse, or in
your workplace?
Can you say "I am sorry" and "I am not going to change," anywhere in the
"real 3-d world" and maintain credibility?
> > Yes I was rude, yes I was
> > brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
> > yourselves.
Examine the first sentence VERY carefully...Notice a continuous pattern of
stating hurtful, wrong, bad, anti-social behavior... with no remorse
whatsoever...a cogniscient admonission that is is patently wrong... then
justifying it with a cliche', platitude, back-peddle, anecdote, etc.
Do you all want more of this style of "reform"?
> It is possible to discuss the elephant in the room without kicking it...You
> never tried.
>
> You pulled a stunt for the purpose of stirring up controversy (similar to the
> one in rtl awhile ago, that you still brag about all over usenet)
>
> > I'm not going to lie to you, many people do not see me as
> > a nice person, I try to get people to think differently and sometimes
> > my methods are very fringe. Did I deserve to get banned?
YES! Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Scott A. brings up interesting questions about past conduct by other members
of LUGNET. Those cases may very well raise valid issues. Apparently no
ruling was made in a timely fashion, so be it. Does that mean Matt should
be cannonized as a saint or 'cut some slack"?...NO. Does that justify not
making a decision on this issue or sanctioning this offender...I think not.
I admire Scott's patience and open-minded nature on this topic. However, I
strongly Disagree. AS soon as Matt discussed his past behavior, it became
relevant...
Read his dissertation on how he "destroyed" people and groups he deemed
worthy of annihilation.
I stand by my assessment of Matt:
> For 3 years you have travelled from one end of the internet to the other
> building a reputation that is offensive by the most liberal of thinkers (how
> many isps, name changes, scams, troll posts, stunts, wars, etc.?) Well, you
> only get one reputation in this life...LIVE WITH YOURS...enjoy it, but not here.
> > I knew what such
> > an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
> > consequences for it.
If he is the cyber-ghandhi/batman that he espouses to be...
> LIVE WITH YOUR CHOICE, if you are a true martyr and not a coward. Have the
> courage of your convictions. Stand up for what you believe in...and leave.
>
> All of life's decisions have consequences ... < Matt > you lack the maturity to live
> with yours, it seems.
These are the FACTS, as I see them. I may be mistaken. This is Todd's
call, I realize that completely. I think that all of thepreceding posts,
and particularly Matt's own words should be read carefully. I stand by my
earlier assessment after hearing ABSOLUTLEY no compelling argument from any
other member and especially from Matt:
> You are manipulative and disengenuous
> You ARE disrespectful
> You lack maturity
> You don't play well with the other children ...
> Your attitude is negative
> You show no remorse
> You have ingendered much ill-will that CAN'T be undone
> You have made threats against this community + Todd
Are any of the above statements inaccurate so as to justify Matt's continued
"contribution" here?
John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:42:18 GMT, "John Robert-Blaze Kanehl"
<johnNYblaze44@webtv.net> wrote:
> The problem is these words of apology are hollow and devoid of meaning.
If I didn't mean what I said I wouldn't even BE here. I know I
screwed up, even more so than you can realize. If my apology wasn't
heart felt then why am I here? You seem to think I'm some sort of
evil person, that I have some alterior motive in store. If that were
the case I gaurentee the current situation would be WAY different from
what it is now. I'm not the kind of person who just hands out
apologies left and right. Only when I think someone REALLY deserves
one.
> The above comment on experiments is expounded upon, revelled in, and worn as
> a badge of honor in later thread posts. When Matt decides to "experiment"
> in Lugnet...will it be for "righteous" and "altruistic reasons? (AND I MEAN
> WHEN)
I already said that I wasn't, not here, not ever.
> These are the FACTS, as I see them. I may be mistaken. This is Todd's
> call, I realize that completely. I think that all of thepreceding posts,
> and particularly Matt's own words should be read carefully. I stand by my
> earlier assessment after hearing ABSOLUTLEY no compelling argument from any
> other member and especially from Matt:
I didn't see any facts in your arguments, all I saw was you looking
for every little snippit that you could use to try and get me banned
because you hate me. Not because of what you think I am, you hate me
because of my beliefs. Yes, I was wrong to share my beliefs here, and
I won't do it again, ever. Does that mean I'm going to change my
beliefs? No. Does that mean I'm not sorry for trying to deliberatly
hurt someone in order to get a point across. No. I set out to cause
dammage, but I didn't think it was real. I thought that the minute 2
or 3 people would start backing up Jude that my "attack" would be
taken with a grain of salt. I didn't think that there would be hurt
feelings, mine if any, but no one elses. If that had been the case, I
probably wouldn't be here right now. But you see I do care, and I
don't like to see other people get hurt, that was not my intent. And
I am truly sorry, and as I said before I know that that is not enough,
but it's a start. I'm doing something else here too that will help
relieve some peoples hurt feelings. By acting as a virtual punching
bag I can let help some people feel better.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
By acting as a virtual punching
> bag I can let help some people feel better.
>
> -Matthew
Matthew:
Please give up the martyr routine. We are here because you have said some nasty
things and violated the TOS. I feel just fine about myself today, thanks. If
you are truly sorry for hurting people, then quit trying to spin this whole
ordeal as if you are somehow the victim. Yes, I believe that some things have
been said to you, about you, that ought not to have been said. Realize, though,
that you have deeply hurt some folks by your comments about James Jessiman, and
while it is true that you have been the receiver of some venom, what did you
expect? I may not like some individuals who have passed on, but I'm not going
to dessicate their graves. Also, if you were offended by some people on RTL a
while back, why didn't you tactfully address the problem, one-on-one, so to
speak, by e-mail with the individuals that you feel wronged you? That one is on
you. I'm fully prepared to see what Matthew Moulton has to offer...I'm fully
prepared to check out your models, and to value your contributions, so long as I
have confidence that you are a person of good-will. You have damaged the trust
that could have been put in you, and I doubt that it can ever be fully
rectified. But I think that you can rebuild a measure of that trust. But
enough of this woe-is-me victim nonsense. It smacks of manipulation, and
frankly causes me to view your apologies with some degree of suspicion. If you
want us to value you, then start treating us with the same value that you hope
to be accorded.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:40:46 GMT, "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu>
wrote:
> Matthew:
>
> Please give up the martyr routine.
I hope that's not how I'm being viewed. I made a stupid mistake, one
that I'm not very proud of, I apologized for it, and more than that I
hope to try and be a better person. There are some people who still
genuinely hate me, that is their right, they can express their feeling
if they wish, but I will not. I am not a martyr, not in any way.
> We are here because you have said some nasty
> things and violated the TOS. I feel just fine about myself today, thanks. If
> you are truly sorry for hurting people, then quit trying to spin this whole
> ordeal as if you are somehow the victim.
I'm not.
> Yes, I believe that some things have
> been said to you, about you, that ought not to have been said. Realize, though,
> that you have deeply hurt some folks by your comments about James Jessiman, and
> while it is true that you have been the receiver of some venom, what did you
> expect?
You make it sound like I want sympathy for it, I don't. I realize
that I hurt some people with my beliefs, the most I can do is keep
those beliefs to myself when I'm here and only act in a positive
manner. Is that going to make that hate go away? No. But that hate
does not affect me. A teacher of mine once said that the only person
who can truly make you mad is yourself. I will not allow myself to
get mad, that's what usually gets me into trouble in the first place.
I am actually supportive of anyone who wants to take a pop shot at me,
it won't hurt me and it'll help them feel better. I also don't think
anyone should try to tell them they're wrong for doing it because that
will make me look like a martyr as you said.
> I may not like some individuals who have passed on, but I'm not going
> to dessicate their graves.
I refuse to discuss my personal opinions or beliefs.
> Also, if you were offended by some people on RTL a
> while back, why didn't you tactfully address the problem, one-on-one, so to
> speak, by e-mail with the individuals that you feel wronged you?
You know that's probably what I should have done. I thought my way
would work, it's what I've been used to and I didn't bother to really
think before I spoke.
> That one is on
> you. I'm fully prepared to see what Matthew Moulton has to offer...I'm fully
> prepared to check out your models, and to value your contributions, so long as I
> have confidence that you are a person of good-will. You have damaged the trust
> that could have been put in you, and I doubt that it can ever be fully
> rectified. But I think that you can rebuild a measure of that trust.
I hope that I can too. And I will put every effort into it.
> But
> enough of this woe-is-me victim nonsense. It smacks of manipulation, and
> frankly causes me to view your apologies with some degree of suspicion. If you
> want us to value you, then start treating us with the same value that you hope
> to be accorded.
I will say it again then, I am NOT a victim, I am NOT a martyr. Some
people are quite mad at me and flaming me and I am not defending
myself against them, the reason why is that I feel they have a right
to do so and I feel that if I try intervening I am only going to
inflame the situation more than it is. I'm sure that anyone who is
attacking me will cool down over the next few days, they'll get it out
of their systems, and then we can all move on.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > Again, I am sorry for that, I do not want to cause hurt feelings.
> > However I am not sorry for what my actions caused.
>
> ^^^^THE ABOVE STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL!^^^^
> (the most compelling reason why Matt should not have his posting priveledges
> reinstated.... EVER)
Let's not forget this. John, thanks for drawing attention to this passage.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
<snip>
Well, it may make me sound like a jerk, but your apology rings false and I
think you're lying. I don't believe a word of it. You obviously have a
certain degree of skill at word craft, and at the moment you're using it to
smooth wrinkles instead of ripping tears, but that doesn't change what you did
yesterday.
I'm generally willing to give people an even break, but you exceeded my
tolerance. Your opinions are your own, and frankly don't matter much to me
either way - but you set out with deliberate, malicious intent to damage a
community.
With the enthusiasm & skill you showed for attacking a social structure, I can
only believe one of two things about you today; either you're laughing up your
sleeve, or your apology is sincere - In the latter case, you have *serious*
mood swing problems, and I'd strongly suggest you try and get help.
Personally, I think you're laughing up your sleeve.
Only my opinion, of course.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:05:38 GMT, "James Brown"
<galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> <snip>
>
> Well, it may make me sound like a jerk, but your apology rings false and I
> think you're lying. I don't believe a word of it. You obviously have a
> certain degree of skill at word craft, and at the moment you're using it to
> smooth wrinkles instead of ripping tears, but that doesn't change what you did
> yesterday.
Let's examine what I did wrong yesterday. I attacked Judes site, I
promoted personal opinions on my website through this forum, I chose
to actively defend my opinions by flaming. I did not set out to try
and undermine the existence of Lugnet, I set out to express my
opinions and to try and get a point across. I did so in a poor
fashion, one that rather than help people see my view helped move them
farther away from it. And more than that it caused emotional dammage.
> I'm generally willing to give people an even break, but you exceeded my
> tolerance. Your opinions are your own, and frankly don't matter much to me
> either way - but you set out with deliberate, malicious intent to damage a
> community.
No, I didn't. I set out to try and make myself heard, to try and
prove a point, however I attempted to do that using harsh, biting ways
that only proved to make people angry at me and want to lock me out.
Why did I do it that way? It's what I'm used to. I thought that it
would work the way that it had in other groups. I acted without
thinking. I didn't take into consideration that the Lego community
might not be everything that I was convincing myself to see it as and
that my actions may cause hurt and anger rather than self reflection.
Now they did cause self reflection, but I realize now that I didn't
need to do what I did in order to make that happen. I acted in an
uncivilized and rude manner which was unbefitting of who I am. I then
was so inflamed that I chose to try and attack people with my opinions
rather than to admit I was wrong and let it go.
> With the enthusiasm & skill you showed for attacking a social structure, I can
> only believe one of two things about you today; either you're laughing up your
> sleeve, or your apology is sincere - In the latter case, you have *serious*
> mood swing problems, and I'd strongly suggest you try and get help.
>
> Personally, I think you're laughing up your sleeve.
>
> Only my opinion, of course.
>
> James
Don't get me wrong, I still have a lot of the opinions that I
expressed the other day, however I know that it is not appropriate for
me to discuss them here, they are too volatile a subject to try and
talk about rationally, at least at this point. And if there is
discussion about such opinions I don't believe I should participate as
I could present them in a flaming way. As far as trying to attack a
social structure, oh no, it's nothing even remotely like that. If I
were to put any effort into trying to destroy the Lego Community, it
wouldn't be here. I would never do that though, not ever. There are
a great many groups that I don't particularly share all their views,
some even more so than the Lego Community however I have never and
will never do anything bad to those groups. It is not my right, or my
place to try and play God. Does that mean that if someone asks me for
help I won't help them? Of course not. If I feel that there is a
person or group who is deliberately trying to destroy or harass
another group or person and they ask me for help, in most cases, I
will. I think most people are comparing me to this idealized version
of a ruthless and destructive troll who will attack anything or
anybody for the sheer fun of it. Again, that is NOT who I am. My
original goal was to try and help the Lego Community and I thought
that what I was doing was going to achieve that goal, and although it
did in one respect it caused an unnecessary amount of hurt feelings,
anger, and resentment. You must understand, when I started out, I
only meant for me to get hurt. I thought that after attacking Jude
others would attack me, I would look like the bad guy and Jude and the
rest would end up taking my criticism with a grain of salt. It didn't
work like I thought and that's why I'm putting so much effort into
trying to fix the damage I caused. Will I be able to fix it all? No,
but I should try nonetheless and I will try to work in ways to make up
for my actions. And I will not make the same mistake again because I
will not try to do what I did ever again in the Lego Community.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> I knew what such
> an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
> consequences for it.
Remember all these?
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=525261505
You should had pick on me instead, but I don't have a page for you to pick
on... ;) I have completely forgotten all that until the big bu-ha-ha shows up
in the spotlight.
> Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
> banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
> my harsh opinions?
If you do that lying thing or the threatening thing again then yeah.
But if even we can't make peace on this simple matter, there would be no hope
for middle east, right?
Peace. ^_^
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 05:28:34 GMT, "Ka-On Lee" <ko_lee@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Remember all these?
> http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=525261505
Yes I do. I remember when I first learned about the Lego community on
the Inet. I remember that I wanted so bad to be able contribute
something. I wanted to be something really great, do great things,
help out. So I came up with all these ideas that I wanted to do. And
I jumped right into RTL and proposed my ideas. I got no enthusiasm,
the entire reaction I got was, well, we already have some resources
like these, and we don't need you, or anything you can contribute.
That made me very angry and that is the reason I flamed at that
particular point in time. I wanted something so badly that I was
willing to try and do the impossible, instead all a got were people
laughing in my face telling me I was nothing. Like someone mentioned
earlier, it was that elitist attitude that caused me to fight back the
way I did. And for that I am not sorry, I was hurt then in a way that
has stayed with me and affected me ever since. It took me a long time
to generate enough self esteem to put together my own web page and
realize that I was important, that I could contribute something, even
if some people didn't respect it.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Matthew wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 05:28:34 GMT, "Ka-On Lee" <ko_lee@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> I remember when I first learned about the Lego community on
> the Inet. I remember that I wanted so bad to be able contribute
> something. I wanted to be something really great, do great things,
> help out. So I came up with all these ideas that I wanted to do. And
> I jumped right into RTL and proposed my ideas. I got no enthusiasm,
> the entire reaction I got was, well, we already have some resources
> like these, and we don't need you, or anything you can contribute.
I empathize with you completely. When I came to LUGNET in March
I also had a lot of ideas that I was all excited about, and most
of the time I was told that something was already in the works,
there wasn't any interest, or whatever. I do think it's funny that
the stuff that was supposedly under development is still non-existent,
but that's OK.
I've also seen it in the Open Source community. I made some significant
patches to a certain software program that many people wanted to see
integrated, but the maintainer didn't want to deal with it so it died.
Same thing happened with another package, and now that developer wants
to list NCSA as a possible partner for NSF funding. Tough noogies to
him! :)
Now if I feel that I'm not invited to participate, I either
a) go and start a competing project if I feel I can do it better
b) go find a different project to contribute to
It took a while, but I learned over time that I can't let my happiness
rely on other people. I need to make my own happiness, so if
someone doesn't want to play with me, I'm not going to waste my
time on them.
I'm not saying anything about any of the people here. This is just
a lesson that I've learned over time, and if it's applicable, great.
If not, oh well. :)
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 05:28:34 GMT, "Ka-On Lee" <ko_lee@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Remember all these?
> > http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=525261505
>
> Yes I do. I remember when I first learned about the Lego community on
> the Inet. I remember that I wanted so bad to be able contribute
> something. I wanted to be something really great, do great things,
> help out. So I came up with all these ideas that I wanted to do. And
> I jumped right into RTL and proposed my ideas. I got no enthusiasm,
> the entire reaction I got was, well, we already have some resources
> like these, and we don't need you, or anything you can contribute.
> That made me very angry and that is the reason I flamed at that
> particular point in time. I wanted something so badly that I was
> willing to try and do the impossible, instead all a got were people
> laughing in my face telling me I was nothing. Like someone mentioned
> earlier, it was that elitist attitude that caused me to fight back the
> way I did. And for that I am not sorry, I was hurt then in a way that
> has stayed with me and affected me ever since. It took me a long time
> to generate enough self esteem to put together my own web page and
> realize that I was important, that I could contribute something, even
> if some people didn't respect it.
Matt,
You're going to take this as some kind of slam, or some kind of flame, but it's
not intended as one, really. Try to keep that in mind as you read it.
I've read pretty much every post resulting from your initial posts of a few
days ago. I read Jude's post and I followed the link, and to be honest I
thought "huh. Not much here. Oh well" and moved on. I read your post
slamming it, and I though "Jesus, that was rude", and I moved on.
And, as I said, I read pretty much every post since.
What you allude to above is a pretty common theme in your posts- that you felt
like an outsider, and you felt ridiculed, and you felt like people weren't
taking you seriously. That people made you feel like "nothing". I have two
pieces of advice for you:
First, if Todd had cropped up in RTL and said "I'm going to make this site,
it'll be great, it'll be an online LEGO community and we can talk about LEGO
all day long" people probably would have told him "Hey, we have RTL, what do we
need that for?". He didn't do it that way (as far as I know, although he can
correct me if I'm wrong). He made the site, *then* told people about it. As
far as I know, the same goes for Brickshelf. Kevin made it, *then* told people
about it. People are always going to be skeptical of what the computer
industry calls "vaporware"... something that you talk about, but doesn't exist.
It's just human nature. If you have a great idea for a website, build it, and
*then* expect kudos, not the other way around.
Second, and more seriously... why do you care about what people you have never
even met think of you? I know it's never fun to feel like an outsider (trust
me, I *know* that) but when it comes down to it, we're just a bunch of people
you'll probably never meet "in real life". What we think of you, based on the
few things we see you post, shouldn't affect you so much that you get this full
of anger over it.
At this point, I don't really care if you stay here or leave, whether it's of
your own free will or if it's by Todd's decision, but I do hope that you find a
way to work through whatever it is that causes you so large an amount of pain
over something as relatively trivial as the whims of people on the internet.
Actually, scratch what I said above. You seem like a bright guy, and you
definitely have a passion for the brick. If you can let go of some of that
anger you're feeling, and realise that you don't need us to validate your work,
or your ideas, or what have you, then I hope you *do* stay, because you could
easily be a valuable member of the community.
But start pulling any crap like you did the other day, and I'll be one of the
first ones calling for your (virtual) blood.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Lorbaat wrote in message ...
> Matt,
>
> You're going to take this as some kind of slam, or some kind of flame, but • it's
> not intended as one, really. Try to keep that in mind as you read it.
>
> I've read pretty much every post resulting from your initial posts of a few
> days ago. I read Jude's post and I followed the link, and to be honest I
> thought "huh. Not much here. Oh well" and moved on. I read your post
> slamming it, and I though "Jesus, that was rude", and I moved on.
>
> And, as I said, I read pretty much every post since.
>
> What you allude to above is a pretty common theme in your posts- that you • felt
> like an outsider, and you felt ridiculed, and you felt like people weren't
> taking you seriously. That people made you feel like "nothing". I have • two
> pieces of advice for you:
>
> First, if Todd had cropped up in RTL and said "I'm going to make this site,
> it'll be great, it'll be an online LEGO community and we can talk about • LEGO
> all day long" people probably would have told him "Hey, we have RTL, what • do we
> need that for?". He didn't do it that way (as far as I know, although he • can
> correct me if I'm wrong). He made the site, *then* told people about it. • As
> far as I know, the same goes for Brickshelf. Kevin made it, *then* told • people
> about it. People are always going to be skeptical of what the computer
> industry calls "vaporware"... something that you talk about, but doesn't • exist.
> It's just human nature. If you have a great idea for a website, build it, • and
> *then* expect kudos, not the other way around.
>
> Second, and more seriously... why do you care about what people you have • never
> even met think of you? I know it's never fun to feel like an outsider • (trust
> me, I *know* that) but when it comes down to it, we're just a bunch of • people
> you'll probably never meet "in real life". What we think of you, based on • the
> few things we see you post, shouldn't affect you so much that you get this • full
> of anger over it.
>
> At this point, I don't really care if you stay here or leave, whether it's • of
> your own free will or if it's by Todd's decision, but I do hope that you • find a
> way to work through whatever it is that causes you so large an amount of • pain
> over something as relatively trivial as the whims of people on the • internet.
>
> Actually, scratch what I said above. You seem like a bright guy, and you
> definitely have a passion for the brick. If you can let go of some of that
> anger you're feeling, and realise that you don't need us to validate your • work,
> or your ideas, or what have you, then I hope you *do* stay, because you • could
> easily be a valuable member of the community.
>
> But start pulling any crap like you did the other day, and I'll be one of • the
> first ones calling for your (virtual) blood.
>
> eric
Wery well said(written), this is exactly what i was intending to say, but
cannot since I lack the words.
I'll just tag along with yours, is this is ok for you? *sheepish look*
/Joakim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
<snip>
>
> First, if Todd had cropped up in RTL and said "I'm going to make this site,
> it'll be great, it'll be an online LEGO community and we can talk about LEGO
> all day long" people probably would have told him "Hey, we have RTL, what do • we
> need that for?". He didn't do it that way (as far as I know, although he can
> correct me if I'm wrong). He made the site, *then* told people about it. As
> far as I know, the same goes for Brickshelf. Kevin made it, *then* told • people
> about it. People are always going to be skeptical of what the computer
> industry calls "vaporware"... something that you talk about, but doesn't • exist.
> It's just human nature. If you have a great idea for a website, build it, and
> *then* expect kudos, not the other way around.
<snip>
> eric
Bravo Eric !
Matthew, you still want to CREATE this website or another or something else?
Then do it. Do it for yourself. Do it because you are driven to, because it
would give you pleasure. All others reasons are meaningless.
The joy for me is in the creating. When I share what I create, be it a Lego
creation or a quilt, I do it to give back a little of what I have taken from
others. Seeing the creations of others, inspire me. Some are mind blowing
and show me things that I had no idea were possible to do. Some give me
entry into a person's dream world. For me there is value in them all. Even
if a design doesn't doesn't appeal to me, there is always something to make me
think. The way the colors are combined, the scale, the unique use of a
commonplace piece, the presentation ....blah, blah, blah,... ideas, creations
evolve. If I truly don't like something, figuring out why is useful. Useful
not to slam the creator, but to know more about myself and where I want to
go,what I want to create.
I am arrogant enough to believe even my worst efforts have something of value
in them. Something that I have created that is really stupid and awkward as a
whole might spark something else in someone's head and lead him/her down a
different path and onward. (even if it is in the opposite direction of where I
am because my stuff makes them sick ...) Hey! that's why roads have wrong way
signs. right?
sheree
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> [...]
> First, if Todd had cropped up in RTL and said "I'm going to make this site,
> it'll be great, it'll be an online LEGO community and we can talk about LEGO
> all day long" people probably would have told him "Hey, we have RTL, what do
> we need that for?". He didn't do it that way (as far as I know, although he
> can correct me if I'm wrong). He made the site, *then* told people about it.
The first way is closer to what happened. In November 1997, an announcement
was made to RTL of this: <http://www.lugnet.com/admin/plan/> and then
construction began. There was some controversy and some disbelief but mostly
it either got ignored or people said "good luck." I think the fundamental
important thing is simply commitment to a cause -- just keep plowing forward.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > [...]
> > First, if Todd had cropped up in RTL and said "I'm going to make this site,
> > it'll be great, it'll be an online LEGO community and we can talk about LEGO
> > all day long" people probably would have told him "Hey, we have RTL, what do
> > we need that for?". He didn't do it that way (as far as I know, although he
> > can correct me if I'm wrong). He made the site, *then* told people about
> > it.
>
> The first way is closer to what happened. In November 1997, an announcement
> was made to RTL of this: <http://www.lugnet.com/admin/plan/> and then
> construction began. There was some controversy and some disbelief but mostly
> it either got ignored or people said "good luck." I think the fundamental
> important thing is simply commitment to a cause -- just keep plowing forward.
Ah. Well, my point stands (as does yours)- you weren't greeted with showers
of roses and gold just because you stated your intentions for the site. You
went ahead and built in anyway, and now you're King of the World (well, as soon
as we bump off James Cameron... if he's not going to make T3 *or* Spiderman,
what good is he? True Lies 2... feh).
Actually, the more I think about it, apart from his idea about having current
sets' as well as older sets' instructions, I think having the instructions set
up to be viewed right way up, one step at a time could be really, really
useful. I know that I have sets I don't have complete instructions for, and I
hate the idea of using the paper and ink to print out the instructions for one
or two builds.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > > [...]
> > > First, if Todd had cropped up in RTL and said "I'm going to make this site,
> > > it'll be great, it'll be an online LEGO community and we can talk about • LEGO
> > > all day long" people probably would have told him "Hey, we have RTL, what • do
> > > we need that for?". He didn't do it that way (as far as I know, although • he
> > > can correct me if I'm wrong). He made the site, *then* told people about
> > > it.
> >
> > The first way is closer to what happened. In November 1997, an announcement
> > was made to RTL of this: <http://www.lugnet.com/admin/plan/> and then
> > construction began. There was some controversy and some disbelief but mostly
> > it either got ignored or people said "good luck." I think the fundamental
> > important thing is simply commitment to a cause -- just keep plowing forward.
>
> Ah. Well, my point stands (as does yours)- you weren't greeted with showers
> of roses and gold just because you stated your intentions for the site
Well, yes and no. :-) Todd's manifesto was so well written, so thoughtful, so
detailed, and so ahead of its time that when *I* read it, I begged Todd to
come to Cambridge Technology Partners (1) as a consultant for a project we
were involved in that had to do with how to build online communities.
So *I* certainly wanted to shower him with gold, but he blew us off. :-)
I wasn't sure Todd could pull it off, but the reasons behind it were so well
thought out that I knew I *wanted* it to happen.
Further, when Todd presented it, I don't recall a huge flame war ensuing in
which Todd insulted all and sundry readers who initially tried to offer
constructive criticism, as well as everyone who had a current site that was
meeting some needs of the community, culminating with Todd basically deciding
everyone else was an idiot who needed to be taught a lesson and telling us all
that we would get our comeuppance soon.
That may not be completely factual but I am not going to read that whole
cesspool again, that's the way I remember it. What I found particularly
galling was his lambasting of Horst Lehner, about the kindest, gentlest, most
helpful person you'd ever care to meet, after Horst very positively and gently
made some thoughtful suggestions.
RTL is part of usenet, true. But it is *NOT* AUK. Not even close. I remember
when RTL was much nicer. It was once called one of the nicest parts of usenet.
Mad Hatter's big flamewar may have been after some of the bloom was off the
RTL rose but it certainly didn't help.
I have not heard anything yet to lead me to believe that MH/MM is truly
repentant. To be repentant you have to admit you're wrong. To work a
gratuitous example... When I drag my suitcase over the toes of someone who is
dawdling in the airplane aisle because they didn't have their act together, I
say "sorry" as I go by, it's the polite thing to do, but you can bet I am not
repentant about it, because I don't think I'm wrong to shoulder the unprepared
tourists who paid 1/10 of what I did aside in my desire to get the heck off
that airplane and be first to the rental counter.
MM has apologised but I am not convinced it was sincere.
...
Having said all that, I fear I am judging intent. I actually don't want to do
that. I just want to judge outcomes. Trying to decide if someone is sincere is
a no win. But we have outcomes to judge, we don't need to judge intent.
I think MM did enough to warrant permanent ToSsing. Not because of his beliefs
or opinions or the profanity or even what he said on his own site. Just
because of the way that he comported himself here on Lugnet, with numerous
vicious attacks on individuals. Hey, I like a good argument too, but I just
don't think I've ever come even close to that vitriol level in my prose, even
when dealing with the most clueless and rude members.
It's not something I want my kids to read (and my kids read .space) and that's
why we have community standards here, because this isn't usenet and the paying
members are paying for these standards to be upheld.
...
Having said THAT, I'm willing to give MM another chance but it would have to
be probationary. Any sign that he was going back to his usenet ways and that's
it.
1 - remember them? Former high flying company, now the victims of a grevious
fall and trading in the fours...
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Well said, Larry.
Build On!
John Matthews
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G2rA03.5Gt@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > > > [...]
> > > > First, if Todd had cropped up in RTL and said "I'm going to make this • site,
> > > > it'll be great, it'll be an online LEGO community and we can talk • about
> LEGO
> > > > all day long" people probably would have told him "Hey, we have RTL, • what
> do
> > > > we need that for?". He didn't do it that way (as far as I know, • although
> he
> > > > can correct me if I'm wrong). He made the site, *then* told people • about
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > The first way is closer to what happened. In November 1997, an • announcement
> > > was made to RTL of this: <http://www.lugnet.com/admin/plan/> and then
> > > construction began. There was some controversy and some disbelief but • mostly
> > > it either got ignored or people said "good luck." I think the • fundamental
> > > important thing is simply commitment to a cause -- just keep plowing • forward.
> >
> > Ah. Well, my point stands (as does yours)- you weren't greeted with • showers
> > of roses and gold just because you stated your intentions for the site
>
> Well, yes and no. :-) Todd's manifesto was so well written, so thoughtful, • so
> detailed, and so ahead of its time that when *I* read it, I begged Todd to
> come to Cambridge Technology Partners (1) as a consultant for a project we
> were involved in that had to do with how to build online communities.
>
> So *I* certainly wanted to shower him with gold, but he blew us off. :-)
>
> I wasn't sure Todd could pull it off, but the reasons behind it were so • well
> thought out that I knew I *wanted* it to happen.
>
> Further, when Todd presented it, I don't recall a huge flame war ensuing • in
> which Todd insulted all and sundry readers who initially tried to offer
> constructive criticism, as well as everyone who had a current site that • was
> meeting some needs of the community, culminating with Todd basically • deciding
> everyone else was an idiot who needed to be taught a lesson and telling us • all
> that we would get our comeuppance soon.
>
> That may not be completely factual but I am not going to read that whole
> cesspool again, that's the way I remember it. What I found particularly
> galling was his lambasting of Horst Lehner, about the kindest, gentlest, • most
> helpful person you'd ever care to meet, after Horst very positively and • gently
> made some thoughtful suggestions.
>
> RTL is part of usenet, true. But it is *NOT* AUK. Not even close. I • remember
> when RTL was much nicer. It was once called one of the nicest parts of • usenet.
> Mad Hatter's big flamewar may have been after some of the bloom was off • the
> RTL rose but it certainly didn't help.
>
> I have not heard anything yet to lead me to believe that MH/MM is truly
> repentant. To be repentant you have to admit you're wrong. To work a
> gratuitous example... When I drag my suitcase over the toes of someone who • is
> dawdling in the airplane aisle because they didn't have their act • together, I
> say "sorry" as I go by, it's the polite thing to do, but you can bet I am • not
> repentant about it, because I don't think I'm wrong to shoulder the • unprepared
> tourists who paid 1/10 of what I did aside in my desire to get the heck • off
> that airplane and be first to the rental counter.
>
> MM has apologised but I am not convinced it was sincere.
>
> ...
>
> Having said all that, I fear I am judging intent. I actually don't want to • do
> that. I just want to judge outcomes. Trying to decide if someone is • sincere is
> a no win. But we have outcomes to judge, we don't need to judge intent.
>
> I think MM did enough to warrant permanent ToSsing. Not because of his • beliefs
> or opinions or the profanity or even what he said on his own site. Just
> because of the way that he comported himself here on Lugnet, with numerous
> vicious attacks on individuals. Hey, I like a good argument too, but I • just
> don't think I've ever come even close to that vitriol level in my prose, • even
> when dealing with the most clueless and rude members.
>
> It's not something I want my kids to read (and my kids read .space) and • that's
> why we have community standards here, because this isn't usenet and the • paying
> members are paying for these standards to be upheld.
>
> ...
>
> Having said THAT, I'm willing to give MM another chance but it would have • to
> be probationary. Any sign that he was going back to his usenet ways and • that's
> it.
>
>
> 1 - remember them? Former high flying company, now the victims of a • grevious
> fall and trading in the fours...
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> When I drag my suitcase over the toes of someone who is
> dawdling in the airplane aisle because they didn't have their act together, I
> say "sorry" as I go by, it's the polite thing to do, but you can bet I am not
> repentant about it, because I don't think I'm wrong to shoulder the unprepared
> tourists who paid 1/10 of what I did aside in my desire to get the heck off
> that airplane and be first to the rental counter.
Gee, Lar--why do I have the feeling that this isn't an entirely hypothetical
example? 8^)
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > When I drag my suitcase over the toes of someone who is
> > dawdling in the airplane aisle because they didn't have their act together, I
> > say "sorry" as I go by, it's the polite thing to do, but you can bet I am not
> > repentant about it, because I don't think I'm wrong to shoulder the • unprepared
> > tourists who paid 1/10 of what I did aside in my desire to get the heck off
> > that airplane and be first to the rental counter.
>
> Gee, Lar--why do I have the feeling that this isn't an entirely hypothetical
> example? 8^)
Because it's not? I've already said elsewhere on LUGNET that I do this very
thing. :-)
Don't EVER be in front of me on an airplane blocking the aisle and not ready
to go when the person in front of you moves, because I will say "sorry" and
then cheerfully drag my armored suitcase over your toes.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes
> Don't EVER be in front of me on an airplane blocking the aisle and not ready
> to go when the person in front of you moves, because I will say "sorry" and
> then cheerfully drag my armored suitcase over your toes.
Heh! I don't have much plane experience (just plane inexperienced, I
guess), but my daily incarceration on the Light Rail Sardine Can seems
analogous, and the perpetrators come in two general varieties:
1) The roadblock who stands immobile at the exit when the doors open,
perhaps out of some fear that they won't be allowed to reenter once the throng
has passed.
2) The manic who absolutely needs to get out first despite any throng
between him and the door.
In either case, I am likewise frustrated by people unable to grasp the
rudiments of egress. If I carried an armored suitcase, I too cheerfully drag
it over the toes of stragglers!
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes
>
> > Don't EVER be in front of me on an airplane blocking the aisle and not ready
> > to go when the person in front of you moves, because I will say "sorry" and
> > then cheerfully drag my armored suitcase over your toes.
>
> Heh! I don't have much plane experience (just plane inexperienced, I
> guess), but my daily incarceration on the Light Rail Sardine Can
Isn't that *twice* daily incarceration?
Later this week I will be back to riding the London Underground Jubilee line
two or more times a day, which was deliberately made smaller than older(?)
tube trains. Ostensibly so that the tubes would be cheaper to bore, but I know
the real reason... so that when it's rush hour you're not just squeezed in,
you also have to bend your head because the roof curvature means that you
can't stand up straight.
Well, actually I just found a way to get to work using only buses and the DLR,
but I wanted to complain about Jubilee anyway.
One good thing, the Jubilee cars are painted white, red, yellow and some sort
of light purple. Very garish, but very LEGO reproducable (if you can get the
curve right)
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> One good thing, the Jubilee cars are painted white, red, yellow and some sort
> of light purple. Very garish, but very LEGO reproducable (if you can get the
> curve right)
Hey! Stay on topic for the group!
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Frank Filz writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > One good thing, the Jubilee cars are painted white, red, yellow and some • sort
> > of light purple. Very garish, but very LEGO reproducable (if you can get the
> > curve right)
Er, sorry about that.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:12:17 GMT, "Mike Stanley"
<cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > And for that I am not sorry, I was hurt then in a way that
> > has stayed with me and affected me ever since. It took me a long time
> > to generate enough self esteem to put together my own web page and
> > realize that I was important, that I could contribute something, even
> > if some people didn't respect it.
> First, I've reread that thread, including the quotes from your posts (yours
> have all been conveniently cancelled - guess you were trying to wipe away some
> evidence of you being a prime example of that word I used to describe you).
Much of the canceling was done by the AUKins and other groups who
wanted to try and delete my net history. They would leave in only the
parts they wanted. Although I think some of those may have been the
cause of someone in the Lego community who decided to take it upon
themselves to act as rouge canceller.
<SNIP - hateful remarks>
> So I guess all that talk about how you are working on re-evaluating the points
> you want to make in a more rational matter is crap too, right? Otherwise you
> might have removed that disgusting graphic that as of 11:17 EST still sits
> right there on your main page.
I'm not removing that graphic, in fact I have the support of numerous
people who back me up on it (although that's about the only thing they
back me up on). I am planning on revising some of the text but the
Inet does not completely dominate my life and I'm trying to finish
other projects too. But again that webpage is my home, if you don't
like what's in my home don't come knocking on my door to come in. I
let anyone come into my home, granted I could put up a password and
only let certain people in but I like to let anyone have a chance to
come into my home and share with what I believe. If you don't share
in what I believe why do you come to my home?
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> But again that webpage is my home, if you don't like what's in my home don't
> come knocking on my door to come in. I let anyone come into my home, granted
> I could put up a password and only let certain people in but I like to let
> anyone have a chance to come into my home and share with what I believe. If
> you don't share in what I believe why do you come to my home?
Just want to quickly address this one point. A website is not private. It is
not a home. I do not need an invitation to come in, I can get there through
any one of a number of valid & common methods of using the internet. No one
has to knock on your door to come in. If you put your beliefs up to public
scrutiny(1), then you have to expect them to be scrutinized.
1: Having a publicly available website, and then bringing attention to it by
posting a link on a publicly accessable website (with, I might add, no
disclaimer or suggestion that people should share what you believe before
coming in) certainly counts. If that's insufficient, how about this:
<excerpt from ISP Channel's "Service Features">
Personal Web Pages
With ISP Channel service you can not only take advantage of the web, but
actually become a part of it. Upon request, we will provide you with 10Mb of
personal web space on our server free of charge. Now you can create your own
personal or professional web pages for all the world to see.
<end excerpt. Full document: http://www.ispchannel.com/HelpZone/Service >
All the world - Not "people who share my beliefs" or "people I invite".
James
Not addressing other issues - I've made my opinion known.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 05:28:34 GMT, "Ka-On Lee" <ko_lee@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Remember all these?
> > http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=525261505
>
> Yes I do. I remember when I first learned about the Lego community on
> the Inet. I remember that I wanted so bad to be able contribute
> something. I wanted to be something really great, do great things,
> help out. So I came up with all these ideas that I wanted to do. And
> I jumped right into RTL and proposed my ideas. I got no enthusiasm,
> the entire reaction I got was, well, we already have some resources
> like these, and we don't need you, or anything you can contribute.
Yes that kind of happened. But rememebr RTL was not the 'community'. It was a
half abandoned group already. I was excited when I first saw your post since
it is nice to have a alternate server. Well it turns out you were more into
flaming than anything. I tried to make more constructive suggestions but you
ignored me.
> That made me very angry and that is the reason I flamed at that
> particular point in time.
So why would that make you very angry?
> I wanted something so badly that I was
> willing to try and do the impossible, instead all a got were people
> laughing in my face telling me I was nothing.
Actually that didn't happen. What happend was you belittled some people and
then some people (including me) called you a jerk. It was as simple as that.
> Like someone mentioned
> earlier, it was that elitist attitude that caused me to fight back the
> way I did. And for that I am not sorry,
Sign... Why don't you drop your ultra elitist attitude first.
> I was hurt then in a way that
> has stayed with me and affected me ever since.
What about the people that was hurt by you?
Can you go back to be a nice fellow like the one in
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=3643 ?
| | | | | | |
