| |
"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
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
|
