| |
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)
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
