| |
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.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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, 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
|
|
| |
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, 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
|
|
| |
"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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
"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:
>
> 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:
> "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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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, 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, 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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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 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, 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, 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, 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/
|
|
| |
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 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:
> 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, 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:
<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, 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 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 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, 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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
