| |
Matthew wrote in message <39f06e60.3126733@news.lugnet.com>...
>
> I know I'm going to get banned again. Why do I know this? I don't
> know, it's just a feeling, I can't really explain it. It doesn't
> upset me too much though, because I was able to publicly apologize,
> and I was there to help some people relieve some of their anger
> against me in the form of flames. But that doesn't fix what I did,
> doesn't make it right, I know that. I had to at least try to do
> something, anything. And I'm glad I was givin this opportunity, even
> if it turns out to only be a temporary one. Thank you Todd.
Firstly, thank you Matthew for apologising. I told you that it was the right
thing to do. In future, please make an effort to moderate how you express
your feelings, and if you do say something offhand, please be careful. You
may not get a second chance to participate with us.
Secondly, if I got my wish, Mike Stanley would have his posting privileges
revoked until he learnt how to refrain from posting spiteful rubbish whose
overall sentiment is frankly more poisonous, more hateful, than anything
I've EVER seen on Lugnet. EVER.
Thank you for making me angry, Mike Stanley. Angry and upset and most of
all, very, very disappointed. Please go away for a while. Go away and learn
what it truly means for Lugnet to be a friendly place, because you have made
it plain that you do not know. Go out into the fresh air, go camping,
fishing, go to church, talk with people for a few months and learn to
forgive. You too, Selçuk. And you, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl, and anyone else
who has forgotten how to be decent human beings. Go on. Now!
Thanks for reading.
Angry and disappointed,
Paul
|
|
| |
I know I'm going to get banned again. Why do I know this? I don't
know, it's just a feeling, I can't really explain it. It doesn't
upset me too much though, because I was able to publicly apologize,
and I was there to help some people relieve some of their anger
against me in the form of flames. But that doesn't fix what I did,
doesn't make it right, I know that. I had to at least try to do
something, anything. And I'm glad I was givin this opportunity, even
if it turns out to only be a temporary one. Thank you Todd.
-Matthew
|
|
| |
> Secondly, if I got my wish, Mike Stanley would have his posting privileges
> revoked until he learnt how to refrain from posting spiteful rubbish whose
> overall sentiment is frankly more poisonous, more hateful, than anything
> I've EVER seen on Lugnet. EVER.
Lets face it, if MM is half as machiavellian as MS claims, he must be
laughing like a lord(1) at the fool MS is making of himself.
Scott A
Please excuse my use of what I assume is a UK colloquialism.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> Firstly, thank you Matthew for apologising. I told you that it was the right
> thing to do. In future, please make an effort to moderate how you express
> your feelings, and if you do say something offhand, please be careful. You
> may not get a second chance to participate with us.
>
> Secondly, if I got my wish, Mike Stanley would have his posting privileges
> revoked until he learnt how to refrain from posting spiteful rubbish whose
> overall sentiment is frankly more poisonous, more hateful, than anything
> I've EVER seen on Lugnet. EVER.
>
> Thank you for making me angry, Mike Stanley. Angry and upset and most of
> all, very, very disappointed. Please go away for a while. Go away and learn
> what it truly means for Lugnet to be a friendly place, because you have made
> it plain that you do not know. Go out into the fresh air, go camping,
> fishing, go to church, talk with people for a few months and learn to
> forgive. You too, Selçuk. And you, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl, and anyone else
> who has forgotten how to be decent human beings. Go on. Now!
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Angry and disappointed,
Sorry about making you such dissapointed and angry, but please consider that
you are not the only one. Not mad at you of course, and not at any other people
who accepted his apologies. You just tried to make your point and I don't have
any problem with it.
You judged MM and decided the case to be dissmissed. And yes, I judged him too.
I read his web site, I read all the things he wrote here, and I read all the
things he wrote in the famous thread in RTL. And I judged him to be executed.
As you might already guessed (since I never replied any of the forgiving
people in a harch way), I don't have any problem with that. But I have a
problem with him, and I never had a problem with saying it so. So please
reconsider your saying once again, while blaming people, including me, as
"forgetten how to be decent human beings". The whole thing is not related with
being human or not (or may be completely related with that). Both of us judged
him, you decided that he is a lost soul seeking for salvation, I decided that
he is a large diameter *** ****. That's it. And believe me, I'm after my
decision, just as you. Maybe only difference is that, I'm not calling names for
who decided otherwise.
He was in RTL, he posted a project of him, and just after the first reply to
him (which is not worded badly) he started to puke disgust to others. Maybe you
didn't read it whole, and not a chance now since all of his messages were
somehow cancelled (evidence removal by himself?), but when I read them I really
amazed by his style, even to the posts trying to be kind and helpful, times
after times. Then, by his way of pathetic reasoning, he decided that Lego
community is an evil group of random flamers, and set up a long term revenge
(this is from his own words here at the recent thread). He striked a random
innocent just to start a flame war, beacuse he need some live evidence to make
his very "point". Add his pathetic web site (which is stil online) and
stopendous apologizing efforts (he still insited on he was trying to "help us
fools", he is still dare enough to say "if I want to destroy Lugnet, it will
not be here" while trying to explain he had no intention to destroy Lugnet),
then I get nothing but a large diameter *** **** as a final decision.
I really can't see the difference here. We have two very similar ceses. After
the first one, he planned more than a year long revenge, but after the second
one, just several hours after the second one, he saw he was wrong!! Sorry but I
don't buy it. The only difference that I can ever see between the two cases is
here is no usenet anymore, and someone can ban him from here.
I hope I made myself clear, because I don't like to be named as inhuman by the
fellow Lugneters whom I respected. And please condsider me with my whole
presence here, and believe this is a completely different case for me, as I
already mentioned several times before.
Robert already made himself clear I think, by wording his reasoning in his
first reply. For Mike, I should admit that he was somewhat bitter than needed,
I don't know if I would behave nicer to someone who is rediculing a person
disgustingly whom I know personally, respected as a friend, and passed away
long ago.
In brief I have own reasons for my desicion, and I don't want him here. And of
course I have no problem with any other people who want to be forgiving. Just
little upset about naming as inhuman
Regards,
Selçuk
|
|
| |
Selçuk Göre wrote in message ...
>
> I hope I made myself clear, because I don't like to be named as inhuman by • the
> fellow Lugneters whom I respected. And please condsider me with my whole
> presence here, and believe this is a completely different case for me, as I
> already mentioned several times before.
Selçuk, Mike, and everyone, I'm sorry for any name-calling. I was angry and
upset and I didn't realise how much it came out like a flame. I'm sure than
we can forget this, and continue to "play well" together. I might have been
angry towards some of you, but that doesn't mean I harbour any dislike for
anyone. We can all be friends here.
>
> Both of us judged
> him, you decided that he is a lost soul seeking for salvation, I decided • that
> he is a large diameter *** ****. That's it. And believe me, I'm after my
> decision, just as you. Maybe only difference is that, I'm not calling names • for
> who decided otherwise.
Well, actually there's another, crucial difference. The very thing that made
me angry and disappointed with many people here.
You know what it says on the very front of LUGNET? The thing that the world
reads when they first visit us?
"LUGNET ... has been called "the friendliest place on the Internet.""
Matthew may have been very rude, but your treatment (and many other peoples'
treatment) of him is downright UNFRIENDLY, and makes a complete mockery of
this fundamental statement about LUGNET. How do you feel about that?
My treatment of Matthew, on the other hand, has been nothing but friendly,
even as I have pointed out his immaturity to him, and been firm about his
apologising, and in accepting his apology (cautiously, I'm not a fool). If
more people had been friendly in their reaction, this whole sorry mess could
have been avoided. This flame war began, spread, and still lingers because
of UNFRIENDLINESS. But it's not too late.
Please consider helping me uphold one of the best characteristics of our
community.
Thank you,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
|
|
| |
Thanks for the reply Paul. I was being afraid of there would not be one.
And of course be sure that there was no hard feelings, and we of course
friends just as before.
But I still want to make clear something. For me "friendliest" doesn't
mean friendly to everyone. Of course I might taking it wrongly, but as I
already mentioned many times before, wherever appropriate, the only
thing that the all people here share is nothing but the love of brick,
so I'm more an individual than being part of a community.
I'm a friendly type, too. Just search my posting background, and you
will find only a few not so friendly messages from me, and all of them
are replies to the messages that I found not so friendly, and I found
offending to me or to other people. We had two other banning cases in
the past, and I was on the sides of the victims in both cases. And
believe me, If I had a tiny bit of good feelings about this guy, I would
be fighting for him, too. Here is the friendliest place on internet (and
I believe it so as much as anyone here), and I'm also a quite friendly
individual, but still I have right to chose my friends around.
Anyway, anything could be said is already said by many individuals from
both sides. I believe that I already made clear the reasoning behind my
decision, too, so there is nothing more left to say for me. I still
don't want him here, but of course it's up to Todd from this point on.
Regards,
Selçuk
Paul Baulch wrote:
>
> Selçuk Göre wrote in message ...
> >
> > I hope I made myself clear, because I don't like to be named as inhuman by • the
> > fellow Lugneters whom I respected. And please condsider me with my whole
> > presence here, and believe this is a completely different case for me, as I
> > already mentioned several times before.
>
> Selçuk, Mike, and everyone, I'm sorry for any name-calling. I was angry and
> upset and I didn't realise how much it came out like a flame. I'm sure than
> we can forget this, and continue to "play well" together. I might have been
> angry towards some of you, but that doesn't mean I harbour any dislike for
> anyone. We can all be friends here.
>
> >
> > Both of us judged
> > him, you decided that he is a lost soul seeking for salvation, I decided • that
> > he is a large diameter *** ****. That's it. And believe me, I'm after my
> > decision, just as you. Maybe only difference is that, I'm not calling names • for
> > who decided otherwise.
>
> Well, actually there's another, crucial difference. The very thing that made
> me angry and disappointed with many people here.
>
> You know what it says on the very front of LUGNET? The thing that the world
> reads when they first visit us?
>
> "LUGNET ... has been called "the friendliest place on the Internet.""
>
> Matthew may have been very rude, but your treatment (and many other peoples'
> treatment) of him is downright UNFRIENDLY, and makes a complete mockery of
> this fundamental statement about LUGNET. How do you feel about that?
>
> My treatment of Matthew, on the other hand, has been nothing but friendly,
> even as I have pointed out his immaturity to him, and been firm about his
> apologising, and in accepting his apology (cautiously, I'm not a fool). If
> more people had been friendly in their reaction, this whole sorry mess could
> have been avoided. This flame war began, spread, and still lingers because
> of UNFRIENDLINESS. But it's not too late.
>
> Please consider helping me uphold one of the best characteristics of our
> community.
>
> Thank you,
> Paul
> LUGNET member 164
> http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
|
|
|
