Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:12:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3394 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
