Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:18:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1952 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > > Mike, when you talk about my webpage you are talking about my home.
> > > In my home I express myself the way I want.
> >
> > Wow, you are dumb, aren't you?
>
>
> Oh, well done, Mike. Just slipped out, did it? Doesn't really cast a good
> light on your whole stance regarding Matthew's recent transgressions, now
> does it?
> Perhaps you should APOLOGISE TO MATTHEW RIGHT NOW!!!
Sorry, I'm in debate mode right now and that's not what we need. I just
deleted a fairly lengthy response in which I defended my actions (namecalling
in this case) as acceptable for various reasons, but I don't want to post
that, because more than anything, I don't want to stir up the sort of ill
feelings your post implies that you (and maybe others) feel about my zeal on
this issue.
For the record, yes, I think it was a little childish of me to call this
person dumb. I won't defend it.
I will not apologize to this person, though, because I honestly don't think he
deserves an apology from any of us.
I will, though, apologize to you and to any other member of the LUGNET
community if the zeal with which I have responded to this incident has caused
any hard feelings or disappointment. I should have read the calm and learned
email another longtime member here sent me this morning, echoing my basic
opinion but urging me to "let it go". I did not, and for that, inasmuch as it
has obviously upset some people, I'm sorry.
What I'm going to do is try to ignore the rest of this discussion (not
guaranteeing I will be able to - but I will try) and concentrate on more
positive things. One of which is browsing member pages and checking out the
neat things they have to say and their websites and MOCs.
I'd close with a thought to you - I'd also describe myself as Blunt,
Argumentative, and Reasonable. Maybe more of the first two than the third
sometimes, though.
Peace.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| Apology accepted, Mike. That's all I ever see is necessary. Cheers, Paul Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) (namecalling (...) on (...) he (...) caused (...) learned (...) it (...) the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Stance
|
| Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Oh, well done, Mike. Just slipped out, did it? Doesn't really cast a good light on your whole stance regarding Matthew's recent transgressions, now does it? Perhaps you should APOLOGISE TO MATTHEW RIGHT (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
