 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"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:
> "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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
