Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:12:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2916 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| "Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message news:G2qtCJ.CHJ@lugnet.com... (...) Matthew's (...) really. (...) like (...) I should correct myself - not *should* in the sense of a clearcut condition, but as a willful action to demonstrate to (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Stance
|
| "Mike Stanley" <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message news:G2qJ13.95M@lugnet.com... (...) a (...) sap who (...) overly-nice (...) person (...) many (...) he (...) can (...) that he (...) "apology" - (...) therefore (...) I'm a bit unsure on the (...) (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
|
|
|
|
