Results 61 – 65 of 100.
|
Search took 0.00 CPU seconds.
|
|
| |
I got to thinking today about what I REALLY did wrong here. What did
I do wrong? I attacked Jude's site in a somewhat mean way and didn't
give any reasons as to why I thought so. And that's it. That's all I
did wrong. Well I did also get caught up in the moment and I argued
points on my website. Did I argue the points on my website in a
flaming way? No, I really didn't. In fact no where in my replies
after the incident with Jude did I use ANY foul language or personal
derogatory remarks. I explained my position, and while I may have
done so in a sardonic fashion I was not out of line with the Lugnet
ToS, at least not more than anyone else was. I'm sick of this, I feel
like I'm up on a pedestal before some sort of tribunal and I have to
somehow defend my position otherwise I'll be thrown out, banned,
punished for all those INCREDIBLY awful things that I did. It's a
load of bs is what it is, I doubt VERY highly that I was banned
because of the low grade insult I used against Jude, I think (please
correct me if I'm wrong) that I got banned because I was arguing with
Todd. He started posting against me, I started posting back, he then
banned me, that in my mind was his way of winning. Why did I choose
to argue with Todd? Because I got ticked off, I took the "your
parents are alcoholics" thing to be a REALLY mean and nasty personal
remark. And even though it wasn't meant that way, that's the way I
took it. I'm not going to just sit here and try to defend the fact
that I'm human. I got angry, I responded heatedly, can any one else
here say they didn't too? And why did so many people get angry? Was
it the fact that I said I didn't like Jude's site in a manner
consistent with a second grader? No, of course not. People got angry
at me because I have several controversial positions and I chose to
defend them. Oh that leads me to the only other thing I did wrong, I
should not have talked about any of that stuff in the space
newsgroups, I should have immediately started responding to the off
topic group. Again though I'm not the only one guilty of that. Do I
deserve to get banned? No, I really don't. Do I deserve to have to
"stand trial" for all the supposed evil things I've done? No, I
really don't. I apologized to Jude and I meant it. Does that mean I
actually like the site? Not really, but rather than resort to a
second grade level insult I should have expressed in a gentile fashion
what I believed was not very good about the site and then offered
suggestions to improve it. Or I should have just not said anything at
all. As far as the huge conspiracies that I'm secretly out to
undermine the nature of the Lego community and that I'm laughing
maniacally behind everyone's back, it's a bunch of bs as well. And it
seems to me that some people are trying to use it as an excuse to
justify their stabs at me. I don't deserve to get banned, at least
not any more so than most of the rest of everyone who participated in
the discussion. So, that's my position on the events. And you know
what, I hope I get rebanned, just because of this post, that would
really help reemphasize a variety of my personal views. I know what I
did wrong, do you know what you all did wrong? Oh one last thing, a
question for Todd. Why did you ban me? I mean seriously why did you?
To me it looked as if you were trying to look for any excuse in my
posts because I was arguing heatedly with you.
-Matthew
|
|
|
| 
moulton
(score: 0.857)
|
|
| |
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:50:42 GMT, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
wrote:
> > I got to thinking today about what I REALLY did wrong here. What did
> > I do wrong? I attacked Jude's site in a somewhat mean way and didn't
> > give any reasons as to why I thought so. And that's it. That's all I
> > did wrong.
> It's possible that you are the only one with that viewpoint.
Yes, but so far I haven't seen anyone show any evidence which points
to the contrary. I mean let's see some evidence that I did something
else wrong. And I don't mean weird conspiracies based on things I did
over a year ago. And I also don't mean things I said while I was
incredibly ticked off. You should know full well that most of what I
said at that point was designed merely to try and "get back" at
everyone.
> > Well I did also get caught up in the moment and I argued
> > points on my website. Did I argue the points on my website in a
> > flaming way? No, I really didn't.
> I think that's debatable too, but it's off-site and therefore moot as far as
> LUGNET is concerned.
Yes, so if it's a moot point then what am I being judged for it? I
think it has been clearly expressed by a great many people that, that
is the root of most of their hatred towards me. In which case
whatever judgment they try and pass is clearly questionable. I can
start quoting posts if you like but I think we both know I don't need
to do that to prove it.
> > In fact no where in my replies
> > after the incident with Jude did I use ANY foul language
> > or personal derogatory remarks.
>
> I'm willing to bet 99% of people would disagree with that.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6608 (line 4, word 4)
bs in my opinion is hardly a bad word compared with some words.
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6609 (line 4, words 11-12)
Again I wasn't describing someone I was describing a situation
involving me. And again this was after I got really ticked off.
> > I explained my position, and while I may have
> > done so in a sardonic fashion I was not out of line with the Lugnet
> > ToS, at least not more than anyone else was. I'm sick of this, I feel
> > like I'm up on a pedestal before some sort of tribunal and I have to
> > somehow defend my position otherwise I'll be thrown out, banned,
> > punished for all those INCREDIBLY awful things that I did. It's a
> > load of bs is what it is, I doubt VERY highly that I was banned
> > because of the low grade insult I used against Jude, I think (please
> > correct me if I'm wrong) that I got banned because I was arguing with
> > Todd. He started posting against me, I started posting back, he then
> > banned me, that in my mind was his way of winning. [...]
> That's not it, nope. Scott already addressed this. Please see
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=7992 if there is still any confusion.
Again both of those posts were made AFTER I got really angry, the
reason I got really angry is because I was called rude, little,
egotistical, childish, insulting, clueless, a troll, immature,
unintelligent, sarcastic, a jerk, and inarticulate. I was then accused
of not having any friends, of having a rotten attitude, of needing
counseling, of having psychological issues, making noise, having a
one-dimensional warped perception of reality, and of not having a
life. I was also told that my opinions didn't count, that all I had to
contribute was drivel, that no one cared about my thoughts or ideas,
that I should be completely banned from Lugnet, ousted, alienated at
any opportunity, told to shut up, that I wasn't welcome, that I should
be shunned, banished, and that my parents might be alcoholics, etc,
etc. All that (which was in response to personal views expressed in
a non flaming way) is what made me so angry and is what made me look
for a way to "get back" at everyone.
> > Why did I choose
> > to argue with Todd? Because I got ticked off, I took the "your
> > parents are alcoholics" thing to be a REALLY mean and nasty personal
> > remark.
> You are correct that I was certaily rude to you -- and I apologize for that --
> but please do not misquote me. I never said, "Your parents are alcoholics."
> This is what I said:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=3877
That's like saying, 'I like what I'm getting' isn't the same thing as
'I'm getting what I like'. You said, and I quote, "Are either or your
parents perfectionists or alcoholics?" It's pretty much the same
thing, not that it matters anyway I still took the remark personally.
> and later I tried to clarify what I meant:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6591
Hey that's great, so I guess that means your remark didn't hurt me,
huh? Oh here's a thought, I didn't really mean what I said about
Jude's site. Okay now does that mean Jude wasn't hurt by my comments?
> > And even though it wasn't meant that way, that's the way I
> > took it. I'm not going to just sit here and try to defend the fact
> > that I'm human. I got angry, I responded heatedly, can any one else
> > here say they didn't too? And why did so many people get angry? Was
> > it the fact that I said I didn't like Jude's site in a manner
> > consistent with a second grader? No, of course not. People got angry
> > at me because I have several controversial positions and I chose to
> > defend them.
> I would disagree with that. I think people got angry at you because of the
> second-grade style and not because of the controversial positions per se.
Well according to the majority it seems it's my view about James
Jessman. If it was just about the remark I made to Jude nobody would
be so passionate about trying to get rid of me. I mean let's think
about this, what if a person just showed up and said, "Oh think this
or that s*cks". Do you think there would be even HALF as much
resentment and hate towards them? I don't think so, in fact I'm
willing to bet that for the most part they would just be ignored. You
know what I can't understand, if everyone hates me so much and thinks
I'm such a terrible person, why is it that my opinions and views mean
so much to everyone? Why is that? I mean I cannot for the life of me
figure it out.
> > Oh that leads me to the only other thing I did wrong, I
> > should not have talked about any of that stuff in the space
> > newsgroups, I should have immediately started responding to the off
> > topic group.
> I would agree with that.
Well at least we agree on something.
> > Again though I'm not the only one guilty of that. Do I
> > deserve to get banned? No, I really don't. Do I deserve to have to
> > "stand trial" for all the supposed evil things I've done? No, I
> > really don't. I apologized to Jude and I meant it. Does that mean I
> > actually like the site? Not really, but rather than resort to a
> > second grade level insult I should have expressed in a gentile fashion
> > what I believed was not very good about the site and then offered
> > suggestions to improve it. Or I should have just not said anything at
> > all. As far as the huge conspiracies that I'm secretly out to
> > undermine the nature of the Lego community and that I'm laughing
> > maniacally behind everyone's back, it's a bunch of bs as well.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you had already stated that it
> was your intention to disrupt peace and harmony (in so many words).
When did I say that? Oh, oh yah, it was AFTER I got angry, AFTER
everyone all had the following to say about me:
I was called rude, little, egotistical, childish, insulting, clueless,
a troll, immature, unintelligent, sarcastic, a jerk, and inarticulate.
I was then accused of not having any friends, of having a rotten
attitude, of needing counseling, of having psychological issues,
making noise, having a one-dimensional warped perception of reality,
and of not having a life. I was also told that my opinions didn't
count, that all I had to contribute was drivel, that no one cared
about my thoughts or ideas, that I should be completely banned from
Lugnet, ousted, alienated at any opportunity, told to shut up, that I
wasn't welcome, that I should be shunned, banished, and that my
parents might be alcoholics, etc, etc.
It was only AFTER all that, that I got angry and started to think of
ways to "get back" at everyone. I mean how the heck did you expect me
to react?
> > And it
> > seems to me that some people are trying to use it as an excuse to
> > justify their stabs at me. I don't deserve to get banned, at least
> > not any more so than most of the rest of everyone who participated in
> > the discussion. So, that's my position on the events. And you know
> > what, I hope I get rebanned, just because of this post, that would
> > really help reemphasize a variety of my personal views.
> I'm not sure what you're saying. Is that a formal request for the posting
> block to be reinstated site-wide or are you just hoping to push buttons here
> and there to ultimately result in same?
No, I think I should be able to post normally, just like everyone
else. I think that I did some things wrong, the main thing I did
wrong was accuse Jude of having a bad site. I already apologized for
that, said that I would not do anything like that again, and I even
went so far as to put up with this whole "trial" in which I was even
FURTHER accused of being apart of some secret plot to try and destroy
the Lego community. I've put up with enough though, I don't deserve
this, I don't. If you were even half as forgiving and understanding
as I am you would simply reinstate my posting ability and then just
let this whole mess die out quietly. Instead you want to try and play
judge, string me along for your own weird proceedings, and then boot
me on every other whim. No more. Make a decision. Either you give
me the ability to post again, or you don't. I'm tired of being used
as a form of entertainment.
> > I know what I
> > did wrong, do you know what you all did wrong? Oh one last thing, a
> > question for Todd. Why did you ban me? I mean seriously why did you?
> See above. Other factors included email from several people calling for
> something drastic to be done at once.
Don't get me wrong Todd, I think banning me like you did was good, in
that it gave me a chance to cool down. However I don't think the gist
of what I did could be considered so bad that it would warrant the
decision temporarily or permanently. If you made the decision based
on emotion (whether yours or someone else's) rather than facts then I
am absolutely appalled and shocked.
> > To me it looked as if you were trying to look for any excuse in my
> > posts because I was arguing heatedly with you.
> Nope.
>
> --Todd
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6616
That was the point at which you banned me. And you did it by taking
something I said out of context. You didn't say ANYTHING about
emotionally charged e-mails from anyone. That didn't come until
later.
-Matthew
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.857)
|
|
| |
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:54:26 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E7uk=20G=F6re?=
<ssgore@superonline.com> wrote:
> Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to
> me, so I rewording it again:
> He started a flame war.
So the ENTIRE flame war was all me, huh? No one else participated at
all? No one else helped add fuel to the fodder? That's kinda funny
cause that's not exactly how I remember it.
> He did that knowingly, and he even chose the
> person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake
> of starting a flame war, not for the purpose of flaming a given
> individual. He also knew that what he would get as a response, and
> actually all his purpose was getting this response. Why? Because he had
> a revenge in his head (for an event that took place at least a year
> ago), he already had some thoughts about the "community" as he published
> at his web site, and he thought that he should better had a live
> evidence for his point.
Hey look, a conspiracy theory. Oh hey, here's a thought, when did I
say I did it on purpose to try and prove a point? Was
it....uh....before I got really ticked off....or after?
> The above is not conspiracy. All of the above from HIS OWN WORDS, from
> the messages that HE POSTED HERE IN LUGNET, which are EVIDENCE, as you
> already said. If you don't believe me, you should reread his postings.
> He even dare enough to say that all this fabricated revenge was to help
> us, when trying to rationalize his actions.
Again did I say this BEFORE or AFTER all THIS:
I was called rude, little, egotistical, childish, insulting, clueless,
a troll, immature, unintelligent, sarcastic, a jerk, and inarticulate.
I was then accused of not having any friends, of having a rotten
attitude, of needing counseling, of having psychological issues,
making noise, having a one-dimensional warped perception of reality,
and of not having a life. I was also told that my opinions didn't
count, that all I had to contribute was drivel, that no one cared
about my thoughts or ideas, that I should be completely banned from
Lugnet, ousted, alienated at any opportunity, told to shut up, that I
wasn't welcome, that I should be shunned, banished, and that my
parents might be alcoholics, etc, etc.
At that point what I wanted most was a way of getting back at
everyone, to try and show everyone up one.
> And this fabricated revenge thing is why he had been banned I believe,
> from Todd's postings. Yes, he already banned. So I have nothing to do
> with banning him again.
Actually (according to Todd) I was banned because there were a bunch
of people who were outraged at my views and opinions and they e-mailed
him emotionally charged letters calling for my banishment. (correct
me if that's not accurate).
> POINT: I believe no one here could be punished because of anything out
> of Lugnet that related to him/her. Do you remember Huw? I was with him.
> Do you remember Remy? I was with him. I already believe that, and I
> already proved my belief with my past actions.
>
> So, why I still continue to talk about his web content? Because:
>
> His web content is just the proud publication of his fabricated revenge.
> In his apologies, he mentioned that it was a wrong thing to do. So why
> is the content is still there if he wanted us to believe that he
> admitted to himself that he was wrong? I think this is an EVIDENCE.
> Besides, I believe that I have right to have my own suspicions about
> anything, and have right to express them wherever I find
> appropriate.
I think there is some confusion. I apologized to JUDE, because that's
what I did wrong. I made a mean personal remark about a website,
that's it. Well that and I should have been posting everything after
to the off topic group. The content that you speak of on my webpage
was there BEFORE I did anything here. The one section about a simple
point is just something really ironic that I thought some people would
find interesting. Actually though I'm going to take it down and
instead recreate all the posts and threads about all this on there.
That way people can read the situation as it occurred and decide for
themselves what they think. As far as my conspiring, well, not
really. In all actuality that was just something I came up with after
Todd started posting and I got really upset. It seemed like a good
way of either "getting back at everyone" or avoiding looking like I
did something bad.
-Matthew
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.857)
|
|
| |
in article FsyDo7.BtL@lugnet.com, Matthew M at moulton@innw.net wrote on
4/13/00 4:38 AM:
> Well after a few days of work I threw together some webpages for my pics,
> added some extra stuff, and there is more to come! Check it out.
>
> http://www.spicyworld.com/amateurs/moulton/index.html
What struck me the most about your pages were the use of colored lights in
some of your photographs. That is an excellent way of getting pictures of
predominantly black constructions without having them look like a big muddy
out of focus mess. Great job!
-Michael
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.831)
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.830)
|
More: Next Page >>
|
