 | | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Matthew, I have to admit I was mad and hurt. You do not have much of my respect right now considering the manner in which you pulled your 'stunt'. As far as you being banned, I am glad Todd did it and I am glad he is giving you the chance to (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Play? I am the devil's advocate. :-) It can be a bit one sided here at times. Scott A (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
|
<snipped to conserve space> Tim is right, we do need to take some time and reflect. Let us 'Selah' for a time and make some constructive changes to the community to improve things. I have been participating in LUGNET for several months now and must (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) You are correct, I should have stopped while I was ahead, instead I chose to "try and get back at people". That was mistake, one which I am sorry for making. -Matthew (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes: Ask yourselves this though, did you want me (...) You have a right to your opinions, be they harsh or not. You do have a responsibility, however (within this group at least), to state those opinions (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
One thing that I would like to add is that if my posting privileges are reinstated I will only post updates about my webpage, nothing else. And only updates that do not undermine the harmony and sanctity of Lugnet and it's users. -Matthew (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | My Stance
|
|
First off I would like to publicly apologize to Jude. I do that more for Jude than I do for me. I killed my emotions a long time ago, so sometimes it's hard to remember that everyone else still feels them. I think the reason I picked Jude and the (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Below is a copy of a message I have just written to Matthew via e-mail. If Matthew does show up here today, please try to keep things as civil as possible. --Todd ___...___ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:24:33 -0400 From: Todd Lehman (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) My perception is that the banning occured because: 1. there was clearly a single individual who was fanning the flames of a flame war which had potential to severely impact Lugnet's mission 2. the individual communicated pretty clear threats (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) But you would still have read at least read a message in order to reply to it? But I take your point. (...) I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Interesting "conclusion" then; still wrong. (...) Sometimes I read chronologically and sometimes I read reverse-chronologically. My newsreader sorts everything by time, and gives me a near-live feed, so if I happen to be sitting at the screen (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Not really a guess. (...) (URL) you did not disallow him for more than an hour after you read the "threshold breakers", in the intervening time you read and replied to his denigration(1) of you? Further, I can't remember anyone being excluded (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) I wonder if it has something to do with the image sizes being so small -- that the overhead of firing up IM for each image is the bottleneck. Under FreeBSD the executable I got when I compiled IM was 2.5MB(!) and I seem to remember it also (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) Can I quote you on that? BTW, I had a slightly different take on that meeting. I felt like a complete duffer, who was lucky to be sitting around with some real pros. Steve (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) The funny thing is, it's taking longer to convert from BMP24 to GIF than it did to render the images in the first place... ImageMagick gives better compression than Paint Shop Pro (not sure why that is...), but IM seems to be an order of (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers: (URL) [1] Yes, I have permission to republish these comments here. It's part of (...) Thanks for your input. You may be right about it being a bad idea to post feedback comments as (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My point.
|
|
(...) In all seriousness, I don't understand your question, mostly because if it were communicated verbally, there would have been emphasis on one word or another to give me a clue what you meant. I'll assume what you meant is: "It's not what *you* (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
