 | | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) Sure :) (...) Nah. I can't speak for Matthew G or John M, but I'm basically just a longtime computer hardware geek trying to keep finding new things to play with each year. :) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) You know, if you could script this us so I could run it I would be happy to let it run on any number of my available PIII machines with scads of diskspace. In fact, with just a little time and effort I could rig up a remote controllable (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Partsref Update
|
|
(...) Heh. Maybe. It might also have to do with me trying to run it in the background on a Win98 machine. I moved it over to an old P166 with NT4, and it's going much faster. Unfortunately, the P166 doesn't have enough disk space for all the BMP (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
"Matthew" <moulton@hscis.net> wrote in message news:39ef2b6f.137507...net.com... [snip] (...) While that is the truth, I think that there was way too much attacking on your part going on. Nevertheless, as you said, you were out to prove a point, and (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
