| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> 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.
Well, theres a start.
An apology is only part of the act of contrition... one must strive to be
better.
Regarding emotions...I generally have the emotional range of a turnip, but
that does not mean I can be offensive, callous, insensitive, and
gratuitously vicious. I am a gentleman, despite my rough edges, and I try
to maintain a modicum of respect and courtesy towards others.
On rare occasions I can be insensed... this was one of them...
> I think the reason I picked Jude and the particular time was that if I
> did it I wouldn't really be attacking anything. Jude didn't have
> anything on the webpage,
Poor excuse... flawed rationale ... "cruel joke"
Overall, a "stunt" that injured one person and angered others ... which has
been your stated intent.
> I have no doubt that at some point there will
> be many interesting additions to the Lego community and I wouldn't
> dare attack those.
Based on past experience, I think you will attack anything you want when you
are bored or whenever it strikes your fancy.
Your principle form of communication seems to be antagonism.
> As far as the rant on my site I saw myself doing
> mostly the same thing. Attacking what I considered to be the worst
> designs. That doesn't make it right either, but I felt that some
> right may come of it in one form or another. I mean to me a person
> could attack the Behemoth on my site and I wouldn't mind.
That's the point .... No one would "attack" it.
There is a school of thought that all art, progress, and technological
advancement are born of conflict, suffering, and war. To an extent, some of
that is true.
HOWEVER,
Lugnet is not a place I go to indulge self-righteous narcissism, conduct
experiments in social Darwinism or expound the Neitchean virtues of "what
doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
(been there, did that in the 'hood)
> Why?
> Because it's vastly incomplete, needs to be redesigned to look
> smoother, more fluid, and there are a lot of ideas that can still be
> integrated into it. And actually I haven't even done anything to the
> interior yet. To me attacking something that is unfinished isn't
> really attacking anything.
I disagree ... You, yourself, have admitted that "harsh" criticism
discouraged you from realizing your vision of a new Lego database... that
"the Lego community" attacked what did not exist and destroyed the "what
could have been"
> I know others disagree with me on that and
> I know that my opinions have the ability to hurt feelings.
I disagree with you...
Your opinions and your method of communication is inefficient and damaging.
Again, I
> am sorry for that, I do not want to cause hurt feelings. However I am
> not sorry for what my actions caused.
^^^^THE ABOVE STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL!^^^^
(the most compelling reason why Matt should not have his posting priveledges
reinstated.... EVER)
You have made a public apology (for jude's sake?), but you are not sorry?
(remember that contrition requires acknowledgement of the transgression, an
apology for the damage caused, and a pledge to yourself and the community
not do it again)
If you are not sorry, then you are merely giving lipservice to your apology.
In essence, your apology means nothing if you do not acknowledge you are
wrong AND sorry.
> Yes I was rude, yes I was
> brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
> yourselves.
It is possible to discuss the elephant in the room without kicking it...You
never tried.
You pulled a stunt for the purpos of stirring controversy (similar to the
one in rtl awhile ago, that you still brag about all over usenet)
You enjoy "screamig FIRE" in the virtual theater and then tripping and
ridiculing those that leave.
I do not subscribe to your martyr-like crusade of self righteous indignation
towards the LUGNET community of Lego enthuiasts. If this incident revealed
something about us...
WHAT DOES IT REVEAL ABOUT YOU?
> I'm not going to lie to you, many people do not see me as
> a nice person, I try to get people to think differently and sometimes
> my methods are very fringe. Did I deserve to get banned?
YES... I believe you should be permanently banned. Let's not play the
persecuted artist, the misunderstood philosopher, or the persecuted
revolutionary crap... You are none of these things. Your rationale is
flawed, your reasoning is circular, and your attitude blows. You enjoy
manipulating people and situations in the on-line world on a level that is
perverse and pathological (AND BEYOND REDEMPTION)
For 3 years you have travelled from one end of the internet to the other
building a reputation that is offensive by the most liberal of thinkers (how
many isps, name changes, scams, troll posts, stunts, wars, etc.?) Well, you
only get one reputation in this life...LIVE WITH YOURS...enjoy it, but not here.
> In your
> minds I'd have to say yes. I think that perhaps I hit a little too
> close to home...in fact I think I hit it right on.
Thanks for the faux-enlightenment ... now take the bag of tricks and
travellig road show to another venue.
> I knew what such
> an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
> consequences for it.
LIVE WITH YOUR CHOICE, if you are a true martyr and not a coward. Have the
courage of your convictions. Stand up for what you believe in...and leave.
All of life's decisions have consequences ... you lack the maturity to live
with yours, it seems.
> Ask yourselves this though, did you want me
> banned because I attacked Jude, or did you want me banned because of
> my harsh opinions?
>
> -Matthew
Hack Pyschology 101, "don't hate the playa', hate the game" drivel (Been
there seen that 10 years ago) try again...
Your opinions have nothing to do with it... (You ain't Aristotle, Newton,
Davinci, Marx, Joan of Ark or even George Carlin.)
You employ Machiavellian antics in group interactions for the sole purpose
of creating anarchy, ridiculing "the ignorance of others", and couch it in
the guise of being a revolutionray or intuitive reformer
Bahhhhhh...
You are manipulative and disengenous
You ARE disrespectful
You lack maturity
You don't play well with the other children ...
Your attitude is negative
You show no remorse
You have ingendered much ill-will that CAN'T be undone
You have made threats
I could go on, but you get the point.
I further assert that you lack credibility and the ability to change your
behavior based on your current and previous conduct
I want you banned FOREVER. Case closed.
John
(Todd, I think it's a BIG mistake to not remove a cancer before it spreads)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:45:05 GMT, "John Robert-Blaze Kanehl" <johnNYblaze44@webtv.net> wrote: Uh, rather than go through all this I'll discuss it in general. I feel you are comparing me to a "legend" more than anything. Yes, I am the Mad Hatter. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | In conclusion... (my stance hasn't changed)
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes: Todd, I respect that you have the final "judgement" in this case. I have accepted that from day one here on Lugnet, so be it. Discussion has gone on long enough, almost as long or longer than (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
