Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:06:57 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
moulton@hscis.#antispam#net
|
Viewed:
|
2266 times
|
| |
|
|
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. Have I done some deliberate mean and nasty things to
people? Yes, I have. Were those people deserving of such action?
Most people believe so. Take alt.usenet.kooks. They were a group
that preyed on people like us, people who enjoy nonmainstream art
forms, such as building with Legos. They see us as kooks, they attack
people like us, relentlessly, and without any compassion or remorse.
I gave alt.usenet.kooks exactly what it wanted. I spent two years
creating and building what would be their most prized kook, what would
look like an absolute feast to them. Once I had them gathered around
me, I destroyed them. I took their entire group on myself, the group
that destroys people like us. I was posting in excess of over a
hundred messages a day in order to keep up the level of intensity they
were trying to put on me. I kept it up for 5 months and used the hate
they had fostered with other people to help bring that group to it's
knees. Been to AUK lately? No one is really posting anymore, the
group is mostly dead. They will no longer be able to attack people
like us. Not without me there to stop them should they try again. My
methodology of that attack caused many people to see me as a ruthless,
maniacal, destroyer who would obliterate any group for the sheer fun
of it. That is not true and it is not who I am. And even with AUK I
was asked by the group alt.hackers.malicious to help them, it was not
a decision that I made on my own accord. I helped them because I felt
AUK should not have the power to try and destroy an entire groups of
people whom they consider kooks. What I did here is NOTHING like what
I did in those groups like alt.flame,
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, alt.romath, the nose, etc. What
I did here was a form of SE (social engineering). However looking at
the situation now and how things unfolded I realize that it was in
poor taste and not necessary to express my opinion. Have those Usenet
groups I discussed influenced who I am, as it turns out yes, and it
will be very hard for me to learn to not express myself in that way.
At one point I had over 30 people who are considered to be some of the
best flamers on Usenet attacking me, I can't say that it hasn't made
me a little dead inside. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for your
forgiveness, in my frame of mind I don't think I really deserve it.
But I am glad that I have gotten this chance to really express to you
who I am.
-Matthew
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
