Subject:
|
In conclusion... (my stance hasn't changed)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:42:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2107 times
|
| |
|
|
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 the controversy. It is time to put
this issue to rest and make a decision regarding Matt's posting priveledges.
There hasn't been an overwhelming, endless discussion of this issue by ALL
members/participants. Fine by me.
Analyze the facts in anyway you see fit. Render a decision and inform Matt
FIRST. A memo briefly detailig the rulng is incumbant and should be made
forwith.
In parliamentary procedure, it is referred to as "calling the question."
You are chair and you decide whether the debate ends...and you decide the
outcome.
Please don't drag this process on any further. Render a verdict (for lack
of a better term) and let's be done with this unfortunate episode.
I have SNIPped aspects of a previous post to highlight essential
issues...Please consider the WHOLE thread as well as the following:
> 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.
The problem is these words of apology are hollow and devoid of meaning.
As this thread progresses into esoteric arguments of "precedent",
"open-mindedness", "forgiveness"...will you forget that Matt said:
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
I said the following because I don't think Matt grasps the concept of the
"sharing" and fairplay" atmosphere...
This is an inefficient, negative, anti-social, destructive form of
feedback/communication that destroys the objectives of the community.
> 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)
The above comment on experiments is expounded upon, revelled in, and worn as
a badge of honor in later thread posts. When Matt decides to "experiment"
in Lugnet...will it be for "righteous" and "altruistic reasons? (AND I MEAN
WHEN)
> > I know others disagree with me on that and
> > I know that my opinions have the ability to hurt feelings.
He admits that he KNOWS he is out of line
(i.e. makes a conscious/deliberate decision)
I think the following exchange says it all:
> 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)
I can not vehemently highlight Matt's pathos above enough...read it. Think
about it. Do you think this will ever end?
> 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.
Is this type of "apology" acceptable in your family, from your spouse, or in
your workplace?
Can you say "I am sorry" and "I am not going to change," anywhere in the
"real 3-d world" and maintain credibility?
> > Yes I was rude, yes I was
> > brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
> > yourselves.
Examine the first sentence VERY carefully...Notice a continuous pattern of
stating hurtful, wrong, bad, anti-social behavior... with no remorse
whatsoever...a cogniscient admonission that is is patently wrong... then
justifying it with a cliche', platitude, back-peddle, anecdote, etc.
Do you all want more of this style of "reform"?
> It is possible to discuss the elephant in the room without kicking it...You
> never tried.
>
> You pulled a stunt for the purpose of stirring up controversy (similar to the
> one in rtl awhile ago, that you still brag about all over usenet)
>
> > 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! Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Scott A. brings up interesting questions about past conduct by other members
of LUGNET. Those cases may very well raise valid issues. Apparently no
ruling was made in a timely fashion, so be it. Does that mean Matt should
be cannonized as a saint or 'cut some slack"?...NO. Does that justify not
making a decision on this issue or sanctioning this offender...I think not.
I admire Scott's patience and open-minded nature on this topic. However, I
strongly Disagree. AS soon as Matt discussed his past behavior, it became
relevant...
Read his dissertation on how he "destroyed" people and groups he deemed
worthy of annihilation.
I stand by my assessment of Matt:
> 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.
> > I knew what such
> > an action could bring, it was my choice, I have to face the
> > consequences for it.
If he is the cyber-ghandhi/batman that he espouses to be...
> 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 ... < Matt > you lack the maturity to live
> with yours, it seems.
These are the FACTS, as I see them. I may be mistaken. This is Todd's
call, I realize that completely. I think that all of thepreceding posts,
and particularly Matt's own words should be read carefully. I stand by my
earlier assessment after hearing ABSOLUTLEY no compelling argument from any
other member and especially from Matt:
> You are manipulative and disengenuous
> 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 against this community + Todd
Are any of the above statements inaccurate so as to justify Matt's continued
"contribution" here?
John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: In conclusion... (my stance hasn't changed)
|
| (...) If I didn't mean what I said I wouldn't even BE here. I know I screwed up, even more so than you can realize. If my apology wasn't heart felt then why am I here? You seem to think I'm some sort of evil person, that I have some alterior motive (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
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
|
|
|
|
