In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> > So, what you're really saying isn't that you're worried that he'll disrupt
> > the
> > community, but that you don't like his beliefs, so you don't want him here?
>
> No, that's how you're interpreting what I said. That's not what I said and
> it's not what I meant. And I think you know that.
No, I don't know that. Not based on what you said. If that's not how you
feel, I suggest you stop obsessing over his disrespect for James, because
that's certainly how it's sounding.
> What tore it for me, or perhaps was the straw that broke the camel's back, was
> the disrespect for James. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. I don't
> believe he was TOS'ed for that alone, or, to be honest, that that disrespect
> played a major role in his being TOS'ed, except for maybe in the sense that
> its continued drumming up had a detrimental effect on the community. But for
> ME, as an individual, an individual who didn't make the actual decision to TOS
> him but certainly agrees with it, for ME, the final straw was the disrespect.
Fine, that was the final straw. But if he's learned that the destructive
ranting posts are detrimental to the community, and he wants to be a productive
part of it, and (this is the really important part) he actually manages to keep
his anger at what he feels are slights from the online LEGO community in the
past from making him act destructively, then why ToSs him now?
Your answer seems to be "because he still has no respect for James Jessiman".
Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough answer.
I'm certainly not saying you don't have the right to be pissed as heck over the
way he talks about James, or to argue with him about it (in off-topic.debate,
of course) all day and night, but his beleifs and the fact that you see them as
disgusting or wrong are no reason to throw him out of the community- or, more
accurately, to tell him he can't enter the community.
> Up to the point I "could handle it" although I would have thought him an a**.
> But then again, I know plenty of people who think me an a** (including you,
> perhaps) but I know I'm still an ok person.
I don't think you're an ass, but I do believe that currently you're suffering
from the same amount of needless rage that caused Matt to go on his little
rampage, and your rampage is no less ugly.
> I think if I tried to look at it in this tunnel-vision way you've jumped on
> that one particular point, sure, I'd probably agree with you.
I'm only responding to your most recent posts, which have been focussed on the
issue of Matt's lack of respect for James, which (IMHO) is a non-issue.
> But considering
> you and I rarely fall on the same side of an issue (fine with me - either you
> or I are wrong or at least entitled to different opinions during those times -
> who knows what it means when/if we ever agree on something)
Eh? I have to admit, I don't really remember disagreeing over something with
you before.
> If I'm in the
> minority for saying that, FOR ME, I personally don't want to have him around,
> given his other hateful and antisocial actions (and if you'll read the other
> posts I made you'll see I'm fully aware of those) and that, FOR ME, the final
> straw was his disrespect for James, that's ok with me.
If this is really what you're trying to say, then try to be more clear about
it.
For the record, you and I disagree on this, too. I happen to think that Todd
pulled his plug a little prematurely (although it may have been the best way to
get him to calm down, in retrospect). I fully believe in giving someone enough
rope to hang themselves. To my knowledge, Matt was simply shut off (some of
Todd's posts make reference to Matt trying to post and discovering that his
access was gone). Matt never heard from the Lugnet Admins saying "If you
continue in this way, you will be ToSsed", it just happened.
But he's back now, and he is saying he's repentant, and he has gone so far as
to say that if he didn't really want to be part of Lugnet, he wouldn't be here
in admin.general taking lumps for his actions. I think he should be given the
opportunity to really show us what he intends to do. What's the worst that
could happen? His posting privs could get turned back on, and he could then
say "Muhahahah! Fools! I still think you all suck and Jessiman is still
wormbait! Muhahahahaha!" and start another flamewar, and then Todd can shut
him off and we can all rest easy in the knowledge that Matt was, in fact, just
an annoying troll with no other intentions.
> I don't need your
> approval or your confirmation of my opinions to feel comfortable with them,
> after all, nor do I need it from anyone else,
I didn't say you did. But I'm also not going to let your posts (which seemed
to be) suggesting that Matt's feelings on Jessiman were reason enough to ToSs
him go unchallenged.
> including this majority I assume
> you feel don't give a rat's behind for James or his memory. I'd say you're
> wrong if you think there is such a majority, but you can certainly believe
> that if you want.
I didn't say I beleived that, and I don't beleive it.
I do beleive that most of the people on Lugnet wouldn't try to say that
someone's beliefs are reason enough to ToSs them, though. If I'm wrong about
that... well, to say I'd be disappointed is not nearly a strong enough
sentiment.
> You'd say that someone who has proven himself to be a
> relatively upstanding positive member of a community (I'm no saint, and I'm no
> Todd or Larry or Kevin or any number of other truly cool people - but I'm not
> on the other end of that scale either (I hope)) - that sort of person's
> opinions about the hateful actions of someone who has openly admitted a desire
> to harm that same community (then backed off on that and lied about his desire
> to defend the community - like his former words weren't available to convict
> him) don't carry just a tiny bit more weight than the self-serving remarks of
> the person whose actions have been hateful and harmful?
No, but I would say that your beliefs are no more or less valid than his.
As I've said before, I'm willing- for now- to take him at his word that he
wants to be a member of the community. I'm willing to let him prove me right
*or* wrong based on his actions.
> In short, I'm expressing my opinions here. I'm entitled to them, as are you
> yours.
Once again, I'm not saying you're not. In fact, if you think about it, what
I'm saying is that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and to share them,
without being excluded based solely on them.
> I fully support Todd's decision to banish this person - for whatever
> reason he decided to do it.
I think I may have actually been the first one to call for Matt's banishment,
in fact.
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=3868
> But if it makes you feel any better, since I know you like to argue,
Actually, no, I really don't. Some things I feel are important enough to speak
up over.
> That's not me, though, that's just the picture you might be
> trying to paint of me.
I'm not trying to paint any picture of you, I was just responding to your
posts. Personally, I don't think my misinterpretation of them is the fault of
the reader.
eric
|
