In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > 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?
>
> He WAS TOSed.
And now he might be let back in. So my question stands.
> In this opportunity to "defend" or "explain" his actions he has
> attempted to do so, in an obvious dishonest manner.
How can you be so sure that he's being dishonest? What do you stand to lose if
he's given a chance to really show what he wants to do on Lugnet?
> He's contradicted
> himself,
Where?
> offered hollow meaningless apologies,
How can you be sure they're hollow and meaningless?
> and basically misrepresented
> his history of this sort of thing in the past.
Actually, he's been quite forthright in representing his past- as he sees it.
He might be in denial about certain aspects of it (for example, I highly doubt
he was as victorious as he claims in his flame wars- no one wins a flame war,
and anyone who thinks they did is self-delusional) but I don't think he's
actively lying, and I don't think anyone here can say they are fully
self-aware, nor should it be a qualification for entry. This isn't a Buddhist
temple of enlightenment, it's a place to talk about LEGO.
The balance, snipped and flushed. I'm not going to argue in circles with you.
eric
|
