 | | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Why should he not express how he feels? If he leaves it there, and you don't like it, no one is forcing you to go to his site and look at it, or to say that it's right. Why should taking that off his site be a contingency of his being accepted (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Todd, This MUST end now...
|
|
Todd, it's time to end this once and for all... ou know how I stand. You see how others have reacted. The time for discussion is over. A decision shoud be made. Doesn't anyone see what is so abundantly clear? Matt's intent was to disrupt this (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
"Mike Stanley" <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message news:G2qJ13.95M@lugnet.com... (...) a (...) sap who (...) overly-nice (...) person (...) many (...) he (...) can (...) that he (...) "apology" - (...) therefore (...) I'm a bit unsure on the (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) And now he might be let back in. So my question stands. (...) 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? (...) Where? (...) How can you be (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: In conclusion... (my stance hasn't changed)
|
|
(...) I hope that's not how I'm being viewed. I made a stupid mistake, one that I'm not very proud of, I apologized for it, and more than that I hope to try and be a better person. There are some people who still genuinely hate me, that is their (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Sorry, I'm in debate mode right now and that's not what we need. I just deleted a fairly lengthy response in which I defended my actions (namecalling in this case) as acceptable for various reasons, but I don't want to post that, because more (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
Well I promised I wouldn't get to involved in this discussion and I won't in a detailed way. I just wanted to say that I have agreed with just about everything Eric J. has had to say in this discussion. Certain things have been brought into this (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) First of all, I'm not 100% sure the term "second chance" applies. After all, he is a new member. We're not talking about "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" here. I'm also not suggesting that *every* time he acts up Lugnet (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: What's going to happen.
|
|
Matthew wrote in message <39f06e60.3126733@ne...et.com>... (...) Firstly, thank you Matthew for apologising. I told you that it was the right thing to do. In future, please make an effort to moderate how you express your feelings, and if you do say (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance? Don't fall for plastic sentiment, faux remorse, and hollow words... John (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Oh, well done, Mike. Just slipped out, did it? Doesn't really cast a good light on your whole stance regarding Matthew's recent transgressions, now does it? Perhaps you should APOLOGISE TO MATTHEW RIGHT (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: In conclusion... (my stance hasn't changed)
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes: By acting as a virtual punching (...) Matthew: Please give up the martyr routine. We are here because you have said some nasty things and violated the TOS. I feel just fine about myself today, thanks. (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
Mike, could you please keep this hateful rubbish off LUGNET?!? Thank you. Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) (including (...) community (...) removed (...) LUGNET (...) person (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Your right. And for that reason, I would support banning him, as well. I would not support banning him *simply* because he maintains that graphic on his website, however. Nor would I support banning him simply because it's what he believes. If (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) 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. (...) Fine, that was the final straw. But if he's learned (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) I fully supported the ban on his posting privileges. His repeated diatribes that "James is dead. Deal with it", or whatever was reason enough - not because he in fact holds that uncompassionate and cruel sentiment, but because his repeated (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Yes that kind of happened. But rememebr RTL was not the 'community'. It was a half abandoned group already. I was excited when I first saw your post since it is nice to have a alternate server. Well it turns out you were more into flaming than (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Of course not. I posted several posts here about the subject, about how much a good thing that he banned, and about how unnecessary to allow him to post again even in admin, but I never mentioned his sick hatred as an only reason or not a (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
