 | | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Sorry Tim but I think you are wrong here. Do I think the graphic on Matthew's site is distasteful? Yes. Do I care about the other text there? Not really. We cannot make the content of someone's personal site a prerequisite for inclusion in the (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) Just want to quickly address this one point. A website is not private. It is not a home. I do not need an invitation to come in, I can get there through any one of a number of valid & common methods of using the internet. No one has to knock (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:G2qso5.AAH@lugnet.com... (...) Why should he express that in a manner that attacks the community he claims to want to be a part of? (...) to (...) And no one is forcing me to accept his (...) (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Todd, This MUST end now...
|
|
(...) And he apologised, and claims he has learned his lesson. (...) I think there are bigger issues being debated here. (...) "I would never want to belong to a club that would have me for a member." -Groucho Marx. eric (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: My Stance
|
|
(...) I think that I misunderstood how you felt, and I reacted to that. (...) I'm sorry. <:( Although, I'm at work... which of us do you think has it better? :D eric (26 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
