Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:39:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3124 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Now if it is decided to TOS Matthew based on his statements/threats made here
> on LUGNET then Todd has that right but that doesn't mean he looses his site or
> the ability to read LUGNET or to post to RTL (who would want to do that?). I
> have no problem TOSsing Matthew based on Todd's rules in LUGNETs TOS. I have
> a big problem however if Matthew was not allowed in the community based on the
> content of his site.
In general, I agree with you. However, Matthew used his website (in my
opinion) as a tool to damage and disrupt the community. He crafted lies and
misdirections, then posted something designed to stand out and direct traffic
at his site. I don't believe his apology is sincere. He has said he will
tone down the commentary on his web page to accurately reflect his opinion,
but has not done so. He has claimed (sorry, don't recall exactly which post)
that he's got other things he has to do before changing the things on his
webpage, but that's a hollow excuse. He *HAS* updated his webpage, at least
once - there's new content there - but hasn't taken down or changed any of the
things he's claiming to apologize for.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for his opinions.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for whatever he feels like putting on
his webpage.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for his actual posts on Lugnet (there's
been worse offenders, IMHO).
I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious attack
on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
Like I said somewhere else, this probably makes me look like a jerk, but oh
well.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes: <snip> (...) Agreed. (...) Agreed. (...) Definitely Agree. (...) If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have been posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
