 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) For what it's worth (not much) I'd wager I got you both beat on that issue. ;) (...) I've requested that all of my posts (well, not counting this one, I guess) on this topic be removed. I didn't add anything productive to this discussion, and (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) I can't recall where exactly he said it (in a couple places, I think), but Matthew admitted in a post on Lugnet that he faked the content on his website and made the inflamatory remarks that he did specifically to damage the Lego community. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) been (...) It was actually only one year ago. He remembered it wrong. (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) Well that definitely wasn't nice if thats how it happened. *But* how much damage do you think he could have done to us from his site? From a technical standpoint his site is nice but not something that is going to generate a ton of hits on its (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
