Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:36:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5703 times
|
| |
|
|
Apology accepted, Mike. That's all I ever see is necessary.
Cheers,
Paul
Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Paul Baulch writes:
> >
> > Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > > > Mike, when you talk about my webpage you are talking about my home.
> > > > In my home I express myself the way I want.
> > >
> > > Wow, you are dumb, aren't you?
> >
> >
> > 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 NOW!!!
>
> 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 than anything, I don't want to stir up the sort of ill
> feelings your post implies that you (and maybe others) feel about my zeal • on
> this issue.
>
> For the record, yes, I think it was a little childish of me to call this
> person dumb. I won't defend it.
>
> I will not apologize to this person, though, because I honestly don't think • he
> deserves an apology from any of us.
>
> I will, though, apologize to you and to any other member of the LUGNET
> community if the zeal with which I have responded to this incident has • caused
> any hard feelings or disappointment. I should have read the calm and • learned
> email another longtime member here sent me this morning, echoing my basic
> opinion but urging me to "let it go". I did not, and for that, inasmuch as • it
> has obviously upset some people, I'm sorry.
>
> What I'm going to do is try to ignore the rest of this discussion (not
> guaranteeing I will be able to - but I will try) and concentrate on more
> positive things. One of which is browsing member pages and checking out • the
> neat things they have to say and their websites and MOCs.
>
> I'd close with a thought to you - I'd also describe myself as Blunt,
> Argumentative, and Reasonable. Maybe more of the first two than the third
> sometimes, though.
>
> Peace.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
