Subject:
|
Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:50:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3703 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> I got to thinking today about what I REALLY did wrong here. What did
> I do wrong? I attacked Jude's site in a somewhat mean way and didn't
> give any reasons as to why I thought so. And that's it. That's all I
> did wrong.
It's possible that you are the only one with that viewpoint.
> Well I did also get caught up in the moment and I argued
> points on my website. Did I argue the points on my website in a
> flaming way? No, I really didn't.
I think that's debatable too, but it's off-site and therefore moot as far as
LUGNET is concerned.
> In fact no where in my replies
> after the incident with Jude did I use ANY foul language
> or personal derogatory remarks.
I'm willing to bet 99% of people would disagree with that.
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6608 (line 4, word 4)
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6609 (line 4, words 11-12)
> I explained my position, and while I may have
> done so in a sardonic fashion I was not out of line with the Lugnet
> ToS, at least not more than anyone else was. I'm sick of this, I feel
> like I'm up on a pedestal before some sort of tribunal and I have to
> somehow defend my position otherwise I'll be thrown out, banned,
> punished for all those INCREDIBLY awful things that I did. It's a
> load of bs is what it is, I doubt VERY highly that I was banned
> because of the low grade insult I used against Jude, I think (please
> correct me if I'm wrong) that I got banned because I was arguing with
> Todd. He started posting against me, I started posting back, he then
> banned me, that in my mind was his way of winning. [...]
That's not it, nope. Scott already addressed this. Please see
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=7992 if there is still any confusion.
> Why did I choose
> to argue with Todd? Because I got ticked off, I took the "your
> parents are alcoholics" thing to be a REALLY mean and nasty personal
> remark.
You are correct that I was certaily rude to you -- and I apologize for that --
but please do not misquote me. I never said, "Your parents are alcoholics."
This is what I said:
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=3877
and later I tried to clarify what I meant:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6591
> And even though it wasn't meant that way, that's the way I
> took it. I'm not going to just sit here and try to defend the fact
> that I'm human. I got angry, I responded heatedly, can any one else
> here say they didn't too? And why did so many people get angry? Was
> it the fact that I said I didn't like Jude's site in a manner
> consistent with a second grader? No, of course not. People got angry
> at me because I have several controversial positions and I chose to
> defend them.
I would disagree with that. I think people got angry at you because of the
second-grade style and not because of the controversial positions per se.
> Oh that leads me to the only other thing I did wrong, I
> should not have talked about any of that stuff in the space
> newsgroups, I should have immediately started responding to the off
> topic group.
I would agree with that.
> Again though I'm not the only one guilty of that. Do I
> deserve to get banned? No, I really don't. Do I deserve to have to
> "stand trial" for all the supposed evil things I've done? No, I
> really don't. I apologized to Jude and I meant it. Does that mean I
> actually like the site? Not really, but rather than resort to a
> second grade level insult I should have expressed in a gentile fashion
> what I believed was not very good about the site and then offered
> suggestions to improve it. Or I should have just not said anything at
> all. As far as the huge conspiracies that I'm secretly out to
> undermine the nature of the Lego community and that I'm laughing
> maniacally behind everyone's back, it's a bunch of bs as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you had already stated that it
was your intention to disrupt peace and harmony (in so many words).
> And it
> seems to me that some people are trying to use it as an excuse to
> justify their stabs at me. I don't deserve to get banned, at least
> not any more so than most of the rest of everyone who participated in
> the discussion. So, that's my position on the events. And you know
> what, I hope I get rebanned, just because of this post, that would
> really help reemphasize a variety of my personal views.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Is that a formal request for the posting
block to be reinstated site-wide or are you just hoping to push buttons here
and there to ultimately result in same?
> I know what I
> did wrong, do you know what you all did wrong? Oh one last thing, a
> question for Todd. Why did you ban me? I mean seriously why did you?
See above. Other factors included email from several people calling for
something drastic to be done at once.
> To me it looked as if you were trying to look for any excuse in my
> posts because I was arguing heatedly with you.
Nope.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
| (...) Yes, but so far I haven't seen anyone show any evidence which points to the contrary. I mean let's see some evidence that I did something else wrong. And I don't mean weird conspiracies based on things I did over a year ago. And I also don't (...) (26 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | A reixamination of what happened.
|
| I got to thinking today about what I REALLY did wrong here. What did I do wrong? I attacked Jude's site in a somewhat mean way and didn't give any reasons as to why I thought so. And that's it. That's all I did wrong. Well I did also get caught up (...) (26 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
