Subject:
|
Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:57:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
446 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> > I think that's debatable too, but it's off-site and therefore moot as far
> > as LUGNET is concerned.
>
> Yes, so if it's a moot point then what am I being judged for it?
You never were, and still aren't, in my mind. What you put on your site led
me and countless others to the personal conclusion that you are a jerk, but
that's a completely separate issue from judgment of what you did or didn't
do here on this site.
On the other hand, had it been apparent when you signed up for posting here
that you were the "Mad Hatter" who ripped RTL to shreds last year, you would
never have gotten in the front door. Persona non grata.
> [...]
> Hey that's great, so I guess that means your remark didn't hurt me,
> huh? Oh here's a thought, I didn't really mean what I said about
> Jude's site. Okay now does that mean Jude wasn't hurt by my comments?
We don't need to debate that. I was simply correcting your misquotation and
pointing to the actual text.
> Well according to the majority it seems it's my view about James
> Jessman. If it was just about the remark I made to Jude nobody would
> be so passionate about trying to get rid of me.
I think it was how you handled things afterward.
> I mean let's think
> about this, what if a person just showed up and said, "Oh think this
> or that s*cks". Do you think there would be even HALF as much
> resentment and hate towards them?
If they acted as immaturely as you did, yes, absolutely.
> I don't think so, in fact I'm
> willing to bet that for the most part they would just be ignored. You
> know what I can't understand, if everyone hates me so much and thinks
> I'm such a terrible person, why is it that my opinions and views mean
> so much to everyone? Why is that? I mean I cannot for the life of me
> figure it out.
I think you gave an explanation for that earlier when you brought up Picasso.
> > 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).
>
> When did I say that? Oh, oh yah, it was AFTER I got angry, AFTER
> everyone all had the following to say about me:
It doesn't matter when you said it. You said it. And meant it. And did it.
Actions speak louder than words.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
> [...]
> It was only AFTER all that, that I got angry and started to think of
> ways to "get back" at everyone. I mean how the heck did you expect me
> to react?
I wouldn't presume to know you well enough to answer that accurately.
I think we're going in circles, Matthew.
> No, I think I should be able to post normally, just like everyone
> else. I think that I did some things wrong, the main thing I did
> wrong was accuse Jude of having a bad site. I already apologized for
> that, said that I would not do anything like that again, and I even
> went so far as to put up with this whole "trial" in which I was even
> FURTHER accused of being apart of some secret plot to try and destroy
> the Lego community. I've put up with enough though, I don't deserve
> this, I don't.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
> If you were even half as forgiving and understanding
> as I am you would simply reinstate my posting ability and then just
> let this whole mess die out quietly. Instead you want to try and play
> judge, string me along for your own weird proceedings, and then boot
> me on every other whim. No more. Make a decision. Either you give
> me the ability to post again, or you don't.
Fine. Good bye. There's no point in continuing this.
> I'm tired of being used as a form of entertainment.
I don't think anyone here views your self-induced roasting as entertainment.
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6616
>
> That was the point at which you banned me.
Not correct. Don't make assumptions about what order things were read and
responded to.
> And you did it by taking
> something I said out of context. You didn't say ANYTHING about
> emotionally charged e-mails from anyone. That didn't come until
> later.
See http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=7992
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
| "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G2t3zJ.F5K@lugnet.com... (...) Yup. And how you're handling things now to me is just proving to me that perhaps I should not have been so quick to give you another chance a couple days ago. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
