Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:29:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
ssgore@{NoSpam}superonline.com
|
Viewed:
|
3502 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:54:26 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E7uk=20G=F6re?=
> <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote:
>
> > Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to
> > me, so I rewording it again:
>
> > He started a flame war. He did that knowingly, and he even chose the
> > person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake
> > of starting a flame war, not for the purpose of flaming a given
> > individual. He also knew that what he would get as a response, and
> > actually all his purpose was getting this response. Why? Because he had
> > a revenge in his head (for an event that took place at least a year
> > ago), he already had some thoughts about the "community" as he published
> > at his web site, and he thought that he should better had a live
> > evidence for his point.
>
> So the ENTIRE flame war was all me, huh? No one else participated at
> all? No one else helped add fuel to the fodder? That's kinda funny
> cause that's not exactly how I remember it.
I don't mean even a bit by the above paragraph it was all you, and the
flame war is not a big thing to me as alone. The paragraph is just a
chronology, so I put it back to it's original form.
> Hey look, a conspiracy theory. Oh hey, here's a thought, when did I
> say I did it on purpose to try and prove a point? Was
> it....uh....before I got really ticked off....or after?
Read below. Besides, bet I care even a bit exactly when you did say it.
> > The above is not conspiracy. All of the above from HIS OWN WORDS, from
> > the messages that HE POSTED HERE IN LUGNET, which are EVIDENCE, as you
> > already said. If you don't believe me, you should reread his postings.
> > He even dare enough to say that all this fabricated revenge was to help
> > us, when trying to rationalize his actions.
>
> Again did I say this BEFORE or AFTER all THIS:
Is this made you less sick? And what are you trying to say? "Don't judge
me for the things that I said here in Lugnet" Baaahhhh, me says. Your
excuse even more than your actions before.
> I was called rude, ........
<snipped because it had already been copied and pasted more than twice>
> At that point what I wanted most was a way of getting back at
> everyone, to try and show everyone up one.
In case if it is true, is there any evidence from you that you will
never want to "get back at everyone" and "show everyone up one"?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
> > And this fabricated revenge thing is why he had been banned I believe,
> > from Todd's postings. Yes, he already banned. So I have nothing to do
> > with banning him again.
>
> Actually (according to Todd) I was banned because there were a bunch
> of people who were outraged at my views and opinions and they e-mailed
> him emotionally charged letters calling for my banishment. (correct
> me if that's not accurate).
You are not accurate. Go read
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=7992. I'm sure you already know
what "threshold breaker" means, so please go read your "threshold
breakers", too.
> > POINT: I believe no one here could be punished because of anything out
> > of Lugnet that related to him/her. Do you remember Huw? I was with him.
> > Do you remember Remy? I was with him. I already believe that, and I
> > already proved my belief with my past actions.
> >
> > So, why I still continue to talk about his web content? Because:
> >
> > His web content is just the proud publication of his fabricated revenge.
> > In his apologies, he mentioned that it was a wrong thing to do. So why
> > is the content is still there if he wanted us to believe that he
> > admitted to himself that he was wrong? I think this is an EVIDENCE.
> > Besides, I believe that I have right to have my own suspicions about
> > anything, and have right to express them wherever I find
> > appropriate.
>
> I think there is some confusion. I apologized to JUDE, because that's
> what I did wrong. I made a mean personal remark about a website,
> that's it. Well that and I should have been posting everything after
> to the off topic group. The content that you speak of on my webpage
> was there BEFORE I did anything here. The one section about a simple
> point is just something really ironic that I thought some people would
> find interesting. Actually though I'm going to take it down and
> instead recreate all the posts and threads about all this on there.
> That way people can read the situation as it occurred and decide for
> themselves what they think. As far as my conspiring, well, not
> really. In all actuality that was just something I came up with after
> Todd started posting and I got really upset. It seemed like a good
> way of either "getting back at everyone" or avoiding looking like I
> did something bad.
>
> -Matthew
I exactly mean the second document
http://my.ispchannel.com/~mmoulton/lego/mypoint.html
It was not there, and cannot be there too, since it is physically
impossible. And, as you just reminded me, if this is not a planned
revenge as you said WHY IS STILL THERE, me asks.
Selçuk
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) So the ENTIRE flame war was all me, huh? No one else participated at all? No one else helped add fuel to the fodder? That's kinda funny cause that's not exactly how I remember it. (...) Hey look, a conspiracy theory. Oh hey, here's a thought, (...) (24 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
