Subject:
|
Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:15:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
388 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> And I don't mean weird conspiracies based on things I did
> over a year ago. And I also don't mean things I said while I was
> incredibly ticked off. You should know full well that most of what I
> said at that point was designed merely to try and "get back" at
> everyone.
> [...]
> Again I wasn't describing someone I was describing a situation
> involving me. And again this was after I got really ticked off.
> [...]
> Again both of those posts were made AFTER I got really angry, the
> reason I got really angry is because I was called
> <snap another cut and paste>
> All that (which was in response to personal views expressed in
> a non flaming way) is what made me so angry and is what made me look
> for a way to "get back" at everyone.
Sign... I wish I can also do or say anything and expect others to take it
easily if I got "very angry". You must be very special to have such privilege.
> That's like saying, 'I like what I'm getting' isn't the same thing as
> 'I'm getting what I like'. You said, and I quote, "Are either or your
> parents perfectionists or alcoholics?" It's pretty much the same
> thing, not that it matters anyway I still took the remark personally.
And people can't take your remarks on your public site personally because?
> 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?
And after reading your page, how the heck do you expect people to react? Oh
sorry I forgot you are the only one why can get angry.
> I've put up with enough though, I don't deserve
> this, I don't.
I don't think we deserve the angry side of you.
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6616
>
> That was the point at which you banned me. 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.
You emails are irrelevent. You made a public threat. It was that simple.
To Todd:
If someone post a neo-nazi site address on luget.loc.il or lugent.loc.de, will
the message got cancelled and the person get banned even the site has some good
Lego material?
Why should a Lego community hate site be treated differently?
In my opinion, posting a link in a public forum is no difference than posting
the actual site content, especially the poster created the content himself.
Please remember you are not the ultimate defender of free speech.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A reixamination of what happened.
|
| (...) That would be censorship. No. (...) Even if it _didn't_ have LEGO material, they wouldn't get banned simply for posting a site address, no. Hopefully of course they wouldn't be posting such an address with malicious intentions to injure others (...) (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
|
|
|
|
