Subject:
|
Re: malicious behavior
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:46:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Using an unjust law to have something legal removed from a website (something
> > > that had been up for months) is immoral. It may be legal but there are very few
> > > people outside the legal departments of multinational entertainment companies or
> > > the ruling parties in dictatorships that consider a law that holds someone
> > > guilty until proven innocent to be moral.
> > >
> > > So my moral ground is that you have recently, and maliciously, used immoral
> > > means to attack me freedom of speech.
> > >
> > > Tim
> >
> > I couldn't give a rats ass about DMCA, 'fair usage', 'freedom of speech' or '1st
> > ammendment rights' or whatever people are going on about now--it's all
> > obfuscating the actual issue.
>
> --snip--
> >
> > Someone changed and 'mislinked' Erics creations in the sidebar of Technic to a
> > different pic that wasn't Erics.
> >
> > It wasn't suitable behaviour, as DaveE stated. This has nothing to do with
> > copyrights or 'free use' or Eric's response--the links in the sidebar that were
> > linking to Eric's creations--and only Eric's creations--were tampered with and
> > FOR THIS ALONE Eric deserves an apology (if it is shown that it was done
> > intentionally and maliciously, and right now, just by understanding 'the usual
> > suspects' and the history of some LUGNETters regarding Eric, I really can't
> > believe that it wasn't malicious in intent and execution).
> >
> > All other yippage by all parties (including me, so it seems) is specifically
> > irrelevant to this point.
> >
> > Dave K
>
> If you think that Eric deserves an apology then perhaps you should apologise to
> him. Since you had as much to do with the original issue as I did then you owe
> him an apology as much as I do. Furthermore I've never argued that the original
> issue was right, you've never argued that the original issue is right.
>
> As for the post you quote: Eric asked me a question. I answered it. That's what
> I do when I'm asked questions. That is part of discussion. Even more to the
> point it's in .off-topic.debate which means it can be a debate style discussion.
>
> Tim
Once again obfuscation--my replies to your comments--
'I’ve stayed out of this thread until this comment. There is no evidence that
Eric is in anyway better than this. There is plenty of evidence that he is not.
Just because people get a rise out of him doesn’t mean he is well-behaved. I had
minimal history with Eric until I dared to point out his TOU violation and after
that he launched a full-scale attack on me. I am not the first person and I’m
not the last person this has happened to.
Yes. Eric’s taunters are badly behaved (myself included) but this doesn’t stop
Eric from being badly behaved. For you to argue that he isn’t and that others
are completely ignores the body of evidence to the contrary. In no way will I
argue that one side is always right and the other side is always wrong but I
feel you set a dangerous precedent by essentially doing that yourself.
'
were legitimate in pointing out how you are dredging up his past transgresisons
in order for those who have done 'ill will' now to be at least 'legitimized'.
My suddenly pointing out that the 'original sin' hasn't as yet been apologized
for should, in no way, let you 'off the hook' for setting up a straw man
arguement--'you didn't notice his transgressions in the past so you're setting a
dangerous precedent' As stated, I am quite aware of some of the shenannegans
that happened over the years at LUGNET. Sometimes I find myself right in the
middle. I, rightly, pointed out that Eric has been better, that you (and
others) dont' see that, and you, and others, are more than willing to let those
that 'poke fun' of Eric have a 'bye' on the sheer 'principle' that, since Eric's
been an idiot *before* in your books, he deserves what he gets. Or am I
misrepresenting all the allusions to same from your posts (as well as others)
Yes you didn't explicitly say that, but the tone of your posts (as well as
others) is, in my opinion, stating just that--Eric=bad. Sure other's poking fun
at him=bad, but hey, Eric=bad so eh, whatever.
Aren't all of us better than this? Once again, this point always seems to get
missed.
"but... but... but... Eric's a bad seed!!! He done me wrong before!!!!"
Yeah, since this discussion has degraded to this level of maturity, then I'll
taunt right back using the parlance of that maturity--'I know he was, what about
you?"
As for debate, I'm all for it. That way people can get it out of their
system(s) and we can all move on to a (hopefully) more mature level.
But again, I'm always the eternal optimist.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Figure it out
|
| (...) You still as a fellow Lego Fan, took another LUGNET member's pictures repeatedly from Brickshelf to use in a mean spirited manner is completely uncool for what ever your reasons. Until You, Kevoh, Jude and Soren used my pictures to wage your (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) --snip-- (...) If you think that Eric deserves an apology then perhaps you should apologise to him. Since you had as much to do with the original issue as I did then you owe him an apology as much as I do. Furthermore I've never argued that (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
183 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
