Subject:
|
Re: No promises when I'll be done, but...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:38:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
251 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > Isn't it easier to deny him to post,
> >
> > Well, technically, yes, of course...but I don't see any clear-cut grounds for
> > that, do you? He's walking the line very carefully.
>
> Screw the line.
>
> The guy's a [first choice], and he needs to go away.
>
> Period.
I happen to agree. Since this thread started, I've exchanged a few emails with
the lovely Mr. Moulton, and I have to say, I think he may have actually crossed
the line-- just not in the way that anyone has before, I think. His admitted
intent is to create a flame war here on Lugnet. For whatever purposes he thinks
he's doing it, I don't care. His admitted intent towards Lugnet was
destructive (well, suffice to say, he's admitted his intent, and IMHO, it's
destructive-- he hasn't admitted directly to wanting to destroy/be destructive
to Lugnet) And if that intent isn't explicitly in the current Terms of Use,
perhaps it should be, if it isn't already implied enough.
> I feel guilty for not keeping up with LUGNET as much as I used to, but man, I
> had no idea we'd acquired our very first 100% genuine complete [first choice].
>
> I haven't seen posts that antagonistic and arrogant since I stopped reading
> the repetitive drivel in the political Usenet groups. We don't need that crap
> here - not now, not ever. This sort of behavior makes J.W. look like a
> candidate for everyone's best friend.
I think the distinct difference between J.W. and [first choice] is that:
A. JW seemed to honestly not realize the severity of the situation. Matthew
knows it.
B. JW, being young, has great potential to change. According to Matthew, he's a
lot older, and has a vast history of flame. Not likely to change.
C. JW showed a distinct desire to change and reform himself in order to show
respect towards the community at large. Matthew has done the opposite. He's
refused to change, show remorse, or the slightest quark of respect.
Does this mean he should be permanently ousted? Maybe not. Perhaps if he shows
a willingness to change, he can appeal to Todd, whose judgement I trust in this
matter. But for now, I think it's better that he's gone.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
