|
Oh, Poor Matthew! (A teary farewell from a frustrated member) (OP is also evil!) (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kylle |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
your reaction is massively over-the-top |
I don't agree with that, since Eddie reacted like that because of his mother, i presume?
But Matthew it seems didn't know he was causing offence and apologized afterwards.
Although, i still don't understand why Eddie would let a guy like that get to him in the first place. Just skip his posts |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kylle
I really don't get why you have to pay attention to what he says and let it affect you to the point you want him banned? |
This dovetails into what Looney was saying about Matt having (at least posting with) the mind of a child.
Simply put, it's offensive and I don't feel like having to sift through it. It serves only to retard discourse as it devolves any interesting conversation to banal assertions, made by Matt, and well meaning, often well-written arguments that are completely ignored by him in favor of furthering his utter nonsense. The fact that I have an emotional investment not shared by everyone probably plays a role in the uniqueness of my response, as well. In the context of emotionally loaded thread topics, Matt's contributions are only conducive to trivializing their seriousness. I understand that not everyone shares my sentiments (even those who may have similar experiences to mine) but I'm quite sick of Matt's inappropriate bull.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
In all honesty, I can't be bothered to watch 9 minutes of religious dogma. If there's something in there that clearly shows Matt's meaning was "None of you people should judge this man" then please pull it out of there for me. |
I really don't blame you. It's silly and more notable for being a coercive guilt trip than it is for something that's relevant to the discussion. The basic gist of it is that if you're judging someone else's actions your own thought-life betrays the moral high-ground one supposes to be judging from. One's condemnation of infidelity, for instance (my example - may not actually be in the sermon but demonstrates the spirit of it, none-the-less), is contrasted to the incidental impulses to commit infidelity, yourself (i.e. the religious version of psychological projection). He contrives an allegory that, if your mind could be recorded on video-tape and shown to your best friend, it is unlikely your friend would want to have anything to do with you, afterward. I sincerely doubt, however, that the author of the sermon had any idea it would be cited in conjunction with such an extreme example of immorality.
Matthew's thoughts on the video and on the topic, in general:
| quote: | There's no way people can be categorized as either good or bad because the truth is, everyone has a dark side. People are inherently evil because everyone has done something immoral at some point in their lives. Certain people are more publicized than others considering the severity of the crime committed, but the shooter isn't any worse than a baby that came outta the womb. Sin is an inescapable trait handed down from the event that took place in the garden of eden.
God is the ultimate judge though, and I have faith that all 12 victims went to paradise. |
| quote: | This upcoming checklist isn't directed to anybody. Here it is:
Have you ever:
lied? [ ]
disliked someone [ ]
thought about or went through with fornication? [ ]
stolen something? [ ]
If you checkmarked at least one of these, then congratulations, you're evil. |
| quote: | And what's not absurd to say is that the suspect isn't some rare, marginalized individual from society. He could've been any person walking on God's green earth. Imagine the evil he was continuously thinking the day he conceived the idea of murdering people 'til the moment he left around carnage. I'm not judging him but I could assure that he was thinking about evil relentlessly.
The bottom line is, men are evil. |
| quote: | | any philosopher would acknowledge that evil thoughts lead to evil deeds. |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
No, that was poorly worded - I'd just woke up when I wrote it, for what that's worth. (I have a habit of turning my laptop on to keep me awake after my alarm has gone off.) What I mean is that your reaction is massively over-the-top compared to anyone else's, and should in no way be used as the interpretative framework from which to administer a suspension. You have effectively demanded Matt be censored, when I would not censor you for what you wrote.
And I don't buy into this "spam" argument either - for one simple reason. Matt only posts extensively on this subject when people reply to him about it. That's called discussion. Spam is when someone posts irrelevant content without prompting and thus clogs up a channel of communication with unrelated and obstructive information. |
I'd say that my reaction, while over-the-top, was precisely the confrontation Matt was looking for - albeit more than he bargained for. His arguments were met with admonition to stop and he ignored them. They were met with logic and reason and he replied with obliviousness. It's not until he gets called out for being a complete -head that he decides to double-down and, when it gets too hot in the kitchen, lashes out.
He wasn't interested in entertaining a discussion. If he were, there would have been a discussion. Instead, he's only interested in advancing his opinion for the sake of being immaturely provocative. I'm at least willing to examine my assumptions and beliefs and, if not make myself better understood, concede to the possibility I'm wrong. Maybe Matt has shown himself capable of that in something I haven't read but I've only ever read provocation, intractability, evasion, and other forms of avoidance that indicate, quite clearly, he holds himself completely unaccountable for most of the bull he espouses. |
|
|
| Zharen |
| I'm with you all the way Eddie. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| I think we can all agree that Matt got what was coming to him and J00F man, J00F. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
He wasn't interested in entertaining a discussion. If he were, there would have been a discussion. Instead, he's only interested in advancing his opinion for the sake of being immaturely provocative. I'm at least willing to examine my assumptions and beliefs and, if not make myself better understood, concede to the possibility I'm wrong. Maybe Matt has shown himself capable of that in something I haven't read but I've only ever read provocation, intractability, evasion, and other forms of avoidance that indicate, quite clearly, he holds himself completely unaccountable for most of the bull he espouses. |
His signal to noise is not so great but better than others. I do think this site meant more to him than it did for others. He has issues. I kinda feel bad for him. I don't think he meant harm. He is just a little closed minded. All one would have to do is ignore him. I do think the onus is on those that aren't retarded and can conceptualize what is going on and be the adult rather than expecting a child who for all things other people have done is not that contentious. He was annoying. I think the most sensible thing would of been to ignore him. The function is there.
Was the ban explicitly temporary ? He did seem to ask about it and that it should be permanent. I think cool out time is not so bad. If that is the case, then I guess that is up to the mods. It seems to have got a lot more attention than it requires. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
Was the ban explicitly temporary ? |
Of course it was! Do you really believe I'd ban someone for eternity because he posted a slightly callous message like that? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
I liked the time that I messaged Bas on AIM and was like "Do you want an excuse to ban IGK?" and he was like "HELL YEA!"
So he had quoted an image I had hosted someplace, so I replaced it with hardcore anal porn, and posted below it, quoting him "OMG HE IS POSTING PORN!" and sent the link to Bas and IGK took a vacation.
:D That was fun. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Of course it was! Do you really believe I'd ban someone for eternity because he posted a slightly callous message like that? |
maybe a permanent ban would actually be good for him. He needs to get out there. |
|
|
| Psyshell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
maybe a permanent ban would actually be good for him. He needs to get out there. |
The problem is, I've heard swamper say repeatedly that he likes to let whoever be here and doesn't really ban people based on personality too much.
Fair enough if there's been a policy change but I'd like to hear it from the mods explicitly first. Obviously there's a big difference between someone who's a bit stupid to the level of the person in question, and someone who just spams and literally no one likes (who obviously warrants a ban... cough dykes on jay). |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psyshell
The problem is, I've heard swamper say repeatedly that he likes to let whoever be here and doesn't really ban people based on personality too much.
Fair enough if there's been a policy change but I'd like to hear it from the mods explicitly first. |
Users on TA very, very rarely get banned. Plenty of people earn 1 or 2 week suspensions for various things, but an outright ban is only reserved for very special folks.
Again, for those of you still wondering, Matt was not banned, it was a 2 week suspension. He was the one that flipped out and claimed he's leaving the site permanently. And that's his choice.
I'm amazed that this is still being discussed :wtf: |
|
|
| Psyshell |
| May I humbly suggest that people always get a "if you do that again you're banned for 2 weeks" first instead of a straight up suspension? I don't know of any other forums that don't use warnings, and there's a good reason why. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psyshell
May I humbly suggest that people always get a "if you do that again you're banned for 2 weeks" first instead of a straight up suspension? I don't know of any other forums that don't use warnings, and there's a good reason why. |
We do that regularly. Over the years though, Matt has been suspended many, many times by a number of the mods here. Past the point of warnings, IMO.
It depends on the infringement though. We have to keep you mofos on your toes. That's the beauty of TA :gsmile: |
|
|
|
|
