So what do you need to do to get banned from LUGNet?
Jamie
wonderfull hatemail. I'll be holding a raffle later on with the winner
being the one to blow my brains out, that should make alot of people
happy.
Anyway, what do you need to do to get banned from there. I'm pretty
sure i didn't blow anything up or have anyone locked away, and the
emails aren't too clear on what i did, though the language is quite
brilliant!!
Cheers
Jamie
jam...@interworx.com.au
PS. Why didn't Lego license with the Tolkien lot for LOTR. Probably
would have been bigger than Potter, and a guaranteed 3 movie/year
deal?
Jason
emails?
LOTR construction toy license was bought by another company..Can't remember
the name :-(
Jamie <jam...@interworx.com.au> wrote in message
news:s5p82ugq2om5fsksq...@4ax.com...
Jason
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/au/?n=5267
Jamie <jam...@interworx.com.au> wrote in message
news:s5p82ugq2om5fsksq...@4ax.com...
Thubb Chubo
> LOTR construction toy license was bought by another company..Can't remember
> the name :-(
The company is Playmates, which has a heavy presence in the action
figure/doll market. The particular brand of LotR stuff is
"Intelli-Blox," and it uses the clone brand Tandem bricks.
Thubb
Jamie
truly kicked out. The messages, most of them ended up being personal.
Cheers
Jamie
Jamie
2433 was a real goodie, the guy has a good imagination. 2 Guys a
Grille and a cheese grater!!
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:31:48 +1000, "Jason" <king...@my-dejanews.com>
allegedly wrote:
Matthew
wrote:
I was banned from Lugnet...of course I kinda did some severe damage so
it's not like I didn't see it coming. Like when I attacked poor DEAD
James and the FREAKS who worship him. He, he, he, tormenting the
overly sensitive morons in the Lego community is something I take MUCH
pleasure in. ^_^
--
Thubb Chubo
>
> I was banned from Lugnet...of course I kinda did some severe damage so
> it's not like I didn't see it coming.
I've been on LUGNET for three years, and I don't remember you. When
were you there? And what sort of "damage" did you do?
Thubb
Thomas Tavrides
I have no idea what the whole "banned from lugnet" thing is, but that cube
on your website is cool.
Tom
<Matthew> wrote in message news:3c5f7906....@news.hscis.net...
Matthew
wrote:
You're kidding right? I mean, how could you have missed my presence
with quotes like these:
*****************************************************************
Ah yes, that website of yours.
That website being the incredible example of HTML and graphic
brilliance.
The website containing the disrespectful and inflammatory graphic that
reads:
James Jessiman is dead ... DEAL WITH IT NOW.
Yeah, pal, we're REAL interested in reading about updates to your
website.
*****************************************************************
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
>I'll give people the benifit of the doubt every day of the week, 24 hours a
>day. I may be a mug. I'm not the only one who thinks MM is just a poor sap who
>*perhaps* should get another chance in some sort of limited way.
You're one of the few, trust me. And in this instance I'd say the
overly-nice willingness of a few to make another misguided attempt to
allow this person disrupt our community is FAR outweighed by the
offense and outrage of the many who most certainly don't want daily
reminders of the hatred and disrespect he has shown for our community
and for James.
Almost nobody has touched on that issue since the original flamefest.
How can ANYONE trust even for a second anything this person has to say
knowing that he not only left that hateful garbage on his site while
posting his "apology" - after being called on it he CONTINUES to have
it there and, in fact, has attempted to mount a lame defense of it as
being in "his house" and therefore ok?
>I have read your other posts on this issue, I think you make a lot of good
>points. But the bitter tone you give it all may make others think you are
>lacking objectivity.
My posts have been bitter. I AM bitter. I'm spending several minutes
going through each of my posts making sure I don't slip up again with
any profanity because the ex-soldier in me best represents the kind of
loathing animosity I feel towards this person with words I shouldn't
use here. I could deal with the antisocial flaming and mindless
arrogance - I've dealt with losers like that before in my time, and
I'll deal with more I'm sure. I could even handle the "threats" since
I know that this guy, like most tough-talking net users, is made more
bold by the fact that he feels safe making his threats from his side
of the monitor, thinking that he is somehow insulated from real-world
repurcussions (be the legal or extra-legal). What I can't handle is
his disrespect for James, and I'm frankly startled at how some of you
seem to be able to handle it.
Yes sir, I am bitter. I lack objectivity. I've paid my dues and made
a contribution or two to this community - I'm allowed a little rage
over this attack on our community and one of our most beloved members.
You bet I am.
*****************************************************************
>If he continues to post in a way that is designed only to offend, I would be
>one of the first asking to see him gone, as I was before. But if he's really
>learned that kind of behaviour won't fly on Lugnet, and he wants to stay and
>abide by the social order we have here, why not give him a second chance?
>
>eric
Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
Don't fall for plastic sentiment, faux remorse, and hollow words...
John
*****************************************************************
In general, I agree with you. However, Matthew used his website (in
my opinion) as a tool to damage and disrupt the community. He crafted
lies and misdirections, then posted something designed to stand out
and direct traffic at his site. I don't believe his apology is
sincere. He has said he will tone down the commentary on his web page
to accurately reflect his opinion, but has not done so. He has
claimed (sorry, don't recall exactly which post) that he's got other
things he has to do before changing the things on his webpage, but
that's a hollow excuse. He *HAS* updated his webpage, at least
once - there's new content there - but hasn't taken down or changed
any of the things he's claiming to apologize for.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for his opinions.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for whatever he feels like
putting on his webpage.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for his actual posts on Lugnet
(there's been worse offenders, IMHO).
I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious
attack on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
Like I said somewhere else, this probably makes me look like a jerk,
but oh well.
James
*****************************************************************
I can't recall where exactly he said it (in a couple places, I think),
but Matthew admitted in a post on Lugnet that he faked the content on
his website and made the inflamatory remarks that he did specifically
to damage the Lego community. IMO, that's where he crossed the line.
(my personal line - I don't know about other people, or where exactly
he crossed the line WRT Lugnet ToS)
If that sort of activity *isn't* ToSable, it should be.
*****************************************************************
Matthew,
I have to admit I was mad and hurt. You do not have much of my respect
right now considering the manner in which you pulled your 'stunt'. As
far as you being banned, I am glad Todd did it and I am glad he is
giving you the chance to voice yourself now.
Yesterday I posted a page flaming you and the events that transpired.
But Todd asked me to take it down to not fuel the fire and in fact he
replied three times to my post announcing it each each calmer then the
one previous :-). He was right and I took it down within less than an
hour of putting it up.
Even now writing this, I find it hard not to get emotional (angry).
But emotions aside you made a good point, but you did it in a *totally
wrong way*. And you have to suffer the consequences of that, whatever
they may be.
Jude
*****************************************************************
Ah, ok. So exactly what part of "James Jessiman is dead - DEAL WITH
IT NOW" didn't truly express what you feel? Exactly how will you
"revise" that disgusting piece of hate-garbage to more accurately
express your feelings? Will we be treated to a nice rational treatise
on how stupid we are for fondly remembering a good friend? Perhaps
you'll throw in some more learned comments about how backwards the
whole LCAD thing is because of our brainless devotion to our - what
did you call him - tin god? Maybe you'll record a wav file of you
calling James' family and making fun of their dead son? I'm sure his
family's tears would make good material for you - right?
*****************************************************************
>I think the reason I picked Jude and the particular time was that if I
>did it I wouldn't really be attacking anything. Jude didn't have
>anything on the webpage,
Poor excuse... flawed rationale ... "cruel joke"
Overall, a "stunt" that injured one person and angered others ...
which has been your stated intent.
>I have no doubt that at some point there will
>be many interesting additions to the Lego community and I wouldn't
>dare attack those.
Based on past experience, I think you will attack anything you want
when you are bored or whenever it strikes your fancy.
Your principle form of communication seems to be antagonism.
>I know that my opinions have the ability to hurt feelings.
I disagree with you...
Your opinions and your method of communication is inefficient and
damaging.
>Yes I was rude, yes I was
>brash, yes I was opinionated, what did it bring? A closer look at
>yourselves.
It is possible to discuss the elephant in the room without kicking
it...You never tried.
You pulled a stunt for the purpos of stirring controversy (similar to
the one in rtl awhile ago, that you still brag about all over usenet)
You enjoy "screamig FIRE" in the virtual theater and then tripping and
ridiculing those that leave.
I do not subscribe to your martyr-like crusade of self righteous
indignation towards the LUGNET community of Lego enthuiasts. If this
incident revealed something about us...
WHAT DOES IT REVEAL ABOUT YOU?
>I'm not going to lie to you, many people do not see me as
>a nice person, I try to get people to think differently and sometimes
>my methods are very fringe. Did I deserve to get banned?
YES... I believe you should be permanently banned. Let's not play the
persecuted artist, the misunderstood philosopher, or the persecuted
revolutionary crap... You are none of these things. Your rationale is
flawed, your reasoning is circular, and your attitude blows. You enjoy
manipulating people and situations in the on-line world on a level
that is perverse and pathological (AND BEYOND REDEMPTION)
For 3 years you have travelled from one end of the internet to the
other building a reputation that is offensive by the most liberal of
thinkers (how many isps, name changes, scams, troll posts, stunts,
wars, etc.?) Well, you only get one reputation in this life...LIVE
WITH YOURS...enjoy it, but not here.
You employ Machiavellian antics in group interactions for the sole
purpose of creating anarchy, ridiculing "the ignorance of others", and
couch it in the guise of being a revolutionray or intuitive reformer
Bahhhhhh...
You are manipulative and disengenous
You ARE disrespectful
You lack maturity
You don't play well with the other children ...
Your attitude is negative
You show no remorse
You have ingendered much ill-will that CAN'T be undone
You have made threats
I could go on, but you get the point.
I further assert that you lack credibility and the ability to change
your behavior based on your current and previous conduct
I want you banned FOREVER. Case closed.
John
(Todd, I think it's a BIG mistake to not remove a cancer before it
spreads)
*****************************************************************
Matthew
<ttavrid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Mathew,
>I have no idea what the whole "banned from lugnet" thing is, but that cube
>on your website is cool.
>Tom
Yeah, originally it was some kind of new age cyber picture frame
thing, I decompiled it and turned it into something a little more
useful. Now that I think of it, I really need to fire up LDraw and
get to updating that site with all the new models I've been working
on.
-Matthew
Thubb Chubo
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:07:43 GMT, Thubb Chubo <Th...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I was banned from Lugnet...of course I kinda did some severe damage so
> >> it's not like I didn't see it coming.
>
> > I've been on LUGNET for three years, and I don't remember you. When
> >were you there? And what sort of "damage" did you do?
>
> You're kidding right? I mean, how could you have missed my presence
> with quotes like these:
Hmm. Well, I don't follow flame-fests, so I suppose I tuned it out.
When did this all transpire?
More to the point, what's the attraction of causing "damage" to
someone's website? I'm not really criticizing--I just don't understand.
Thubb
Matthew
wrote:
>Matthew wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:07:43 GMT, Thubb Chubo <Th...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I was banned from Lugnet...of course I kinda did some severe damage so
>> >> it's not like I didn't see it coming.
>>
>> > I've been on LUGNET for three years, and I don't remember you. When
>> >were you there? And what sort of "damage" did you do?
>>
>> You're kidding right? I mean, how could you have missed my presence
>> with quotes like these:
>
> Hmm. Well, I don't follow flame-fests, so I suppose I tuned it out.
>When did this all transpire?
About a year or two ago I think.
> More to the point, what's the attraction of causing "damage" to
>someone's website? I'm not really criticizing--I just don't understand.
There is no point, I'm sorta chaotic like that. ^_^
Well, there is the whole ripping emotions and character traits out of
people and then integrating them into my own sense of being in order
to gain a greater understanding of things and to use for creative
endeavors, but most people have trouble understanding how that process
works so I just leave them to make whatever little assumptions they
like.
Becky
Why LDraw? Why don't you actually build some of these creations out of
the real bricks?
b-
Matthew
>Matthew wrote in message news:<3c3d160f....@news.hscis.net>...
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 02:30:48 GMT, "Thomas Tavrides"
>> <ttavrid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Mathew,
>> >I have no idea what the whole "banned from lugnet" thing is, but that cube
>> >on your website is cool.
>> >Tom
>>
>> Yeah, originally it was some kind of new age cyber picture frame
>> thing, I decompiled it and turned it into something a little more
>> useful. Now that I think of it, I really need to fire up LDraw and
>> get to updating that site with all the new models I've been working
>> on.
>Why LDraw? Why don't you actually build some of these creations out of
>the real bricks?
Um, every creation on the site started out as a real physical
model...as does every model I make...including the ones I need to
rebuild in LDraw, in order to put on the site, so that it can be
updated... o_O
Thubb Chubo
> > More to the point, what's the attraction of causing "damage" to
> >someone's website? I'm not really criticizing--I just don't understand.
>
> There is no point, I'm sorta chaotic like that. ^_^
> Well, there is the whole ripping emotions and character traits out of
> people and then integrating them into my own sense of being in order
> to gain a greater understanding of things and to use for creative
> endeavors, but most people have trouble understanding how that process
> works so I just leave them to make whatever little assumptions they
> like.
Not really to my taste, but I suppose there's something to be said for
shaking the tree to see what comes loose. I'd be interested to see the
impact of some of these "ripped" emotions as they affect your creative
endeavors, but I don't think that sort of harvest would be useful.
Regardless, I checked out your site briefly--that spinning cube is
really nifty! I like your models, too. There's a lot to be said for
simplicity of design, and it's cool to see things (virtually) built with
so few pieces. Do you render them using POV-Ray and L3P? Something in
the image quality looks different from the usual POV-Ray stuff I've
seen, but I can't put my finger on it. I'd also like to see some of
your models rendered under brighter lighting, so that the detail can be
viewed more easily. Nice stuff, though!
Later,
Thubb
Matthew
wrote:
> Not really to my taste, but I suppose there's something to be said for
>shaking the tree to see what comes loose.
I really am MAD you know. `, )
>I'd be interested to see the
>impact of some of these "ripped" emotions as they affect your creative
>endeavors, but I don't think that sort of harvest would be useful.
The models on my site...I couldn't have made those, if I haden't
destroyed various people and groups. You may not think it's possible,
and I have no problems with you thinking that, it's human nature to be
ignorant to the unexplainable.
> Regardless, I checked out your site briefly--that spinning cube is
>really nifty! I like your models, too. There's a lot to be said for
>simplicity of design, and it's cool to see things (virtually) built with
>so few pieces.
LOL, you uh, you didn't bother looking at the instructions to some of
the models, did you? While a lot of the models have a very simple and
practical look, I can assure you, they are some of the most complex
ever made. Especially in regards to the angling and slope techniques.
Might wanna take the time to build one of the models yourself using
the instructions, then it'll be easier to see what I'm talking about.
The most complex model on the site is the Black Hawk, although I
haven't made isntructions for it yet. If you really look at the Black
Hawk though and take the time to try and make out the various pieces
you'll start to see just how complex it really is. For instances, the
back side peices of the Hawk, those are castle corner pieces. Some of
the detail you can't really see though unless you build it, like the
inside of the back engines. And yes, every model on the site can be
built in real life and without any glue. Although some are more
delicate than others.
I've also got some REALLY big ships, but I haven't the computer power
needed to build them in LDraw. I've been doing experiments with
building them in sections though, although even then it seems like any
little thing will cause the entire system to crash.
>Do you render them using POV-Ray and L3P?
Yup.
>Something in
>the image quality looks different from the usual POV-Ray stuff I've
>seen, but I can't put my finger on it.
Well POV-Ray saves files in bitmap format, so most everybody resaves
them as JPG's or GIF's, and if it's not done correctly quality can be
lost in the process. Another thing that I do, which may or may not
make a huge differnece is I use a light blue background in the
rendering, but then fill it with a black background afterwards. I've
found that if you go ahead and render with a black background when you
start, the models don't really show up as well. Uh, it should be
noted though that you should pick a color similar to any transparent
bricks, otherwise it might turn out a little strange.
>I'd also like to see some of
>your models rendered under brighter lighting, so that the detail can be
>viewed more easily. Nice stuff, though!
I think using a different color for the models themselves would make
them easier to see as well. I noticed that my brothers models tend to
show up better and he uses grey and dark grey as his primary building
colors. Overall though nothing beats actually seeing the models in
real life, which is why I went through the trouble of making
instructions for them. On a side note, if anyone has any tips
regarding lighting techniques in POV-Ray, I'm all ears. I've messed
around with different things for a few hours, but I could never seem
to find anything that worked REALLY well.
-Matthew
Jamie Obrien
(From emails to me)
Killed Todd
Killed Suz
Killed James (BTW the little buggers emailed 4 times since october, not bad
for someone who's been dead for a while. How the hell am i going to get him
back?)
Got Lawrence arrested
and lastly something about a movement to get Lego banned.
Oh well.
Cheers
Jamie
jam...@interworx.com.au
PS -Matthew is your brick thing working OK, i can't get it to do much when
i double click some of the sides.
http://www.petitmorte.net/the_brick/index.html
Cheers!
Matthew
<jam...@interworx.com.au> wrote:
>Hi, at least you know what you got kicked for. It seems not only did i:
>(From emails to me)
>
>Killed Todd
>Killed Suz
>Killed James (BTW the little buggers emailed 4 times since october, not bad
>for someone who's been dead for a while. How the hell am i going to get him
>back?)
>Got Lawrence arrested
>and lastly something about a movement to get Lego banned.
>
>Oh well.
He, he, he...I rather enjoyed Todd, we had quite a few intriguing
discussions in private e-mail. He was one of the more intelligent
people on Lugnet, along with David Eaton too, in fact I'd say David
was about the most intelligent person on the entire server at the
time. I haven't reallly been following any of the recent events so I
don't really know what's going on, or what's happened, other than I
guess Todd left or something (I probably know better than anyone as to
the why).
>PS -Matthew is your brick thing working OK, i can't get it to do much when
>i double click some of the sides.
Single clicking works much better. Although for the sake of Microsoft
conformity I suppose I should switch it around. Hrmmm...