Re: VT Shooter, A Mac user.... (maybe, maybe not)

"Jesus" <rustybucket666@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
1176871787.770352.147710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 4/17/07 9:49 PM:


That's great. That's not the point of my post. Steve righfully
condemned Zara's and MuahMan's posts, while John took the same tactic
by blaming Vista for pepole getting shot.

If John did that it was not right.

He sure did.

"Actually it has been established that the guy had a new computer with
Windows Vista. Probably all the bugs drove him crazy."

I find that to be in very poor taste and to be completely inappropriate. I
do not find it, however, to be as bad as to directly accuse someone of
something like rape or to threaten someone with violence.

Above, however, it looks like John was
responding to the comments I quoted and merely noted:

FACT: When Steve went away for a week 95% of BS off-topic
trolling went away!

The full post of Steve's that John replied to can be seen here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a18f3409ffa7...>

In that post... the point was that John was once again adding nothing,
except he ALSO blamed Vista for innocent people getting shot in an
earlier post in this same thread.

That quote, however, does not even appear in the post of Steve's John was
replying to. Steve was responding to me. Here is the context, including
the full text of the four posts before Steve's!:

----------
Dave Fritzinger:
To be fair, I am very pleased that the majority of the
Windows advocates here have, rightly, slammed Muahman, as he
deserves. This shows that, though we disagree with them
about computer choice (and, in some cases, much else), they
are reasonable people. I certainly wouldn't put Windows
advocates such as Tom Elam, Edwin and the Mayor in the same
catagory as Zara and Muahman.

-hh:
Agreed.

Dr. Zara:
Remember when you expressed the desire to shoot and kill me?
If you forgot - I didn't.

Snit:
People in CSMA often have no idea what liability their
online threats and accusations can lead to... dishonest
accusations of rape and inappropriate sexual advances,
claims of illegal drug use, or even of just accusations of
making calls and emails to someone's home based on Usenet
debates have been thrown around in CSMA, for example. Those
who toss around such things in a public forum are putting
themselves in a position to be held legally liable...
something they clearly are too ignorant to understand.

Steve Carroll:
Go tell your lawyer that in the forum you posted under an
alias while trolling a newsgroup people said things you
didn't like. Come back and talk about that experience.
You'll get a really expensive lesson in reality... and I'll
get another laugh at your expense. You can't be this
stupid... you just CAN'T be...
----------

Steve jumped in and made all sorts of accusations against me and spewed his
normal insulting BS into CMSA. He also quoted me out of context and
attributed a quote to me that I did not write. There really is no good
defense for Steve's little fit there.

Steve was not condemning Zara or Muahman with those comments,

Earlier he did.

"Yeah... it's even worse than linking Maccies to people who issue death
threats. My take: Mass murdering can be linked to people committing mass
murder. Issuing death threats can be linked to people who issue death threats.
A person's choice of computer has nothing to do with the kind of instability
that is required to undertake either activity."

How is that relevant to Steve's little rant, above?

he was responding to my stating that people should be careful of the
accusations they toss around CSMA. I did not even mention Steve though, as
any long time reader of CSMA knows, he is likely the worst example of people
who do such things. Heck, he seems to take pride in his inappropriate
actions.

Does that not bother you, Snit? How much of an insensitive *** does John
have to be to think that is at all appropriate? John owes ALL Windows users
and ALL the people affected by that shooting an apology. Why are you more
interested in Steve accusing you of posting under a different alias than
getting John to apologize? Even worse, why are you replying on behalf of
John again?

If John did as you said I do not approve... but I responded to John's
comments about Steve's comments because Steve was responding to my
comments... there is nothing wrong with that.

I was complaining that you replied to my post slamming John for his outrageous
post by seemingly excusing John and once again complaining about Steve. You
had made not one mention of John's crap, nor had you addressed the main point
of my original post in this series.

Perhaps you have become confused as to what part of the sub-thread I was
responding to? Your comments are completely incorrect - and it is not your
norm to lie. Here is the Google page which points to the sub-thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/91a5
3578ce4d80b1/a18f3409ffa7708e>. And here is a screen shot...
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/thread.gif>

Note that neither you nor John had posted in that sub-thread before Steve
threw his public fit about my comments. His post is #12 in the image.

Shall I be receiving a retraction and an apology from you now? :)

--
? If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
? Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
? One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted





.