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


"Jesus" <rustybucket666@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1176937173.091251.55970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 18, 6:48 pm, "John" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1176936348.925014.81040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



> On Apr 18, 12:35 pm, "John" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>>news:1176935622.710827.3720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> > On Apr 18, 1:16 am, Snit <C...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
>> >> 1176871787.770352.147...@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.

>> > OK. Thank you.

>> >> 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.

>> > If that were serious, yes. However, I have not seen that first-hand
>> > here, so I can't really comment.

>> >> >> 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!:

>> > You're right. I was pissed at John for the Vista post and he was >> > once
>> > again posting the exact same useless post after having been >> > incredibly
>> > offensive, so I responded in this sub-thread.

>> >> ----------
>> >> 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?

>> > It's not. It just shows that on the actual topic of this thread,
>> > Steve is reasonable and John's incredibly offensive.

>> >> >> 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/threa...
>> >> 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? :)

>> > It was not my intent to chime in on the prior topic of this sub-
>> > thread. I was responding to a combination of all of John's posts in
>> > this entire thread. Sorry for the confusion or any mistaken
>> > connections that may have been drawn.

>> > On a related note, while I agree that threats against others have no
>> > place here, I don't understand why they were brought up here. No
>> > actual threats were made here - Zara just brought up something that
>> > supposedly happened in the past (and that I never saw). As a >> > result,
>> > I was confused as to why you were posting with Zara and not >> > addressing
>> > the real topic of this thread. Very easy thing to be confused by.

>> > I'd like to note that John still hasn't apologized.

>> I am not going to apologize. Among the evidence ceased was a new
>> Windows
>> laptop(Vista). I was just making a statement of fact.

> Two points, John. First, the word is "seized", not ceased (which would
> mean stopped-you've now made this mistake in two seperate posts, so it
> wasn't a typo). Second, you also tried to blame the murderer's actions
> on Vista crashing, which, IMNSHO, puts you in the same boat as zero
> and mooman.
> --

I was obviously trolling a troll with factual statements.

Bull***. Vista crashes leading to that shooting is not fact (that
comment is the current issue, in case you haven't noticed).

You need to> lighten up. It's not like we haven't heard about mentally ill people on
this group. In fact one sick *** devotes most of his day to trolling a
particular menber of this group.

You?

Apologize for your absurd, uncaring, disgusting comment.




Only if you apologize for being technically incompetent and the mentally SLOWEST person in history ever to post on this group.

.