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


"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@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. 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.

.