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

"Jesus" <rustybucket666@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
1176935622.710827.3720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 4/18/07 3:33 PM:

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.

Sure...

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.

I am speaking in more general terms... if I were to, say, threaten you by
saying I knew where you lived and then posted the names of your neighbors
and saying I am having one of them watch you... well, that would be just
outright wrong (I do not believe I have used that example in this thread...
just trying to find one that is not offensive to Steve).

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.

You made a mistake. No big deal... you have handled your error in a
reasonable way in this post.

----------
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.

I do not defend John's comments nor have any problems with Steve's in that
area.

The topic in this subthread, however, was what is appropriate to post to a
public forum. Dr. Zara's comments were appropriate (assuming they are true
- there have been accusations that they were not!). I merely noted that
while the comments about all users of one system being possible killers or
threats of violence against others were inappropriate, there are many other
things people should not post to a public forum... accusations of rape and
sexually inappropriate comments, threats to contact employers, and the like.
Steve, for his own reasons, went off on me as if he felt he had done each of
those or something. It was weird.

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.

No problem... note my request was a bit tongue in cheek. :)

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.

Zara may have taken the thread off-topic some, but the idea of what should
and should not be posted to a public forum is a related issue. I was
discussing that issue... and it really is something worth thinking about.
People should not post certain things to a public forum, and those lines
have been crossed in the past. It is simply something I wish to never see
again in CSMA.

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

I have been asking Steve to retract and apologize for his statements of
non-truth (he freaks out when I call them lies)... he has a *lot* more to
apologize for, though John should retract his statement as well.


--
? Different version numbers refer to different versions
? Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
? The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM


.