Re: Where are you now fluffers

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
wrote:

>
>an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
>the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
>habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".


This was not a mere posting of data for information purposes.
This is totally disingenuous as if you read the pice from "Anonymous"
(identity disclosed elsewhere) folks were instructed what to do with
the information.

It is too bad, you can not bring yourself to disavow that posting as
Smith has.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
wrote:

>
>an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
>the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
>habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".


This was not a mere posting of data for information purposes.
This is totally disingenuous as if you read the pice from "Anonymous"
(identity disclosed elsewhere) folks were instructed what to do with
the information.

It is too bad, you can not bring yourself to disavow that posting as
Smith has.

This thing took on a life of it's own. I restate my position that this
attack on Justin was underhanded. No one has business saying stuff like
this. It is simply not appropriate. To say that you are annoyed with
someone is one thing, but this attack? I agree with a lot of these
posts- very bad form.

Renaldo <berlescr@mail.rome.univ.it> wrote in article
<3b9jpv4l6a0d0njkt1654ao4l2nlrvqqcc@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
> >the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
> >habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".
>
>
> This was not a mere posting of data for information purposes.
> This is totally disingenuous as if you read the pice from "Anonymous"
> (identity disclosed elsewhere) folks were instructed what to do with
> the information.
>
> It is too bad, you can not bring yourself to disavow that posting as
> Smith has.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

This thing took on a life of it's own. I restate my position that this
attack on Justin was underhanded. No one has business saying stuff like
this. It is simply not appropriate. To say that you are annoyed with
someone is one thing, but this attack? I agree with a lot of these
posts- very bad form.

Renaldo <berlescr@mail.rome.univ.it> wrote in article
<3b9jpv4l6a0d0njkt1654ao4l2nlrvqqcc@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
> >the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
> >habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".
>
>
> This was not a mere posting of data for information purposes.
> This is totally disingenuous as if you read the pice from "Anonymous"
> (identity disclosed elsewhere) folks were instructed what to do with
> the information.
>
> It is too bad, you can not bring yourself to disavow that posting as
> Smith has.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

I realize that I should not respond to your comments, which you have a
right to. It is also the right of Justin or who ever to post whatever
he wishes, but once they do this publically, I feel he has opened
himself to whatever comes from it. All of us, including myself
occasionally make poorly thought out comments, however, if his posts
totaled the 500 or so as described, and so many were very crude, and
personally offensive. There were many calls for this to cease, all of
which were ignored, ridiculed, and worse. Although this may be the
classic case of not getting into a pissing contest with a skunk, still
yet, I think he pushed his free speech too far.


Character is what you do when you think no one is watching you, and if
someone acts like this secretly, then I would not want him for an
employee, and would appreciate someone letting me know of .

My main problem was not the content of the posts, but nuisance of those
posts jamming up the forum with so many posts that useful info was
difficult to find, and probably discouraged others from making posts.

I find these forums very useful, and have been pointed out as wrong, and
in the majority of the posts have helped me learn or understand
something. Most of his posts were just taking up space---Only my
opinion, and I don't mean to offend anyone----but have you noticed how
much the trafficker is down here in the last 24 hours.



thanks all. and especially to anoyomius

Renaldo <berlescr@mail.rome.univ.it> wrote in article
<3b9jpv4l6a0d0njkt1654ao4l2nlrvqqcc@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
> >the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
> >habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".
>
>
> This was not a mere posting of data for information purposes.
> This is totally disingenuous as if you read the pice from "Anonymous"
> (identity disclosed elsewhere) folks were instructed what to do with
> the information.
>
> It is too bad, you can not bring yourself to disavow that posting as
> Smith has.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

I realize that I should not respond to your comments, which you have a
right to. It is also the right of Justin or who ever to post whatever
he wishes, but once they do this publically, I feel he has opened
himself to whatever comes from it. All of us, including myself
occasionally make poorly thought out comments, however, if his posts
totaled the 500 or so as described, and so many were very crude, and
personally offensive. There were many calls for this to cease, all of
which were ignored, ridiculed, and worse. Although this may be the
classic case of not getting into a pissing contest with a skunk, still
yet, I think he pushed his free speech too far.


Character is what you do when you think no one is watching you, and if
someone acts like this secretly, then I would not want him for an
employee, and would appreciate someone letting me know of .

My main problem was not the content of the posts, but nuisance of those
posts jamming up the forum with so many posts that useful info was
difficult to find, and probably discouraged others from making posts.

I find these forums very useful, and have been pointed out as wrong, and
in the majority of the posts have helped me learn or understand
something. Most of his posts were just taking up space---Only my
opinion, and I don't mean to offend anyone----but have you noticed how
much the trafficker is down here in the last 24 hours.



thanks all. and especially to anoyomius

Renaldo <berlescr@mail.rome.univ.it> wrote in article
<3b9jpv4l6a0d0njkt1654ao4l2nlrvqqcc@4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
> >the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
> >habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".
>
>
> This was not a mere posting of data for information purposes.
> This is totally disingenuous as if you read the pice from "Anonymous"
> (identity disclosed elsewhere) folks were instructed what to do with
> the information.
>
> It is too bad, you can not bring yourself to disavow that posting as
> Smith has.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

William, simply stated, this is the United States of America not the UK.
in this country one is afforded the right to express his or her opinon
(good or bad) without fear of procesacution as long as the statements
are factual or believed to be as such.
Public information is just that PUBLIC and if "Anonymous" cares to share
that information, again well within his rights.
As for the suggestion that persons should call or otherwise contact the
employers or family or the offender (Justin) it is simply that, a
suggestion. This would be the same as if I were to suggest that all
Americans boycott a certain company or product because of a personal
issue I have with them. It is up to the individual to decide if they
will involve themselves in the boycott.

In short pick your battles; it is not always a virtue to be on the side
of the underdog.


wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
<voeer7q7phjvcc@corp.supernews.com>:
> This thing took on a life of it's own. I restate my position that this
> attack on Justin was underhanded. No one has business saying stuff like
> this. It is simply not appropriate. To say that you are annoyed with
> someone is one thing, but this attack? I agree with a lot of these
> posts- very bad form.
>
> Renaldo <berlescr@mail.rome.univ.it> wrote in article
> <3b9jpv4l6a0d0njkt1654ao4l2nlrvqqcc@4ax.com>:
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
> > >the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
> > >habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".
> >
> >
> > This was not a mere posting of data for information purposes.
> > This is totally disingenuous as if you read the pice from "Anonymous"
> > (identity disclosed elsewhere) folks were instructed what to do with
> > the information.
> >
> > It is too bad, you can not bring yourself to disavow that posting as
> > Smith has.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

William, simply stated, this is the United States of America not the UK.
in this country one is afforded the right to express his or her opinon
(good or bad) without fear of procesacution as long as the statements
are factual or believed to be as such.
Public information is just that PUBLIC and if "Anonymous" cares to share
that information, again well within his rights.
As for the suggestion that persons should call or otherwise contact the
employers or family or the offender (Justin) it is simply that, a
suggestion. This would be the same as if I were to suggest that all
Americans boycott a certain company or product because of a personal
issue I have with them. It is up to the individual to decide if they
will involve themselves in the boycott.

In short pick your battles; it is not always a virtue to be on the side
of the underdog.


wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
<voeer7q7phjvcc@corp.supernews.com>:
> This thing took on a life of it's own. I restate my position that this
> attack on Justin was underhanded. No one has business saying stuff like
> this. It is simply not appropriate. To say that you are annoyed with
> someone is one thing, but this attack? I agree with a lot of these
> posts- very bad form.
>
> Renaldo <berlescr@mail.rome.univ.it> wrote in article
> <3b9jpv4l6a0d0njkt1654ao4l2nlrvqqcc@4ax.com>:
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, planenospam@usa.com (p lane)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
> > >the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
> > >habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".
> >
> >
> > This was not a mere posting of data for information purposes.
> > This is totally disingenuous as if you read the pice from "Anonymous"
> > (identity disclosed elsewhere) folks were instructed what to do with
> > the information.
> >
> > It is too bad, you can not bring yourself to disavow that posting as
> > Smith has.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:06:15 -0000, wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray)
wrote:

>This thing took on a life of it's own. I restate my position that this
>attack on Justin was underhanded. No one has business saying stuff like
>this. It is simply not appropriate. To say that you are annoyed with
>someone is one thing, but this attack? I agree with a lot of these
>posts- very bad form.
>


And you happily piled on, posting this 2 days ago before you became
"Anonymous".: Now you want to pretend otherwise?

> It is very annoying and stupid to find troll **** all over the place.



Mr. Bray = "Anonymous"

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:06:15 -0000, wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray)
wrote:

>This thing took on a life of it's own. I restate my position that this
>attack on Justin was underhanded. No one has business saying stuff like
>this. It is simply not appropriate. To say that you are annoyed with
>someone is one thing, but this attack? I agree with a lot of these
>posts- very bad form.
>


And you happily piled on, posting this 2 days ago before you became
"Anonymous".: Now you want to pretend otherwise?

> It is very annoying and stupid to find troll **** all over the place.



Mr. Bray = "Anonymous"

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 06:03:21 -0000, rwparrot@yXaXhXoXoX.com (RW
parrot) posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>William, simply stated, this is the United States of America not the UK.
>in this country one is afforded the right to express his or her opinon
>(good or bad) without fear of procesacution as long as the statements
>are factual or believed to be as such.

Yes, one is free to exhibit bad taste with no repercussions. And, no,
I'm not a Brit, I'm American

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 06:03:21 -0000, rwparrot@yXaXhXoXoX.com (RW
parrot) posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>William, simply stated, this is the United States of America not the UK.
>in this country one is afforded the right to express his or her opinon
>(good or bad) without fear of procesacution as long as the statements
>are factual or believed to be as such.

Yes, one is free to exhibit bad taste with no repercussions. And, no,
I'm not a Brit, I'm American

NNTP-Posting-Host: acc61a49.ipt.aol.com
X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1066024346 6609 172.198.26.73 (13 Oct 2003 05:52:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Oct 2003 05:52:26 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.attws:15845 alt.cellular.cingular:23837 alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream:51349 alt.cellular.nextel:10739 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:120221 alt.cellular.verizon:123170


"RW parrot" <rwparrot@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
> William, simply stated, this is the United States of America not the UK.
> in this country one is afforded the right to express his or her opinon
> (good or bad) without fear of procesacution as long as the statements
> are factual or believed to be as such.
> Public information is just that PUBLIC and if "Anonymous" cares to share
> that information, again well within his rights.
> As for the suggestion that persons should call or otherwise contact the
> employers or family or the offender (Justin) it is simply that, a
> suggestion. This would be the same as if I were to suggest that all
> Americans boycott a certain company or product because of a personal
> issue I have with them. It is up to the individual to decide if they
> will involve themselves in the boycott.
>
> In short pick your battles; it is not always a virtue to be on the side
> of the underdog.
>

RW parrot, morality and the law don't always coincide.

NNTP-Posting-Host: acc61a49.ipt.aol.com
X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1066024346 6609 172.198.26.73 (13 Oct 2003 05:52:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Oct 2003 05:52:26 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.attws:15845 alt.cellular.cingular:23837 alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream:51349 alt.cellular.nextel:10739 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:120221 alt.cellular.verizon:123170


"RW parrot" <rwparrot@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
> William, simply stated, this is the United States of America not the UK.
> in this country one is afforded the right to express his or her opinon
> (good or bad) without fear of procesacution as long as the statements
> are factual or believed to be as such.
> Public information is just that PUBLIC and if "Anonymous" cares to share
> that information, again well within his rights.
> As for the suggestion that persons should call or otherwise contact the
> employers or family or the offender (Justin) it is simply that, a
> suggestion. This would be the same as if I were to suggest that all
> Americans boycott a certain company or product because of a personal
> issue I have with them. It is up to the individual to decide if they
> will involve themselves in the boycott.
>
> In short pick your battles; it is not always a virtue to be on the side
> of the underdog.
>

RW parrot, morality and the law don't always coincide.