Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Renaldo
    Guest
    On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, [email protected] (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.



    See More: Where are you now fluffers




  2. #2
    Renaldo
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, [email protected] (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.



  3. #3
    William Bray
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    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 <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, [email protected] (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]



  4. #4
    William Bray
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    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 <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, [email protected] (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]



  5. #5
    p lane
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    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 <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, [email protected] (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]



  6. #6
    p lane
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    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 <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, [email protected] (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]



  7. #7
    RW parrot
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    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.


    [email protected] (William Bray) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > 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 <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, [email protected] (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]



  8. #8
    RW parrot
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    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.


    [email protected] (William Bray) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > 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 <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:29:39 -0000, [email protected] (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]



  9. #9
    Renaldo
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:06:15 -0000, [email protected] (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"



  10. #10
    Renaldo
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:06:15 -0000, [email protected] (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"



  11. #11
    Al Klein
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 06:03:21 -0000, [email protected] (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



  12. #12
    Al Klein
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 06:03:21 -0000, [email protected] (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



  13. #13
    Paul Kim
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    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: [email protected]
    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" <[email protected]> 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.





  14. #14
    Paul Kim
    Guest

    Re: Where are you now fluffers

    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: [email protected]
    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" <[email protected]> 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.





  • Similar Threads