[OT] Trolling for kicks.
Matthew Ardill
habit of "enflaming" people's passions for shits and giggles.
I'm not talking about the normal trolls who come in here, drop a bomb, and
leave just get the reaction and then leave laughing. No, I'm talking about
the long term ones. The ones who seem to enjoy picking fights with people,
who are derogatory to the group as a whole and who generally don't seem to
like any of the people here on the news group. I think we know who these
people are so it's not necessary to point fingers but what I can't
understand is why they do it?
I personally would not want to go to any place (even a place full of people
I hate) and stand around shouting vitriol which is what these people do.
They are so loathed and hated by people some people go out of their way to
make things difficult for them. I'm not a big new age hippy or anything
like that but I'm of the opinion if there is so much negativity directed at
a person and that much more directed back out again then you come away not
feeling good about your self or the world around you.
I guess in closing, could any body possibly explain why these individuals do
what they do for me? I don't need people to like me to feel good but I
don't go out of my way to make people hate me either, it's just common sense
that seems to elude these people.
Matt
Mark Greene
"Matthew Ardill" <mar...@home.com> wrote:
> I guess in closing, could any body possibly explain why these
individuals do
> what they do for me? I don't need people to like me to feel good but
I
> don't go out of my way to make people hate me either, it's just
common sense
> that seems to elude these people.
>
> Matt
Two personal theories: Extreme lack of self-esteem to the point where
any attention is better than none; or, that they are actually deluded
enough to believe that what they are doing, and how they are doing it
actually matters.
Really sad either way, IMHO.
--
gothae subnoto baritus
Burning our skins to be renewed, but never hiding the charred look as
we forever age ourselves without reason.
-- Hardrock Llewynyth in a.g.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
waif
"Mark Greene" <gree...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91ql2d$5l8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Xi406.161391$3u1.40...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> "Matthew Ardill" <mar...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess in closing, could any body possibly explain why these
> individuals do what they do for me? I don't need people to like me to
feel good but
> I don't go out of my way to make people hate me either, it's just
> common sense that seems to elude these people.
>
> any attention is better than none; or, that they are actually deluded
> enough to believe that what they are doing, and how they are doing it
> actually matters.
>
> Really sad either way, IMHO.
And can we say "slave to impulse"?
I've also noticed a definate repeating sequence of "the emotional reaction I
felt in response to your opinion is an injury you've done to me, and so I'm
gonna hurt you back."
Most of all, I think the idea that "Usenet isn't real" is to blame.
Actions taken on Usenet don't "count" as reprehensible behavior, because
actions taken on Usenet don't count at all. It's the perfect excuse to
refuse to examine one's motivations or take responsibility for the results
of one actions-- even so obvious a result of one's growing unpopularity!
The idea that Usenet is simply composed of people who are real, and
physically present, but physically present *somewhere else,* seems to be
beyond the grasp of these individuals.
That's not only sad, but ironic-- that the trolls putting time and effort
into fucking around with something they don't believe is real, think that
the rest of us (who will not permit distance to prevent our friendship or
soften our emnity, not allow isolation as a barrier to community, and
treasure this funny notion that language is relevant) are pitiable and need
to "get a life."
--
waif
waif "at" treebyleaf "dot" com
http://treebyleaf.com
Deviancy
> "Matthew Ardill" <mar...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess in closing, could any body possibly explain why these
> individuals do
> > what they do for me? I don't need people to like me to feel good but
> I
> > don't go out of my way to make people hate me either, it's just
> common sense
> > that seems to elude these people.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Two personal theories: Extreme lack of self-esteem to the point where
> any attention is better than none; or, that they are actually deluded
> enough to believe that what they are doing, and how they are doing it
> actually matters.
>
Third theory
They just want to have some fun, an extreme lack of self esteem is possible
but I think they'd try to place nice in that case just to make any kind of
friend.
We all like attention, it can be postive or negative, I don't think it is
always a self esteem issue. Some people also enjoy getting a rise out of
others. I mean i've been to other peoples family functions where they roast
each other just for fun. They love each other but they get a kick out of
causing a little trouble. It's perfectly healthy as long as it's not done in
a vindictive way.
Sheila Marie
> >
> > > I guess in closing, could any body possibly explain why these
> > individuals do
> > > what they do for me? I don't need people to like me to feel good but
> > I
> > > don't go out of my way to make people hate me either, it's just
> > common sense
> > > that seems to elude these people.
> > >
> > > Matt
> >
> > Two personal theories: Extreme lack of self-esteem to the point where
> > any attention is better than none; or, that they are actually deluded
> > enough to believe that what they are doing, and how they are doing it
> > actually matters.
> >
>
> Third theory
>
> They just want to have some fun,
I'm sticking to this one. What fun? I cannot see how a stable human can have
FUN out of essentially poking others with a stick. It shows a basic lack of
some human element. I know this is a text based media where all it amounts
to is pixels on a screen, but who put those pixels there? What gives YOU the
right to "fuck" with another human, in person or in the virtual context?? I
know you sure in hell wouldn't want me to sit across from you and taunt you
24/7.
an extreme lack of self esteem is possible
> but I think they'd try to place nice in that case just to make any kind of
> friend.
>
Your psychology lessons show here...*rolls eyes*
> We all like attention, it can be postive or negative, I don't think it is
> always a self esteem issue.
I'd much rather no attention then negative any day, but then I know what
real negativity can do to another human first hand.
Some people also enjoy getting a rise out of
> others. I mean i've been to other peoples family functions where they
roast
> each other just for fun.
Completely different issue. At that type of event, you know there are
certain lines not to cross, and there are others that you can cross and get
a chuckle out of. Its not something you do to make some one feel like shit,
its something that is done to show how human the focus person can be.
They love each other but they get a kick out of
> causing a little trouble. It's perfectly healthy as long as it's not done
in
> a vindictive way.
Then why don't you understand the difference??
Sheila Marie
Lucid H. Dreaming
, Matthew Ardill wrote:
>On the group there are a few people who I'm not going to name who have a
>habit of "enflaming" people's passions for shits and giggles.
You know as I read this I got the image of a couple of thousand
goths sitting back smugly thinking about the people they don't like.
They were all thinking of each other.
I know this post was written with the best intentions but so is
the road to hell paved.
>
>Matt
?
--
http://www.kuro5hin.org: Better than slashdot, but not as good as Usenet.
-- Rusty
http://www.osOpinion.com/Opinions/MarkSummerfield/MarkSummerfield3.html
http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_IP.html
http://www.cyberlife-research.com/articles/index.htm
Nyx
<91reo...@enews2.newsguy.com>:
>What fun? I cannot see how a stable human can have
>FUN out of essentially poking others with a stick. I
You assume they're stable. You also assume that they are human, which I'm
not so sure of.
Nyx
--
"Not everyone worships Santa." Willow on Buffy.
AIM: nyxxxxx Yahoo: nyxxxx ICQ: 9744630
Deviancy
Nyx <n...@flocom.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9010C4AC8...@207.126.101.100...
> "Sheila Marie" <she...@darkglam.com> wrote in
> <91reo...@enews2.newsguy.com>:
>
> >What fun? I cannot see how a stable human can have
> >FUN out of essentially poking others with a stick. I
>
> You assume they're stable. You also assume that they are human, which I'm
> not so sure of.
>
We all get our kicks in different ways, if we trash someone for the ways he
or she goes about then it's fair game to trash you for your ways. You have
get a kick out of playing soccer, I hate soccer but I wouldn't say you have
no life because you need to play in a field.
The most current troll on the ng puts out the bait, it is beyond childish
and it yells trap but a few of us are falling right in. Avoid it and ignore
it and these trolls wouldn't come in here anymore. But if you don't you
deserve what you get.
My breastfeeding thing would have been ended weeks ago if you saw it for
what it was, a attack. It wasn't even asking for a debate. But everyone got
hooked in then cried troll
Whos the foolish one in the game?
The Troll who gets what he or she wants
Or the one who cries troll?
And don't use the word stable in this
We're all fucked in one way or another, some worse then others, true. If we
dig down deep enough we can find something not so balanced in anyone.
Buboe_the_rat
dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
> In article <Xi406.161391$3u1.40...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>
> , Matthew Ardill wrote:
> >On the group there are a few people who I'm not going to name who
have a
> >habit of "enflaming" people's passions for shits and giggles.
>
> You know as I read this I got the image of a couple of thousand
> goths sitting back smugly thinking about the people they don't like.
>
> They were all thinking of each other.
Or themselves. ;)
.btr
--
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a
conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise
prices....But though the law cannot hinder people of
the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do
nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them
necessary." -ADAM SMITH
Deviancy
Buboe_the_rat <buboe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91ron0$5fu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <slrn9400o2....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au>,
> dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
> > In article <Xi406.161391$3u1.40...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>
> > , Matthew Ardill wrote:
> > >On the group there are a few people who I'm not going to name who
> have a
> > >habit of "enflaming" people's passions for shits and giggles.
> >
> > You know as I read this I got the image of a couple of thousand
> > goths sitting back smugly thinking about the people they don't like.
> >
> > They were all thinking of each other.
>
> Or themselves. ;)
We all like to piss each other off. How often do we agree 100% with each
other?
"I like the Cure"
" The cure isn't that great, I like Bauhaus"
I remember the days when I was taught "If you don't have anything nice to
say, don't say anything at all"
If that was the case we'd all be monks living in our own temples and never
coming out
psyc...@my-deja.com
"Matthew Ardill" <mar...@home.com> wrote:
> I guess in closing, could any body possibly explain why these
individuals do
> what they do for me?
Because they're too WIMPY to actually GO to a goth club and make fun of
the freaks. What if some "faggot" in makeup kicked their ass? heh
~Psyche
Buboe_the_rat
"Deviancy" <devi...@nocturnalfixations.org> wrote:
> We all like to piss each other off. How often do we agree 100% with
each
> other?
I like it. My IRL social circles tend to be a bit staid. Everyone
is *afraid* of pissing someone off. Lots of gossip and back-biting
however. Also, it is great to escape the regimen of "Really Exisiting
Free Speech" at work and not have to worry abour economic ramifications
from a lack of self-censorship.
> " The cure isn't that great, I like Bauhaus"
>
> I remember the days when I was taught "If you don't have anything nice
to
> say, don't say anything at all"
Obedience training begins early. ;)
>
> If that was the case we'd all be monks living in our own temples and
never
> coming out
Or slaves.
Nyx
<91ron0$5fu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>> They were all thinking of each other.
>
>Or themselves. ;)
Or both.
I thought of all the people I don't like, then thought of them thinking the
same of me.
Then I just dismissed the whole thing. Doesn't really matter.
Deviancy
<psyc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:91rtrb$9ee$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Because they're too WIMPY to actually GO to a goth club and make fun of
> the freaks. What if some "faggot" in makeup kicked their ass? heh
> ~Psyche
I see the kinda people in the clubs that you all consider trollish
They're usually some jock like fuck who has a limited choice of words. They
usually do cause trouble at the clubs as well.
But are we discussing trolling or bullying. I see it as two different
things, one wants just a reaction, the other wants to upset the person and
hurt them emotionaly or physically
zentariana
<devi...@nocturnalfixations.org> shared with us all:
>Whos the foolish one in the game?
you.
~becky~
aim: zentarian
icq: 36328663
redbeard
"Matthew Ardill" <mar...@home.com> wrote:
Because they are small people, and couldn't really get away with it in
R?L. Somebody would break thier nose, and that would be the end of
it. When they try it in life, they discover that getting a broken nose
hurts, and they stop, or learn to break other peoples noses. If they
learn to break other peoples noses, they usually stop, because they
don't feel so small and vunerable any more. Then there are those few
depraved indivuals.. they end up on usenet.
red
Deviancy
"Sheila Marie" <she...@darkglam.com> wrote in message
news:91reo...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I'm sticking to this one. What fun? I cannot see how a stable human can
have
> FUN out of essentially poking others with a stick. It shows a basic lack
of
> some human element. I know this is a text based media where all it amounts
> to is pixels on a screen, but who put those pixels there? What gives YOU
the
> right to "fuck" with another human, in person or in the virtual context??
I
> know you sure in hell wouldn't want me to sit across from you and taunt
you
> 24/7.
Testing ones limits before they snap can be fun but sick. I remember in
school this was common practice, you would either be the one who teased or
the one who got teased. I started off as the one who got teased and it
sucked but I found out if you fought back it stopped. Thats all guys ever
did in school was push each others buttons until someone snapped then there
would be a fight and it would be over. But that was school and that was
many years ago.
But I think we have a basic instinct to get on other peoples cases
sometimes. I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't at one time tried to get to
someone else.
> I'd much rather no attention then negative any day, but then I know what
> real negativity can do to another human first hand.
This is a newsgroup, if you can truly say that we can give someone emotional
scars from a post then perhaps that person is best off in a bubble. If a
person knows you fully and attacks you with words it can hurt but I don't
know many of these people. I know very few of their opinions/beliefs so
when I get on someones nerves how could I possibly hurt them any deeper then
calling them a fuckhead? I mean I have no clue on what kind of person they
reallly are so my insults should just slide right off. Unless it's on
something they really take seriously, but some people bs so much on the net
you never can truly tell what they truly feel. Irc taught me that, there
are so many fakes it's sick.
Deviancy
"zentariana" <zenta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ad784af....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:08:49 -0800, "Deviancy"
> <devi...@nocturnalfixations.org> shared with us all:
>
> >Whos the foolish one in the game?
>
> you.
>
and I always know I'm on the internet.
Sometimes some of the people on the net become real and then I have a
totally honest conversation with them, but most of them are just screen
names. It's like a text based game for awhile unless someone takes the time
to really get to know the person behind the screen name.
zentariana
shared with us all:
>But i'm not the one who gets upset, I hardly ever lose my touch with reality
>and I always know I'm on the internet.
oh, this is the internet? really? i thought i was in a room full of
people. it's really hard to tell sometimes that i'm sitting in a chair
typing and looking at a screen. so kind of you to point it out, i'll
quit worrying about what people might think of me not wearing pants.
>Sometimes some of the people on the net become real and then I have a
>totally honest conversation with them, but most of them are just screen
>names. It's like a text based game for awhile unless someone takes the time
>to really get to know the person behind the screen name.
and you are the foolish one to think that. just because i don't know a
group of people doesn't give me the right to poke them with sticks. i
don't do it in person and i wouldn't do it online. probably because
i'm a decent person.
siani evans
Deviancy wrote:
>
> "zentariana" <zenta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ad784af....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:08:49 -0800, "Deviancy"
> > <devi...@nocturnalfixations.org> shared with us all:
> >
> > >Whos the foolish one in the game?
> >
> > you.
> >
> But i'm not the one who gets upset, I hardly ever lose my touch with reality
> and I always know I'm on the internet.
ye gods.
i *never* noticed i was typing on a computer! i thought i was sitting
in a room talking! wow. so this is the internet, huh? boy, i'm sure
glad there's someone who can keep track of that!
>
> Sometimes some of the people on the net become real and then I have a
> totally honest conversation with them, but most of them are just screen
> names. It's like a text based game for awhile unless someone takes the time
> to really get to know the person behind the screen name.
the really sad part is that he probably believes this.
siani
siani evans
you are the first person i've known who hadn't grown out of it by their
twenties. most people i know grew out of it by the time they were 18.
i think it's called "being childish", and it's actually normal for
children.
>
> > I'd much rather no attention then negative any day, but then I know what
> > real negativity can do to another human first hand.
>
> This is a newsgroup, if you can truly say that we can give someone emotional
> scars from a post then perhaps that person is best off in a bubble. If a
> person knows you fully and attacks you with words it can hurt but I don't
> know many of these people.
the question i have to ask, then, is why bother? really. i wouldn't
sit down with a bunch of random people in my college caf and start
trying to make them mad. in fact, i wouldn't sit around with a bunch of
my friends, and try to come up with ways to irritate them. why would
you enjoy spending your days irritating people?
the only possible reason i can think of is massive insecurity, and a
very unhappy life. you feel better about how miserable your life is by
making other people's lives a little more unpleasant.
> I know very few of their opinions/beliefs so
> when I get on someones nerves how could I possibly hurt them any deeper then
> calling them a fuckhead? I mean I have no clue on what kind of person they
> reallly are so my insults should just slide right off. Unless it's on
> something they really take seriously, but some people bs so much on the net
> you never can truly tell what they truly feel. Irc taught me that, there
> are so many fakes it's sick.
ah. IRC. that explains a lot.
siani
siani evans
Deviancy wrote:
> We all like to piss each other off. How often do we agree 100% with each
> other?
>
> "I like the Cure"
>
> " The cure isn't that great, I like Bauhaus"
>
> I remember the days when I was taught "If you don't have anything nice to
> say, don't say anything at all"
>
> If that was the case we'd all be monks living in our own temples and never
> coming out
i wish you'd relearn that lesson.
i think that it would do everyone a world of good.
siani
siani evans
no. they're just the same. bullying can occur without anyone getting
in a fistfight. most bullies just like to imagine some characteristic
in their victims and then accuse them of exhibiting that characteristic
at every opportunity. only difference between bullying and trolling is
that bullying usually occurs with people forced into contact with each
other, whereas trolls actively seek out the people they feel like
harassing.
siani
John Everett
> ... i don't do it in person and i wouldn't do it
> online. probably because i'm a decent person.
Your long history of posting inane filth tells a different story. You are
the online equivalent of a hemorrhoid cream, genital herpes medicine, or
sanitary napkin commercial.
How you can so rudely give light to such crass vulgarity in public is simply
beyond the pale. I'd sooner be poked by sticks than subjected to your
indecency.
John
Deviancy
"siani evans" <sia...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A42718C...@home.com...
> no. they're just the same. bullying can occur without anyone getting
> in a fistfight. most bullies just like to imagine some characteristic
> in their victims and then accuse them of exhibiting that characteristic
> at every opportunity. only difference between bullying and trolling is
> that bullying usually occurs with people forced into contact with each
> other, whereas trolls actively seek out the people they feel like
> harassing.
>
physical pain in most cases. They are going to dig into you as deep as they
can and try to get a reaction, if that fails they usually then use physical
abuse to get a rise. The troll has a similar way, they will go to a
newsgroup that they can stereotype. Case in point this is alt.gothic. The
dim will see all goths as they see them on SNL or Rikki Lake. They will see
a whole bunch of queer like kids who wear black and whine. Bullies love
picking on those they consider weaker, much like animals in the wild. The
animal in the wild is going to usually kill the weaker animal for food. The
bully is usually going to pick on the person who is weaker.
A troll does alot of the same things but when it comes down to it they can't
create any physical pain. So that makes them a world apart just because of
this.
You can take shock jocks and kind of call them a troll in a way. They will
take a issue and trash it just to get a rise out of people. Do we run
around calling people like Howard Stern immature? some do. But some see it
as entertainment. Stern of course is loaded and I doubt he has any serious
self esteem trouble. It's to easy to assume it's just a self-esteem or an
immaturity issue. I won't deny it's for attention, people love attention
and they go to great lengths to achieve it at times.
The bully wants more then attention, they want to feel as if they have a
power over someone. That's another difference between them and your casual
troll. I doubt a troll is doing it for a power play.
Just my opinion
Deviancy
> i wish you'd relearn that lesson.
>
> i think that it would do everyone a world of good.
That would mean you'd have to go to your room and be in a bubble to though,
I have yet to see you not put in a few mean comments.
So we both don't seem to follow that little lesson
Deviancy
> oh, this is the internet? really? i thought i was in a room full of
> people. it's really hard to tell sometimes that i'm sitting in a chair
> typing and looking at a screen. so kind of you to point it out, i'll
> quit worrying about what people might think of me not wearing pants.
I think sometimes it does need to be pointed out. Some people to seem to
lose touch with reality and try to make this more then it really is. We are
communicating over the internet, not via the phone or out on the street.
Therefore we shouldn't be able to hurt each other as much as if we were in
public. There is no possible way we should be able to get under each others
skin since we're not forced into contact. All we have to do is simply
disconnect or use a filter. But sometimes we seem to get to emotional over
all of this.
> and you are the foolish one to think that. just because i don't know a
> group of people doesn't give me the right to poke them with sticks. i
> don't do it in person and i wouldn't do it online. probably because
> i'm a decent person.
We have a freedom of speech, what we do with that freedom is up to us. If
we decide to throw in some words that you would consider stick poking then
by all means thats fine. That person getting poked has every right to poke
back or ignore what is being said. They aren't forced to read each post and
they can always just go somewhere else. Outside of our homes it's not that
easy, we may work with someone or go to school with someone that is like a
troll or a bully. Then we can't just turn it off and disconnect.
And what about all of these reality check pages, i've seen some of them
hosted by people who come into this ng or other goth ngs. These people who
host these pages are poking people with sticks for no reason whatsoever but
I don't see anyone thrashing the hosts of these pages. A wee bit
hypocritical dontcha think?
I've seen people thrash each other because their makeup is to draven like or
that they listen to ohmy Nosferatu.
It was this very newsgroup that had a thread many years ago about how anyone
who liked Nosferatu was stupid
This is total hypocrisy in every way. This ng has a reputation for being
bitchy and yet i'm being labelled the immature one for doing the exact same
thing as people have done in the past.
Go figure
Zen, you're somewhat new here. I've seen what these kids do for years on
this ng and I may be acting immature but no more so then some of the
regulars here have done in the past.
The Man-Like Madness
:oh, this is the internet? really? i thought i was in a room full of
:people. it's really hard to tell sometimes that i'm sitting in a chair
:typing and looking at a screen. so kind of you to point it out, i'll
:quit worrying about what people might think of me not wearing pants.
:
:~becky~
:ye gods.
:i *never* noticed i was typing on a computer! i thought i was sitting
:in a room talking! wow. so this is the internet, huh? boy, i'm sure
:glad there's someone who can keep track of that!
:
:siani
The Man-Like Madness
:> But are we discussing trolling or bullying. I see it as two different
:> things, one wants just a reaction, the other wants to upset the person and
:> hurt them emotionaly or physically
:
:no. they're just the same. bullying can occur without anyone getting
:in a fistfight. most bullies just like to imagine some characteristic
:in their victims and then accuse them of exhibiting that characteristic
:at every opportunity.
Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. What you're taling about is,
say, accusing anyone who says anything you disagree with of trolling? Would
that be bullying? It seems to match your definition.
:only difference between bullying and trolling is
:that bullying usually occurs with people forced into contact with each
:other, whereas trolls actively seek out the people they feel like
:harassing.
So, if you're attempting to discuss something contraversial with your peers,
and a bully starts in on you, and you bait the bully along in an attempt to
make him show his true stupidity (we all know that bullies aren't very bright),
that's not actually trolling, is it? Because you didn't seek them out, they
found you. Interesting.
GOBLIN
----------------------
Beauty is truth, truth beauty; that is all on earth ye know, and all ye need to
know. - Keats
magdalene
>so kind of you to point it out, i'll
>quit worrying about what people might think of me not wearing pants
*snarfs*
I love you, Becky. :)
~magdalene
"If you smudge my fucking eyeliner I'll skewer
your toes, you barbarous jism-monkey."
http://www.manifest-angel.com/magdalene
Alain Cislaghi
Hey, puritan by product, stop being rude to the only fully geared
minion(towards whom I'm favorably biased) I have in this newsgroup, or
I shall taunt you for a couple of weeks and maybe more. (if you want
so, sign yourself twice) I will poke you with my stick.
Today, I'm not just feeding your need for attention, which you try to
gather unelegantly with sensationalistic name calling(1), but also
informing all of this newsgroup, in which there are still sincerely
blind folks.
Yes, she's one of the rare individuals to have understood the art of
sharing information of all natures without resorting to auto
censoring. What some of you folks call "tmi" before blushing and
uncontrollably giggling like catholic schoolgirls(2). Something very
difficult to master when you lived all your life in the middle of the
degenerated subhuman offsprings of a bunch of puritan hicks.
O, people, the few who haven't yet understood that it's doomed to
fail, give up on trying to police us, the tmiers, as you'll never be
able to shut close our porcelain thrones thight'nuff to emprison our
glorious stench. Cos we have the medias handy. Never will you be able
to find'nuff curtains to hide our grotesque splendor. All the cameras
of the world want it. If you try to bury our filthy playground, you'll
be burying yourself. Learn to live happy with my cum stains on your
clothes and becky's menstrual blood in your mouth and you'll be one
notch higher in the natural evolution chain. heh. Yeah. In all truth,
I tell you this, fighting this state of affairs is futile, it'll only
serve well to slow down your own progress.
This said, I shall go purge myself of all this All Bran I ate
yesterday to regularize my inside. Which makes me think.. Did you knew
that masturbating while taking a dump will help you greatly to expulse
this ultimate big turd that gives you so much trouble?
(1)Technique used a lot in radio shows. Such as g.proulx's and
h.stern's. (two guys who really love each other, have I heard, btw)
(2)Catholic schoolgirls do not live up to this saying, in fact. I
remember how they were, in the catholic school where I received my
primary education and they were all but prude. Yet, my province is the
primal ground of all what is catholic on this continent.
Sheila Marie
"Deviancy" <nitefi...@blah.com> wrote in message >
> have
> > FUN out of essentially poking others with a stick. It shows a basic lack
> of
> > some human element. I know this is a text based media where all it
amounts
> > to is pixels on a screen, but who put those pixels there? What gives YOU
> the
> > right to "fuck" with another human, in person or in the virtual
context??
> I
> > know you sure in hell wouldn't want me to sit across from you and taunt
> you
> > 24/7.
>
> Testing ones limits before they snap can be fun but sick.
I read a bit of a discussion about beastiality, some say its sick, others
think its fun, how about trying that and letting us know?
I remember in
> school this was common practice, you would either be the one who teased or
> the one who got teased.
Usent = school for you?
I started off as the one who got teased and it
> sucked but I found out if you fought back it stopped.
You want to attack the big bad meanie goths before they have a chance to
attack you?
Thats all guys ever
> did in school was push each others buttons until someone snapped then
there
> would be a fight and it would be over. But that was school and that was
> many years ago.
>
Some people never grow emotionally past 12th grade.
> But I think we have a basic instinct to get on other peoples cases
> sometimes. I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't at one time tried to get
to
> someone else.
>
Sorry, "everyone else has done it" doesn't work with me. I do things that
"annoy" my hubby, but not in a mean way, just so that we can wrestle and
have some fun. It typically ends up all shits and giggles, and the few times
feelings got hurt, apologies were made and mental notes taken so that it
doesn't happen again. But I rather enjoy a healthy relationship.
> > I'd much rather no attention then negative any day, but then I know what
> > real negativity can do to another human first hand.
>
> This is a newsgroup, if you can truly say that we can give someone
emotional
> scars from a post then perhaps that person is best off in a bubble.
Talk about something going right over your head... What you missed was the
fact that I was pointing out that I've seen the damage that can be done by
some one giving negative attention in real life, and thus don't care to have
it in my life at all. I would not put myself up as a target for others, and
I feel that anyone who does so for fun has issues they should probably seek
therapy for. You can say that this has no effect on you, but you seem to be
quick to "defend" your actions, it does something...
If a
> person knows you fully and attacks you with words it can hurt but I don't
> know many of these people. I know very few of their opinions/beliefs so
> when I get on someones nerves how could I possibly hurt them any deeper
then
> calling them a fuckhead? I mean I have no clue on what kind of person
they
> reallly are so my insults should just slide right off. Unless it's on
> something they really take seriously, but some people bs so much on the
net
> you never can truly tell what they truly feel.
Sooo, its ok to poke fun at something regaurdless of how another person may
take it? Why not go out and make fun of other races, I mean, how are you to
know how they really feel? Yeah, the news tells you some people actually get
emotionally hurt by being called names simply on the basis of their skin
color, but, you know the news overhypes everything anyway.
Irc taught me that, there
> are so many fakes it's sick.
IRC isn't real life, IRC isn't Usenet, and IRC does not represent the
entirety of the internet. You have to process each bit of information as it
comes in from various sources. If that's too much work for you, you don't
belong on the internet.
Sheila Marie, happy cause its cold, happy cause its the holidays, happy
cause she gets to buy stuffs for the babies in her family and will SEE them!
YAY!
John Everett
> Yes, she's one of the rare individuals to have understood
> the art of sharing information of all natures without
> resorting to auto censoring.
She may well understand 'the art', but she mislabled it as 'decency' -- of
which, as you so kindly illustrate, it is quite the opposite. Do try to
keep your minions from pushing their product with deceptive advertising.
> Something very difficult to master when you lived all your
> life in the middle of the degenerated subhuman offsprings
> of a bunch of puritan hicks.
Actually, it's quite easy to master -- and quite encouraged! Corporate
America these days relentlessly preaches rebellion, selfishness, and
indulgendence -- it's the new state of normality. You see, there's big
money to be made off of pandering to the behavoir of the lower orders. The
undisciplined and unprincipled are so easily led around by their senses that
such fools and their money are soon parted.
John
Deviancy
> IRC isn't real life, IRC isn't Usenet, and IRC does not represent the
> entirety of the internet. You have to process each bit of information as
it
> comes in from various sources. If that's too much work for you, you don't
> belong on the internet.
Or perhaps you don't belong on here if you can't comprehend that the
internet is free space to express yourself without as much limitation as in
the real world. It's a place to escape from reality and just be an ass or
be a great person or be a friend or maybe just download some music.
And yes, irc is the usenet in so many ways
Sure it's a different medium but the personalities are one in the same.
Which is why I tried to be nice with you since I know you just a little more
then the others here but instead you have decided to step on my foot and
label me.
Whatever
Get off your high horse sheila and realize that some people would rather
fuck around on the net then get into a serious conversation.
It's the net and it's a place where we are supposed to have fun, maybe get a
little bit of a education, do whatever as long as it's legal.
I am having a perfectly good time discussing radar detectors, I can have a
decent conversation with people without being an ass.
Just remember, everyone has the right to the net and if they want to flame
african americans, jewish folk or whatever it's their right
It's called freedom of speech
Or slander ;)
Sheila Marie
> > IRC isn't real life, IRC isn't Usenet, and IRC does not represent the
> > entirety of the internet. You have to process each bit of information as
> it
> > comes in from various sources. If that's too much work for you, you
don't
> > belong on the internet.
>
> Or perhaps you don't belong on here if you can't comprehend that the
> internet is free space to express yourself without as much limitation as
in
> the real world.
Did I say that you could not express yourself? You were the one bitching
about all the "fakes" out there, which their are, but what you fail to do is
take the time to learn the patterns of a "fake" and dismiss them. I can't
help it if you are too lazy to use the internet properly.
It's a place to escape from reality and just be an ass or
> be a great person or be a friend or maybe just download some music.
>
Technically, it was set up as a way for schools to communicate, then evovled
into way to pass out information to the masses, of late it has become a
commercial wasteland, but the information still remains. Its a shame that
for some one who claims they make a living in this industry, he can't manage
to figure that out.
> And yes, irc is the usenet in so many ways
>
No, its not.
> Sure it's a different medium but the personalities are one in the same.
There are a LOT of people who will never dare cross the lines of Usenet to
IRC or vice versa. So, wrong again.
> Which is why I tried to be nice with you since I know you just a little
more
> then the others here but instead you have decided to step on my foot and
> label me.
>
I've told you once, I'll tell you again. There are a few people who have
posted to this newsgroup who I have met, and quite a few others I'd like to
meet. I "knew" them before I "knew" you, you fuck with them, I fuck with
you. I owe you no loyalty.
> Whatever
>
> Get off your high horse sheila and realize that some people would rather
> fuck around on the net then get into a serious conversation.
>
You also should realize that if you want to play with fire, be prepared to
get burned every so often.
> It's the net and it's a place where we are supposed to have fun, maybe get
a
> little bit of a education, do whatever as long as it's legal.
>
I do that, but every so often these little burrs get into my shoe trying to
spoil my good time. I do what I can to remove them.
I can also
> I am having a perfectly good time discussing radar detectors, I can have a
> decent conversation with people without being an ass.
>
As long as it fits your needs correct?
> Just remember, everyone has the right to the net and if they want to flame
> african americans, jewish folk or whatever it's their right
>
And I don't have to be their friend, I have that option.
> It's called freedom of speech
>
> Or slander ;)
>
Carol O'Conner got sued for slander for stating that he thought the guy who
sold his son drugs was a murderer. The drug dealer lost because Mr. O'Conner
stated it as an opinion, not as a fact.
So I can tell some one I think they are a no good dirty bastard all I want,
just as long as I don't state they ARE one, unless I can prove that the "no
good dirty bastard" IS a fact.
Sheila Marie, gonna be HOME in less then 2 days!
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> "Alain Cislaghi" wrote...
<snip snip>
Methinks the gauntlets are thrown. Anyone want to place bets on, if not the
victor, then the duration and/or scope, of the ensuing contest?
> John
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
Alain Cislaghi
<eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>"Alain Cislaghi" wrote...
>> Yes, she's one of the rare individuals to have understood
>> the art of sharing information of all natures without
>> resorting to auto censoring.
>
>She may well understand 'the art', but she mislabled it as 'decency' -- of
>which, as you so kindly illustrate, it is quite the opposite.
If we start discussing the meaning and interpretation of words, I can
guarantee you we'll be in it for quite a few posts. Especially when
we're talking about what is "decent" and what isn't. You see what I
mean, don't you?
>Do try to
>keep your minions from pushing their product with deceptive advertising.
Besides, (even tho I would tend to think it wasn't intended as being
deceptive, but simply her perception of decency, in this particular
post (1)), I can't understand what wrong you see with the use of
deception in a good babblering session. Especially if used in obvious
ways. I use it often for the greatest amusement of the readers.
Deception, used properly, only deceive the object of the joke. Almost
everything having the latent power of being a joke, deceptive tactics
are a superb tool of exploitation.
>> Something very difficult to master when you lived all your
>> life in the middle of the degenerated subhuman offsprings
>> of a bunch of puritan hicks.
>
>Actually, it's quite easy to master -- and quite encouraged! Corporate
>America these days relentlessly preaches rebellion, selfishness, and
>indulgendence -- it's the new state of normality.
Yes. And the "secret" to rebel effectively is to not use that canned
revolution, as an individual, but make your own by detaching yourself
from the important tools used to exploit both ends of the human
spectrum. Using the medias can be successful to broadcast the most
blunt and unalterable visions of rebellion. They might try to exploit
it, but it'd be useless to them (not fashionable'nuff yet). But the
serious stuff(2) shouldn't be ever in direct contact with this
machine, which could swallow it (the output end of the spectrum) and
be restitued in a sythetised, standardized and conformized ephemeral
consumption product to the end of the chain (the input end of the
spectrum). Fortunately, too, the theme park rebellion the corporate
machine encourages is presented in a rather boring and artificial
fashion and flavour. You just can't push bad quality beyond a certain
limit, before people start looking for alternatives that you don't
have in the back store.
Rebels'images are only marketable when they're dead, past history.
When they exist, they are a problem.
>You see, there's big
>money to be made off of pandering to the behavoir of the lower orders. The
>undisciplined and unprincipled are so easily led around by their senses that
>such fools and their money are soon parted.
That's not really those people who are and can be touched by such
tactics. It's very easy to rebel against today's major "opressor",
because it's all based on buying and selling and vice versa. It's very
easy to choose where your money will go in many cases. With a very
minor effort, you can even track where your money will go at the end
of the chain. If I buy a book, for an example, I know who gets the
money, from the store, to the publisher, to the press, to the paper
mill and even to the forestry company, if I can bother'nuff to look
up. I know exaclty who ends up with this money. No need to be member
#xxxxx of x organisation to do that. It's something everybody can do
without effort.
That sure isn't all and it's almost impossible to never buy something
from a multinational glutton, today, but that's still a few
kbucks/head per year oriented in a specific direction. That's an act
of self determination. By doing this, you slipped out of the active
market statistics. Besides, whenever there's an alternative, chances
are that it's better than what's offered by the loud machine and
sometimes even cheaper. And bravo to all the pirates and copyright
violators who rip the shit out of the big c. That won't be such a big
loss to the authors, anyway and maybe it'll make'em look for another
mean of diffusion for their stuff, next time.
But that's enuff. I managed to bore myself, now.
>John
(1) One could say that mooning people on the highway is decent, while
refusing to dump a few quarters in the hand of some beggar is
indecent. This person wouldn't be less right than anybody else.
From a purely objective point of view, naturally. Nobody is really
objective. But the word is. The word can be used in any way and even
in apparent contradiction without it being wrong at all.
(2)Like going to st-viateur to buy a dozen of bagels, instead of
dropping by the megasupermarket where you can buy everything, even a
small house, if you want.
Alain Cislaghi
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>John Everett wrote:
>>
>> "Alain Cislaghi" wrote...
>
><snip snip>
>
>Methinks the gauntlets are thrown. Anyone want to place bets on, if not the
>victor, then the duration and/or scope, of the ensuing contest?
I don't see how his post could evolve into a "contest", unless it
turns into a tedious debate on who's wrong and who's right on the
corporatedom vs the little men topic.
You can pick my place, if that's what it turns out to be.
zentariana
shared with us all:
>I think sometimes it does need to be pointed out. Some people to seem to
>lose touch with reality and try to make this more then it really is. We are
>communicating over the internet, not via the phone or out on the street.
>Therefore we shouldn't be able to hurt each other as much as if we were in
>public. There is no possible way we should be able to get under each others
>skin since we're not forced into contact. All we have to do is simply
>disconnect or use a filter. But sometimes we seem to get to emotional over
>all of this.
call me ultra-sensitive, then.
>Zen, you're somewhat new here. I've seen what these kids do for years on
>this ng and I may be acting immature but no more so then some of the
>regulars here have done in the past.
of course. naturally. i notice often. i've just known you for so long
that it really bothers me that you did that whole thing just now.
that's all.
zentariana
>Your long history of posting inane filth tells a different story. You are
>the online equivalent of a hemorrhoid cream, genital herpes medicine, or
>sanitary napkin commercial.
>
>How you can so rudely give light to such crass vulgarity in public is simply
>beyond the pale. I'd sooner be poked by sticks than subjected to your
>indecency.
then by all means, honey, get off your ass and start poking away - i'm
not going anywhere.
Deviancy
> of course. naturally. i notice often. i've just known you for so long
> that it really bothers me that you did that whole thing just now.
> that's all.
>
You have known me for awhile but this is probably the first time you've seen
me on ag. I haven't posted as much as I used to here because everyone loves
me to much here to handle it.
Hardrock and Sheila and that wwf hacksaw jim duggan guy may get hurt
feelings so I try to be gentle
Lucid H. Dreaming
, Philippe Bernard Meunier wrote:
>siani evans wrote:
>>i wish you'd relearn that lesson.
>>i think that it would do everyone a world of good.
>
>and move on... End of problem.
She's addicted.
Odds are deep down inside she enjoys trying to abuse him.
>
>Philippe
>
? - Everyones a troll. Some people just don't know it yet.
--
http://www.kuro5hin.org: Better than slashdot, but not as good as Usenet.
-- Rusty
http://www.osOpinion.com/Opinions/MarkSummerfield/MarkSummerfield3.html
http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_IP.html
http://www.cyberlife-research.com/articles/index.htm
Mark Greene
> >
> > "Alain Cislaghi" wrote...
>
> <snip snip>
>
> Methinks the gauntlets are thrown. Anyone want to place bets on, if
not the
> victor, then the duration and/or scope, of the ensuing contest?
No Bet.
John is a mere rock thrower, and a childish one at that.
--
gothae subnoto baritus
Burning our skins to be renewed, but never hiding the charred look as
we forever age ourselves without reason.
-- Hardrock Llewynyth in a.g.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
siani evans
i've yet to meet anyone who would say that Howard Stern was not
immature. and that includes the coworkers who listened to him every AM.
> Stern of course is loaded and I doubt he has any serious
> self esteem trouble. It's to easy to assume it's just a self-esteem or an
> immaturity issue. I won't deny it's for attention, people love attention
> and they go to great lengths to achieve it at times.
i would not say Howard Stern has great self esteem.
i would say that he is quite insecure about his manhood, particularly
since his marriage ended, and *very* insecure about aging. i've
listened enough (god knows i'd rather listen to Humble and Fred, but i
have to get along with my coworkers) to hear one or two sore spots get
hit with him.
>
> The bully wants more then attention, they want to feel as if they have a
> power over someone. That's another difference between them and your casual
> troll. I doubt a troll is doing it for a power play.
i'd say that's exactly why they do it. "look i can make these people do
what i want!"
siani
Mark Greene
"John Everett" <eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
> "zentariana" wrote...
> > ... i don't do it in person and i wouldn't do it
> > online. probably because i'm a decent person.
>
> Your long history of posting inane filth tells a different story.
Hello? She was talking about trolling and the subsequent flaming the
usually follows. Where'd the hell this come from? And who died and
left you to pass judgement on her? If you knew her even just *a
little*, you'd realize that she is one of the nicer people around her.
The fact that she's tolerating this unsolicited crap from you is
substantiation of that.
> You are
> the online equivalent of a hemorrhoid cream, genital herpes medicine,
or
> sanitary napkin commercial.
>
How stupid are you?
You flame her out of nowhere and getting all the *facts* quite
incorrect, btw, as she's not been posting here for even a year. Hardly
a "long history". Then you make this totally contradictory analogy in
some pitiful effort to put her down.
> How you can so rudely give light to such crass vulgarity in public is
simply
> beyond the pale. I'd sooner be poked by sticks than subjected to your
> indecency.
>
> John
>
So are you into self-flagellation there dude? Because the above
question and statement makes you quite the hypocrite when compared to
your childish ranting above and the crass rudeness it conveys.
siani evans
The Man-Like Madness wrote:
>
> siani evans wrote...
> :> But are we discussing trolling or bullying. I see it as two different
> :> things, one wants just a reaction, the other wants to upset the person and
> :> hurt them emotionaly or physically
> :
> :no. they're just the same. bullying can occur without anyone getting
> :in a fistfight. most bullies just like to imagine some characteristic
> :in their victims and then accuse them of exhibiting that characteristic
> :at every opportunity.
>
> Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. What you're taling about is,
> say, accusing anyone who says anything you disagree with of trolling? Would
> that be bullying? It seems to match your definition.
no, it doesn't. however, if they jumped into every thread with some
kind of assertion that goths are all mean to animals, somehow working it
into the topic, i'd say that yes, they are trolling. there is quite a
difference between "accusing someone of exhibiting a characteristic"
(such as: homosexuality, weakness, inability to relax etc; "i think you
just say that because you're gay!") and disagreeing with someone ("i
think you are wrong").
<troll>
i think you have a very poor grasp of the english language.
siani
Deviancy
> i would not say Howard Stern has great self esteem.
> i would say that he is quite insecure about his manhood, particularly
> since his marriage ended, and *very* insecure about aging. i've
> listened enough (god knows i'd rather listen to Humble and Fred, but i
> have to get along with my coworkers) to hear one or two sore spots get
> hit with him.
His marriage ended eh? Figured that would happen, I doubt he's insecure
about his manhood though. The reason it probably happened was because he
couldn't say no to all of those sleazy porn stars he had on the show. You
can bet money he finally cheated. I stopped listening to him years ago
because it got repetitive and the sleaze factor just went to far imo. He
goes on about his small penis alot but supposedly in reality it wasn't that
small. He is a fake, he tries to make his listeners think he has these
problems just so he has an exuse to dig deeper into the pit debauchery(sp).
> i'd say that's exactly why they do it. "look i can make these people do
> what i want!"
Hrmm but words just don't show any power imo. Action speaks louder then
words to me and a bully who smashes your head in to get some control is
always going to have a advantage to the troll. But we may see a troll as a
different thing. I just see them as a person who causes some havoc to get
attention. And they usually succeed. And if a troll finds out that he or
she can get that attention here they will never stop
And we do our best to feed them here, I have yet to see one troll come and
go here without being fed a little.
So I can't blame them for doing what they do if we continue to feed them for
doing what they do. We are both guilty parties in that game and both sides
need to accept that. As for the bully, well...
He or she can always just run after you hehe
Matthew Ardill
"waif" <clea...@treebyleaf.com> wrote:
> Most of all, I think the idea that "Usenet isn't real" is to blame.
> Actions taken on Usenet don't "count" as reprehensible behavior, because
> actions taken on Usenet don't count at all. It's the perfect excuse to
> refuse to examine one's motivations or take responsibility for the results
> of one actions-- even so obvious a result of one's growing unpopularity!
> The idea that Usenet is simply composed of people who are real, and
> physically present, but physically present *somewhere else,* seems to be
> beyond the grasp of these individuals.
This is the thing I really don't understand. Even when I was like 13 and
starting on BBSes I realised what I said may not be to some one's face but
was still to a person and what you say does affect them. It's stupid to
think just because the mode of communication is impersonal the person on the
other end is going to ignore the message. It's like the phone, it's one
step removed so people generally feel more comfortable braking bad new over
the phone then in real life, this is the next step removed. Even further,
more immediate then letters (snail mail) but less personal then the phone or
real life. It's a misconception that a lot of people seem to have.
> That's not only sad, but ironic-- that the trolls putting time and effort
> into fucking around with something they don't believe is real, think that
> the rest of us (who will not permit distance to prevent our friendship or
> soften our emnity, not allow isolation as a barrier to community, and
> treasure this funny notion that language is relevant) are pitiable and
need
> to "get a life."
Exactly, this is a community. People will argue that but here is the
deffinition:
com·mu·ni·ty (k-myn-t)
n., pl. com·mu·ni·ties. Abbr. com.
1. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same
government.
2. The district or locality in which such a group lives.
3. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the
international business community.
Similarity or identity: a community of interests.
Sharing, participation, and fellowship.
Society as a whole; the public.
Ecology.
A group of plants and animals living and interacting with one another in a
specific region under relatively similar environmental conditions.
The region occupied by a group of interacting organisms.
n. attributive.
Often used to modify another noun: community problems; community facilities.
alt.gothic and the Usenet and the internet as a whole clearly fits in to
that. To disrupt a community in real life in the ways that many of these
people do is criminal at worst and bad manners at best. To believe that
simply because the community is "virtual" (which I don't believe) and that
excuses bad manners and criminal behaviour is very feeble minded to say the
least.
Matt
Matthew Ardill
"Deviancy" <devi...@nocturnalfixations.org> wrote :
> > Two personal theories: Extreme lack of self-esteem to the point where
> > any attention is better than none; or, that they are actually deluded
> > enough to believe that what they are doing, and how they are doing it
> > actually matters.
> >
>
> Third theory
>
> They just want to have some fun, an extreme lack of self esteem is
possible
> but I think they'd try to place nice in that case just to make any kind of
> friend.
Do you go in to theatres and shout fire? Do you trip blind people? Do you
walk in to mosques and call people evil? Do you walk in to synagogues (sp?)
and call jews deamon spawn? Do you go in to churches and call them
ignorant? Do you take candy from babies? Probably not. I'm not saying you
do those things online but you and a few others here are doing many of the
equivalent. I didn't want to name names but since you are arguing your case
you are open to interrogation as it were. To believe that you are without
effect is minimalizing your words. Words are powerful tools that effect
people if said to ones face or via email or letter still have profound
effects. A book can have incredible force in influencing a person's beliefs
and emotions and the internet although not necessarily in the same calibre
of intellectual debate still effects people. To think otherwise is to feign
ignorance.
> We all like attention, it can be postive or negative, I don't think it is
> always a self esteem issue. Some people also enjoy getting a rise out of
> others. I mean i've been to other peoples family functions where they
roast
> each other just for fun. They love each other but they get a kick out of
> causing a little trouble. It's perfectly healthy as long as it's not done
in
> a vindictive way.
That's a completely useless example. A roast is understood to be of a
certain nature. Further it's between people who know and care about each
other (or at least function under that pretence). I don't know you, I don't
care about you. If we were on survivors I'd have voted your ass off the
island and given a speech about vultures. That being said I have the common
grace and good manners to not go around harassing you and trying to start a
fight with you. Further I only came to regard you in such low esteem after
your behaviour on the group. I don't believe this simply because you don't
agree with me (in many cases we do) but your behaviour and those like you is
asinine and childish and frankly degrades the entire community.
Matt
Matthew Ardill
"Deviancy" <devi...@nocturnalfixations.org> wrote:
> You assume anyone is truly stable in this pretty little world?
>
> We all get our kicks in different ways, if we trash someone for the ways
he
> or she goes about then it's fair game to trash you for your ways. You
have
> get a kick out of playing soccer, I hate soccer but I wouldn't say you
have
> no life because you need to play in a field.
That's a useless example because there is nothing damaging to others in
playing soccer. It's not like you are abusing or debasing people when
playing soccer so it's an example that simply doesn't work.
> The most current troll on the ng puts out the bait, it is beyond childish
> and it yells trap but a few of us are falling right in. Avoid it and
ignore
> it and these trolls wouldn't come in here anymore. But if you don't you
> deserve what you get.
>
> My breastfeeding thing would have been ended weeks ago if you saw it for
> what it was, a attack. It wasn't even asking for a debate. But everyone
got
> hooked in then cried troll
Discussions like the breastfeeding one are completely reasonable, prior to
people like you and certain others taking up residence such discussions
would pass without a single instance of "troll" spotting. What makes it
"trolling" is an intransigence and abusive air that a thread will take and
the refusal to simply even say "we don't agree" or the admission (after the
fact) that one doesn't believe what they are saying and is taking this
stance to "stir some shit". There is nothing wrong with people disagreeing,
nor is there any thing wrong with people playing the part of devils advocate
but some one who genuinely is doing either of these things is more flexible
and pliant in their views and on the part of the devil's advocate state up
front that they do not actually believe these things.
> Whos the foolish one in the game?
>
> The Troll who gets what he or she wants
>
> Or the one who cries troll?
The Troll as it is a serious abuse to harass some one which is what they are
doing.
> And don't use the word stable in this
>
> We're all fucked in one way or another, some worse then others, true. If
we
> dig down deep enough we can find something not so balanced in anyone.
Yes but a person who is healthy controls his behaviour and has common
manners. I don't know what your mother taught you but even if you don't
like some one you don't go out of your way to track them down and make their
lives difficult.
Matt
Matthew Ardill
"Deviancy" <nitefi...@blah.com> wrote:
> But i'm not the one who gets upset, I hardly ever lose my touch with
reality
> and I always know I'm on the internet.
As do we all. You know this statement is asinine so I'm not even going to
justify it with a refutation.
> Sometimes some of the people on the net become real and then I have a
> totally honest conversation with them, but most of them are just screen
> names. It's like a text based game for awhile unless someone takes the
time
> to really get to know the person behind the screen name.
So when did I stop being real? When did I fade out of reality? Again this
comes to the concept of community. I am not using a "screen name" this is
my real name, I present my self and my views as honestly as I can with my
poor language skills. As does any one who wishes to be part of the
community. This doesn't make it more or less real. The forum is a text
based one yes, we are separated some by hundreds and even thousands of miles
BUT that does not change the fact we are gathering together to exchange
views and beliefs. To go out of ones way to belittle or cause harm is just
ignorant.
This comes back to my original question. Why do these "trolls" do this? It
is cruel and ignorant. In a way you answered it indirectly. You are
without remorse or feeling. You enjoy hurting people. You have the mind of
a child who would pull the legs off spiders and the wings off flies.
Little, seedy, and hate filled. You can't justify your actions as any thing
more then "having fun" which establishes that you have no control over your
impulses and don't know how to behave in public (which is where you are).
You state if people "takes the time to really get to know the person behind
the screen name" they will become real, for the rest of us we are real and
our opinions are real and the fact of the matter is that from your behaviour
I want nothing to do with you, I don't want to get to know the person
because what I see is ignorance, cruelty, and hate.
If you lived in my community you would have been beaten at least arrested
at worst if you behaved in a similar way which means I want nothing to do
with you and if I were to meet you in real life I'd probably react by saying
"oh" and walking away. Better then some of the trolls who I'd spit on if
not beat senseless if given the opportunity. Words have power you know
that.
Matt
siani evans
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> John Everett wrote:
> >
> > "Alain Cislaghi" wrote...
>
> <snip snip>
>
> Methinks the gauntlets are thrown. Anyone want to place bets on, if not the
> victor, then the duration and/or scope, of the ensuing contest?
no bet.
Alain has serious stamina.
siani
zentariana
shared with us all:
>becky wrote:
>
>>so kind of you to point it out, i'll
>>quit worrying about what people might think of me not wearing pants
>
>*snarfs*
>I love you, Becky. :)
back at you, miss ;)
Matthew Ardill
"John Everett" <eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
> "zentariana" wrote...
> > ... i don't do it in person and i wouldn't do it
> > online. probably because i'm a decent person.
>
> the online equivalent of a hemorrhoid cream, genital herpes medicine, or
> sanitary napkin commercial.
>
simply
> beyond the pale. I'd sooner be poked by sticks than subjected to your
> indecency.
This from the man who makes Injun Joe cracks, belives women and feminisim
are the root of all evil, and enjoys nothing more then saying how much he
hates all of us here. Johno please, don't be upset but I don't think there
is much value in comments from you in this thread.
Matt
Matthew Ardill
"Deviancy" <nitefi...@blah.com> wrote:
> "zentariana" <zenta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > oh, this is the internet? really? i thought i was in a room full of
> > people. it's really hard to tell sometimes that i'm sitting in a chair
> > typing and looking at a screen. so kind of you to point it out, i'll
> > quit worrying about what people might think of me not wearing pants.
>
> I think sometimes it does need to be pointed out. Some people to seem to
> lose touch with reality and try to make this more then it really is. We
are
> communicating over the internet, not via the phone or out on the street.
> Therefore we shouldn't be able to hurt each other as much as if we were in
> public. There is no possible way we should be able to get under each
others
> skin since we're not forced into contact. All we have to do is simply
> disconnect or use a filter. But sometimes we seem to get to emotional
over
> all of this.
Bullshit, that's just stupid. Communication is communication, the medium
does not change the message and the message being consistant is going to
have the same impact. The "disconnect" or "filter" is the same as a phone
or on the street. I can hang up or walk away. All modes of communication
have a means of termination and that effects the message in no way at all.
Further it doesn't justify abuse or ignorance. Your words and the words of
your ilk hurt just as much.
> > and you are the foolish one to think that. just because i don't know a
> > group of people doesn't give me the right to poke them with sticks. i
> > don't do it in person and i wouldn't do it online. probably because
> > i'm a decent person.
>
> We have a freedom of speech, what we do with that freedom is up to us. If
> we decide to throw in some words that you would consider stick poking then
> by all means thats fine. That person getting poked has every right to
poke
> back or ignore what is being said. They aren't forced to read each post
and
> they can always just go somewhere else. Outside of our homes it's not
that
> easy, we may work with someone or go to school with someone that is like a
> troll or a bully. Then we can't just turn it off and disconnect.
Actually you don't have freedom of speech. There is a set of rules and
morals as to what is acceptable speech, this is present in every culture and
society. The fact is your behaviour is considered (ironically enough)
deviant. This is probably the only deviant thing about you so at last your
pretend name is justified. It is considered rude and inappropriate. Your
behaviour is considered deplorable at times. As for the people at work or
in my life that are bullies (the RL equivalent of a troll) I try and stand
up to them in the best ways I can. Eventually after I make my point I tend
to ignore them but not after returning their favour of making life
difficult.
> And what about all of these reality check pages, i've seen some of them
> hosted by people who come into this ng or other goth ngs. These people
who
> host these pages are poking people with sticks for no reason whatsoever
but
> I don't see anyone thrashing the hosts of these pages. A wee bit
> hypocritical dontcha think?
I don't know what these "reality check" pages are, not been to one so I wont
comment on it. If you want to point me to them maybe I'll lump them in to
this group of people to question but I might also see some message that you
are glazing over or ignoring in them.
> I've seen people thrash each other because their makeup is to draven like
or
> that they listen to ohmy Nosferatu.
>
> It was this very newsgroup that had a thread many years ago about how
anyone
> who liked Nosferatu was stupid
Yes and generally people who slam people as being stupid for liking a band
are considered to be over the top. Most reasonable people will agree
musical tastes very and to call some one stupid because of what band they
listen too is ignorance. Further if some one pointed out they simply liked
the band and could clarify that they didn't define their lives by it most
people here would probably relent. I'm sure I like stuff that people here
find to be shite but I don't get flack for it mind you I don't come on the
group and shout "SKAFACE ROCKS IT'S GAWTH AS FUCK!" so the kinds of
statements generally associated with bands that illicit cries of stupidity
don't come from here.
> This is total hypocrisy in every way. This ng has a reputation for being
> bitchy and yet i'm being labelled the immature one for doing the exact
same
> thing as people have done in the past.
>
> Go figure
>
> Zen, you're somewhat new here. I've seen what these kids do for years on
> this ng and I may be acting immature but no more so then some of the
> regulars here have done in the past.
First of all I've not seen this reputation for bitchiness. If there is one
it's probably well earned as we can be bitchy due to constant barrages of
trolls and idiots. I remember in the earlier days on this group it was
quite friendly and it only became bitchy after the kind of behaviour you and
your ilk brought to this group. I simply can't understand the petty
ignorance this brings and want clarification and maybe one day will be able
to better the group. As for knowing what us "kids" do for years, you
haven't been here all that long. You came online during one of my periods
of absence. Not that that belittles your time here but you really don't
know what us "kids" are like. Further if you did, you'd have some respect
for the feelings of others as that is the main underlying consideration of
people here. Finally I'm not a kid, neither are most of the people here. A
large majority are older then you I'm sure. You are simply trying to
belittle the people on this group, AGAIN, and it's a clear sign of your
weaknesses.
Matt
Matthew Ardill
"Deviancy" <nitefi...@blah.com> wrote:
> "Sheila Marie" <she...@darkglam.com> wrote:
> > IRC isn't real life, IRC isn't Usenet, and IRC does not represent the
> > entirety of the internet. You have to process each bit of information as
> it
> > comes in from various sources. If that's too much work for you, you
don't
> > belong on the internet.
>
> Or perhaps you don't belong on here if you can't comprehend that the
> internet is free space to express yourself without as much limitation as
in
> the real world. It's a place to escape from reality and just be an ass or
> be a great person or be a friend or maybe just download some music.
Actually no it's not, there are rules and morals. Again you don't
understand this. There is a FAQ which defines this group. There are
certain behaviours that are considered simply "nettiquete". The behavior of
"trolling" violates these.
> And yes, irc is the usenet in so many ways
It is usenet in no way. IRC is Internet Relay Chat, instant message and
group chat rooms that have topics of discussion ranging from online gang
bangs to philosophy and religion. They are immediate and tend to be a more
dynamic form of chat but often considered to have less thought going in to
the messages due to expediency.
Usenet is a series of "news servers" that post messages from one server to
another for people to gather. these messages are not instantaneous and are
in a sense more permanent so a set of standards and courtesies are assumed
by the communities using them. Further due to it's permanence it is
generally considered that more thought goes in to these posts so the
messages are oft times considered with more impact.
You are simply trying to deflect the discussion.
> Sure it's a different medium but the personalities are one in the same.
> Which is why I tried to be nice with you since I know you just a little
more
> then the others here but instead you have decided to step on my foot and
> label me.
No you labled your self. It is blind ignorance to belive your actions in
one medium and community will not effect the perception people have of you
in other communities especialy when there is so much crossover.
> Whatever
>
> Get off your high horse sheila and realize that some people would rather
> fuck around on the net then get into a serious conversation.
Really? I don't think that's the concensus here. There are other forums
for people with that opinion. By the same tolken fluff and non-serious
topics are completely welcome but not to the ends of hurting others which is
the direction you and your ilk tend to lean.
> It's the net and it's a place where we are supposed to have fun, maybe get
a
> little bit of a education, do whatever as long as it's legal.
>
> I am having a perfectly good time discussing radar detectors, I can have a
> decent conversation with people without being an ass.
You have yet to prove it.
> Just remember, everyone has the right to the net and if they want to flame
> african americans, jewish folk or whatever it's their right
>
> It's called freedom of speech
No every one doesn't have the right that's why "Terms of Use" policies are
in place. People can simply complain. Freedom is one thing, abuse of that
freedom leads to sanctions. That's why we have jail.
> Or slander ;)
You'd know all about that.
Matt
Matthew Ardill
"Philippe Bernard Meunier" <meu...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
> siani evans wrote:
> >i wish you'd relearn that lesson.
> >i think that it would do everyone a world of good.
>
> What I don't understand is why you all people just don't killfile him
> and move on... End of problem.
Well this discussion was not origionaly about him in specific, it was about
the nature of trolling. I personaly don't read any of his posts for the
most part because I know they are inflamitory. That being said the reason I
am replying to him here is because he is some one who admits to the
behaviour I was questioning and is one of the few people who can speak from
the mind set I can't understand. I don't think I'm going to change him but
if I can view how he acts at least then I might be able understand what
disfunction leads to this behaviour.
Matt
Deviancy
"Matthew Ardill" <mar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZTK06.134936$_5.29...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> fight with you. Further I only came to regard you in such low esteem
after
> your behaviour on the group. I don't believe this simply because you
don't
> agree with me (in many cases we do) but your behaviour and those like you
is
> asinine and childish and frankly degrades the entire community.
See that's your problem Matt, the community?
We're on a newsgroup and I may come off as an ass at times but no worse then
some of the vetrans on this ag. You and your girl have tact which is cool
but you can't expect us all to have that same level of tact. It's to damn
holier than thou of you to expect decency and maturity from a newsgroup just
because a you and a few of the others may expect that. You are making
discussion on a public board, this isn't a private club. You have to take
the good with the bad and just accept it.
If you want to think of me as a pig, so be it. That's your right. But I
can say you expect to much from a public internet discussion. Sure there
are times when things may get mature and may get really emotional but that's
the persons call to do so. I at times prefer to go off the deep and and
just play, you can take this as you will. But would I have apologized if I
truly thought you were all just fictional characters?
I to want to have a serious conversation once in awhile. But at other times
I like to stir things up. This is my right, I have the freedom to speak my
mind even if it's ignorant and god forbid racisit behavior that I express
it's a right.
Deviancy
> So when did I stop being real? When did I fade out of reality? Again
this
> comes to the concept of community. I am not using a "screen name" this is
> my real name, I present my self and my views as honestly as I can with my
> poor language skills. As does any one who wishes to be part of the
> community. This doesn't make it more or less real. The forum is a text
> based one yes, we are separated some by hundreds and even thousands of
miles
> BUT that does not change the fact we are gathering together to exchange
> views and beliefs. To go out of ones way to belittle or cause harm is
just
> ignorant.
You are simply being to offended by my mere words and this confuses me to no
end. I could understand if I insulted you to your face or called you
somehow attacked a member of your family but I was merely fucking around.
Do you have no sense of humor? You never stopped being real, because you
have yet to make yourself real to me. Well actually strike that, you have
now. For some strange reason you have decided to go deep down and tell me
how you truly feel about all of this. And I'll be honest, it doesn't offend
me. I prefer if someone just says how they truly feel instead of going by a
census. And you seem to be honest so our conversation can end as soon as
you want it to end.
> If you lived in my community you would have been beaten at least arrested
> at worst if you behaved in a similar way which means I want nothing to do
> with you and if I were to meet you in real life I'd probably react by
saying
> "oh" and walking away. Better then some of the trolls who I'd spit on if
> not beat senseless if given the opportunity. Words have power you know
> that.
But by you beating on them doesn't that mean you sank to the same level of
immaturity? Can one not handle their emotions without using physical abuse
or legal abuse? Our parents should have taught us how to walk away as well,
it was a common lesson. It's safer to just turn away and walk then to start
a fight sometimes because otherwise you may get hurt. I somehow have struck
a nerve with you, is it because I defend trolls or because I'm a mix breed
and sometimes do post decent posts?
siani evans
Deviancy wrote:
>
> "Matthew Ardill" <mar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:ZTK06.134936$_5.29...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > fight with you. Further I only came to regard you in such low esteem
> after
> > your behaviour on the group. I don't believe this simply because you
> don't
> > agree with me (in many cases we do) but your behaviour and those like you
> is
> > asinine and childish and frankly degrades the entire community.
>
> See that's your problem Matt, the community?
>
> We're on a newsgroup and I may come off as an ass at times but no worse then
> some of the vetrans on this ag. You and your girl have tact which is cool
> but you can't expect us all to have that same level of tact. It's to damn
> holier than thou of you to expect decency and maturity from a newsgroup just
> because a you and a few of the others may expect that. You are making
> discussion on a public board, this isn't a private club. You have to take
> the good with the bad and just accept it.
ya know what? most of the regulars do have decency and tact. JE
doesn't, but i've been saying since he first showed up that he was a
troll.
we can expect it from all the people on the group. if it isn't
forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time, they generally hear a chorus
of plonks. you are walking that line.
>
> If you want to think of me as a pig, so be it. That's your right. But I
> can say you expect to much from a public internet discussion. Sure there
> are times when things may get mature and may get really emotional but that's
> the persons call to do so. I at times prefer to go off the deep and and
> just play, you can take this as you will. But would I have apologized if I
> truly thought you were all just fictional characters?
> I to want to have a serious conversation once in awhile.
you haven't done anything. 'deviancy' has. you've said yourself that
you aren't really like this, that's why you use a screen name. you
think of yourself, and all of the other posters as fictional
characters. we don't.
and while i'm at it, i'm sorry, but usenet just doesn't work the way
you think it does. if you troll, no one will have a serious discussion
with you after a while. you can't be both a troll and a serious
person. as soon as you troll, all of your comments in other discussions
are devalued accordingly, because no-one knows whether or not to take
you seriously.
if you want to play devils advocate, please, be my guest. i do it
frequently. if i see a fervent argument going on, and it looks weak,
i'll step in with "what about the argument XXXXX", just to see if there
is a decent refutation. people do it all the time.
>
But at other times
> I like to stir things up. This is my right, I have the freedom to speak my
> mind even if it's ignorant and god forbid racisit behavior that I express
> it's a right.
we have laws against something called "hate speech" in canada. we do not
have your absolute freedom of speech. we censor incitement of hatred.
just an FYI.
siani
The Man-Like Madness
:On the group there are a few people who I'm not going to name who
:have a habit of "enflaming" people's passions for shits and giggles.
Of course you aren't going to name them. Then they could defend themselves.
By not naming them, you get to create a fictious archetype against which to
rail - and snce archetypes can't defend themselves, you don't have to worry
about a retort. This will be useful, later on, when you decide to accuse
someone of trolling. It's the classic Red Bait. You decry "communists",
without naming them. Stir up mob support against "Communists", and then you
can later focus all thgat anger you've stirred up by insinuating that someone
may be a "Communist". Oh, and of course, becuase you are the one doing the
decrying, you are ":above reproach" and *couldn't possibly be* a "Communist".
Needless to say, this message was a troll (all messages that provoke reaction
are trolls) in of itself, so you (Matthew) are immediately guilty of what you
are railing against and therefore, a hypocrit. Natch.
How very sad that, in this day an age, some still do this sort of thing.
For the record, this rant about trolls (in perpetuation of the perpetual witch
hunt) was brought to you by Mathew Adril and his co-hort, Siani Evans - two of
alt.gothic's more vocal hypocrits, who have consistently done their part to
drag every interesting conversation down to the level of the lowest common
denominator, primarily by bullying anyone who says anything they find
controversial until they are quiet (and usually accussing them of trolling).
I, unlike Matthew, am more than willing to name names.
Trolling for kicks indeed.
GOBLIN
----------------------
Beauty is truth, truth beauty; that is all on earth ye know, and all ye need to
know. - Keats
John Everett
>
> ... Mathew Adril and his co-hort, Siani Evans - two of
> alt.gothic's more vocal hypocrits, who have consistently
> done their part to drag every interesting conversation
> down to the level of the lowest common denominator,
> primarily by bullying anyone who says anything they find
Don't forget the label alt.gothic's more vocal bigots as well. I especially
liked the way that Matthew finished off his message with the question,
"could any body possibly explain why these individuals do what they do for
me?" when, of course, he started off the message with the damning
preconception that they do it just "for shits and giggles". Likewise, he
elsewhere describes the behavior as a 'dysfunction and, naturally, he
prejudicially dismisses my input -- even though I'm probably one of the most
qualified people to explain why some people might find a joust more
communally productive than playing tea party.
One can't help but wonder how a cute suburban Canadian married couple,
working their way through college, saving up for their first kids and first
Toyota Echo, ever wandered into alt.gothic in the first place. If one looks
at the history of art works by, say, Andrew Eldritch, Ian Curtis, or Genesis
P-Orridige -- could they be described as anything other than
'passion-enflaming trolls'? Heavens, the earnest Matt and Siana's of Ian
Curtis' day used to call him a 'Nazi'.
The very charter of this newsgroup demands upon controversy and exploration
of non-entrenched intellectual archives. Let the suburban bigots and the
hypocrites find their tea party somewhere other than the middle of a
tournament field.
John
WorLord
<eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> :
>"The Man-Like Madness" wrote...
>One can't help but wonder how a cute suburban Canadian married couple,
>working their way through college, saving up for their first kids and first
>Toyota Echo,
*snarf*
LOL
--WorLord
"You could spend an hour counting the petals in a flower
It might take you a year to count the veins in each petal
If you spent ten lifetimes, maybe you could count its cells...
...but you'd have completely missed the point
You fuckhead."
Jennie Kermode
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:14:08 GMT, "John Everett"
><eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> shared with us all:
>>beyond the pale. I'd sooner be poked by sticks than subjected to your
>>indecency.
>then by all means, honey, get off your ass and start poking away - i'm
>not going anywhere.
One wonders if John attends obscure clubs where people
routinely poke him with sticks, in the same manner as he visits threads
clearly labelled 'tmi'... ;)
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
Webpages at: http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Killjoy Kilroy
>You are
>the online equivalent of a hemorrhoid cream, genital herpes medicine, or
>sanitary napkin commercial.
I knew this guy once, his name was Mark. First actual goth I ever met.
A sexy one, he.
Anyhoo, one of his hobbies was to collect used tampons and to
hang them on the wall around one of his Jane's Addiction posters.
I miss Mark.
GIRLSHAVECOOTIES,
Carrie
Deviancy
> ya know what? most of the regulars do have decency and tact. JE
> doesn't, but i've been saying since he first showed up that he was a
> troll.
> we can expect it from all the people on the group. if it isn't
> forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time, they generally hear a chorus
> of plonks. you are walking that line.
Oh please, Siani like your hubbie you need to relax a little. When did you
two become the King and Queen of Ag anywho???
Did y'all meet at some support group for uptight bastiches?
> you haven't done anything. 'deviancy' has. you've said yourself that
> you aren't really like this, that's why you use a screen name. you
> think of yourself, and all of the other posters as fictional
> characters. we don't.
Deviancy and Bryan are two different people in some ways but the same in
others. Deviancy starts off as an ass then is nice to people once they show
him a little heart. Bryan is nice from the get go. That's the only
difference really. Deviancy can rip into anyone at any time and not have
any consequences to pay, Bryan has to be nice because if he told off his
co-workers for being asses he'd probably end up with a pink slip and a nice
severance check. Bryan likes his co-workers though because they like him :)
Whooo I have a split idenity.
>
> and while i'm at it, i'm sorry, but usenet just doesn't work the way
> you think it does. if you troll, no one will have a serious discussion
> with you after a while. you can't be both a troll and a serious
> person. as soon as you troll, all of your comments in other discussions
> are devalued accordingly, because no-one knows whether or not to take
> you seriously.
I don't believe that, I think as soon as some of you newbies realize who I
really am you will know the difference between my shit and my serious shit.
I apologize if you aren't a newbie, but I didn't see you here in the
beginning, I just noticed you here in the last 6 months or so.
>
> we have laws against something called "hate speech" in canada. we do not
> have your absolute freedom of speech. we censor incitement of hatred.
>
WHAT???
You censor peoples right of speech?
What kind of bs is that?
Sure we punish those who do hate crimes like burning crosses in lawns and
beating the shit out of people of different skin color. But we don't stop
the KKK from doing a rally. It's not our right. They have their right to
hate just as we have our right to love
Howabout a hug ;)
Lucid H. Dreaming
, Matthew Ardill wrote:
>
>This is the thing I really don't understand. Even when I was like 13 and
>starting on BBSes I realised what I said may not be to some one's face but
>was still to a person and what you say does affect them. It's stupid to
>think just because the mode of communication is impersonal the person on the
>other end is going to ignore the message. It's like the phone, it's one
>step removed so people generally feel more comfortable braking bad new over
>the phone then in real life, this is the next step removed. Even further,
>more immediate then letters (snail mail) but less personal then the phone or
>real life. It's a misconception that a lot of people seem to have.
Believe it or not I'm largely this way IRL as well.
What you see as being rude I see as educating and broadening horizons.
Being exposed to alternate viewpoints is good for people.
And considering that goth is an "alternative" subculture.
A lot of the people on here are suprisingly close minded
and set in their ways. I guess it's the gothic soccer mum syndrome.
So I think that being forced to _think_ is good for these people.
And if I have to break a few eggs ^H^H^H^H^H be rude along the
way then so be it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that John Everret is of a fairly similar
mindset although he is fairly predictable in his themes. Enough to
make a parody of him stick anyway.
I haven't seen anyone parody me recently.
>
>alt.gothic and the Usenet and the internet as a whole clearly fits in to
>that. To disrupt a community in real life in the ways that many of these
>people do is criminal at worst and bad manners at best. To believe that
>simply because the community is "virtual" (which I don't believe) and that
>excuses bad manners and criminal behaviour is very feeble minded to say the
>least.
Now that sounds familiar...
Why am I thinking of this band...
I think they were called the sex pistols.... or something like that...
>
>Matt
>
? - Bringing education to the masses whether they like it or not.
Lucid H. Dreaming
, Matthew Ardill wrote:
>
> If you lived in my community you would have been beaten at least arrested
>at worst if you behaved in a similar way which means I want nothing to do
>with you and if I were to meet you in real life I'd probably react by saying
>"oh" and walking away. Better then some of the trolls who I'd spit on if
>not beat senseless if given the opportunity. Words have power you know
>that.
Icky trolls how dare they wear leather jackets, spit, swear and smell.
And they called me a tosser. How dare they!
They should arrested they should. It just isn't decent.
>
>Matt
>
?
Hardrock Llewynyth
write in this Year of Our Lord Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:14:08 GMT:
>How you can so rudely give light to such crass vulgarity in public is simply
>beyond the pale. I'd sooner be poked by sticks than subjected to your
>indecency.
So everyone should pander to your prudish neroses and puritanical
squeamishness?
Insults and aspersions work both ways John.
Hardrock
--
"Canada: the country that could have had American technology, French
cuisine, and English culture; but instead wound-up with French
technology, English cuisine, and American culture." -Mark Greene
Matthew Ardill
"John Everett" <eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
> "The Man-Like Madness" wrote...
> >
> > ... Mathew Adril and his co-hort, Siani Evans - two of
> > alt.gothic's more vocal hypocrits, who have consistently
> > done their part to drag every interesting conversation
> > down to the level of the lowest common denominator,
> > primarily by bullying anyone who says anything they find
> > controversial until they are quiet....
In response to MLM's statement, the fact remains he started several
conversations by making derogatory statements, ignoring several facts, and
then pretending he was playing "devil's advocate" WAY after the fact. Sorry
chum, too late to pull your ass out of the fire when it comes to that. You
prove yourself an idiot (and when I say idiot I mean it in the figurative
sense not in how it relates to IQ) and there is no changing that fact.
> Don't forget the label alt.gothic's more vocal bigots as well. I
especially
> liked the way that Matthew finished off his message with the question,
> "could any body possibly explain why these individuals do what they do for
> me?" when, of course, he started off the message with the damning
> preconception that they do it just "for shits and giggles". Likewise, he
> elsewhere describes the behavior as a 'dysfunction and, naturally, he
> prejudicially dismisses my input -- even though I'm probably one of the
most
> qualified people to explain why some people might find a joust more
> communally productive than playing tea party.
The claim had been made that they did it for shits and giggles and I
couldn't understand someone who was healthy wanting to abuse people for fun.
If it was for intellectual purposes that is one thing but to do it to make
people's lives difficult to get kicks is another. And of course I dismiss
your opinion. You have none, your opinion is to be contrary, rude, and try
and alienate and infuriate all you talk to. You sir are a caricature. You
are no longer a person of true nature. A friend of mine has a word for the
kind of person you are, a twitcher. You just so revel on being the
inteligencia and being on the fringes of society you can't function around
people who get along. You have to stir shit up.
> One can't help but wonder how a cute suburban Canadian married couple,
> working their way through college, saving up for their first kids and
first
> Toyota Echo, ever wandered into alt.gothic in the first place. If one
looks
> at the history of art works by, say, Andrew Eldritch, Ian Curtis, or
Genesis
> P-Orridige -- could they be described as anything other than
> 'passion-enflaming trolls'? Heavens, the earnest Matt and Siana's of Ian
> Curtis' day used to call him a 'Nazi'.
And no one starts as a nice suburban married couple. First of all, we aren't
suburban, we live in the downtown and suburban is not a state of mind it's
being from a specific geographic location. Second, I'm not working my way
through college I'm paying for my bills and loans, helping siani get through
school, and hoping one day to go back, thirdly I didn't always live this
lifestyle I've lived in poverty, I've starved, I've begged, I've bussed
tables and fought for food but that doesn't make me "goth" that makes me me
and if someone is so insecure in who they are they have to live their life
by a set of actions to fit in to a label, they are a sad creature indeed.
Fourthly, siani has been here about four years longer then you and I about
three it calls in to question the validity of your statement of belonging
here more then us. John how do you expect any one to take you seriously?
Do you think you are even going to get a rise out of any of us any more? We
are at the point where we see one of your posts and say 'oh that John just
trying to start a fight again.' You have lampooned and insulted to the
point of becoming a joke. Not even a humorous one just one of those jokes
that goes on and on and people say "oh he's still here?"
> The very charter of this newsgroup demands upon controversy and
exploration
^^^^^^^^^^^ ???
> of non-entrenched intellectual archives. Let the suburban bigots and the
> hypocrites find their tea party somewhere other than the middle of a
> tournament field.
Really? Where does it say that? It's a loose collection of people with
similar tastes in dress and music. Even those vary widely. I sir am not
the hypocrite, never have been, never will be. I never claimed to be all
knowing and am ready to admit when I am wrong, or at least concede that no
resolution will be found. I do not however tolerate hate. I do not allow
people to impose their beliefs on others, and I do not impose mine on
others. People are allowed to disagree but to be abusive and deliberately
ignorant (as some trolls attempt to be) by simply saying something is not
true because of its source is wrong. I believe you are quite intelligent
John, but I also believe you are a sad, lonely little man who desperately
wants to be loved but doesn't know how. You have my pity sir.
By the way siani finds it very flattering that you've taken the time to find
out so much about her when she doesn't even know what country you live in.
There are some nice windmills over there for you to tilt at if you wish. Oh
yes, and fine John, I'm the Mod/punk/neo-hippy/new age/feminist poser. If
you can think of any other labels to throw at me go ahead. Ian Curtis was
no nazi and people who actually listened to his music would never call him
that. So what's the New Model Army quote for today? Something from Across
This Grey Land or something like that?
Matt
<who finds John a sad, sad little man and is happy that at least he has
friends, and hopes one day John goes out and finds them too>
Edvamp
That cuts the other way too. It can be easily claimed that attempts to broaden
horizons is just a smokescreen to allow someone to be a prick.
When I was in High School, there was one punk rock chick who was pretty much an
annoying cunt. But whenever anyone called her on it, she said they were only
saying that cos she was "different".
When alt.syntax.tactical and the meowers and all them were trolling AG, any
attempts to curtail them were called censorship and netcopping. Again,
assholish behavior hiding behind lofty principles.
>So I think that being forced to _think_ is good for these people.
>And if I have to break a few eggs ^H^H^H^H^H be rude along the
>way then so be it.
The idea of shocking someone into open mindedness is hardly a new one, I've
read RA Wilson too. But to do it in an offensive, rude or insulting way only
makes the person you're trying to "enlighten" more defensive and takes the
focus away from your message and onto your actions the same way a terrorist
bombing takes the focus away from the cause and onto the violence.
>Why am I thinking of this band...
>
>I think they were called the sex pistols.... or something like that...
The New Kids On The Block of the punk scene? A good example of excellent
marketing and packaging, but I don't quite see how that's relevant here.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Perkygoth Supreme
Jhaerak
>
> "siani evans" <sia...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A43BE20...@home.com...
> > ya know what? most of the regulars do have decency and tact. JE
> > doesn't, but i've been saying since he first showed up that he was a
> > troll.
can be a bit scathing when pissed off, but here? Its easier to calm down
b4 hitting send.
Or have I just gotten myself confused with someone else? Time to change
the sig again *sigh*
JE(xx) (Short for Jhaerak Entrahvian)kiss,kiss) )
--
JE ("Dip me in chocolate and throw me at the Nuns!")
http://clik.to/jhaerak
LU : 22Dec00
"World Domination" Page added - Sign Up Now -
While There's Time ;-)
SolitaireRose
> leave just get the reaction and then leave laughing. No, I'm talking
about
> the long term ones. The ones who seem to enjoy picking fights with
people,
> who are derogatory to the group as a whole and who generally don't seem to
> like any of the people here on the news group. I think we know who these
> people are so it's not necessary to point fingers but what I can't
> understand is why they do it?
Having just dropped off a list because of someone like this, I think it is
that they feel that if they "win" they have proven something to the world,
because the 'net is their whole world. Or maybe they are so invested in
being right they don't care about anything but that. I have found that most
of the time they just don't have a lot going for them, and stirring up shite
in places helps them to feel like they matter.
Or they could just be assholes with too much time on their hands, and if it
wasn't trolling, they be in restaurants sending back they food 15 times just
to give waitresses a hard time
--
Cory!! Strode, the Best Dressed Man In Comics
www.solitairerose.com
Typed in front of a live studio audience.
The Man-Like Madness
:Actually, it's quite easy to master -- and quite encouraged! Corporate
:America these days relentlessly preaches rebellion, selfishness, and
:indulgendence -- it's the new state of normality. You see, there's big
:money to be made off of pandering to the behavoir of the lower orders. The
:undisciplined and unprincipled are so easily led around by their senses that
:such fools and their money are soon parted.
::yoink::
off to altgothicquotes.txt with you...
GOBLIN
==================================
For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, who art as black as hell,
as dark as night. - Shakespeare
The Man-Like Madness
:>Actually, it's quite easy to master -- and quite encouraged! Corporate
:>America these days relentlessly preaches rebellion, selfishness, and
:>indulgendence -- it's the new state of normality.
:Yes. And the "secret" to rebel effectively is to not use that canned
:revolution, as an individual, but make your own by detaching yourself
:from the important tools used to exploit both ends of the human
:spectrum.
Could you clarify that last part? The "important tools...spectrum"?
:Using the medias can be successful to broadcast the most
:blunt and unalterable visions of rebellion. They might try to exploit
:it, but it'd be useless to them (not fashionable'nuff yet).
I think the reasoning behind the rebellion-as-advertising-gimick is "Everyone
is kinda rebellious, let's tap into that!" Hey, we're appealing to your
rebellious streak, buy our shoe, Just Do It! I also think that they are
stirring up something that is...well, dangerous when not focused effectvely.
Pumping every little kids head full of Just Do It! and Obey Your Thirst! can't
be healthy. If everyone was so self-aware that they could conciously filter
out all useless information from birth, then it would be a moot point that mass
media is filled with these reckless memes promoting rebellion for the hell of
it. But many adults can't even manage that herculean task, let alone kids.
There's got to be some sort of fall-out at some point.
: But the
:serious stuff(2) shouldn't be ever in direct contact with this
:machine, which could swallow it (the output end of the spectrum) and
:be restitued in a sythetised, standardized and conformized ephemeral
:consumption product to the end of the chain (the input end of the
:spectrum).
That's a very interesting sentence. What does it mean?
Fortunately, too, the theme park rebellion the corporate
:machine encourages is presented in a rather boring and artificial
:fashion and flavour. You just can't push bad quality beyond a certain
:limit, before people start looking for alternatives that you don't
:have in the back store.
:Rebels'images are only marketable when they're dead, past history.
:When they exist, they are a problem.
I totally agree...but I think that the "mainstream/Corporate" media, in an
attempt to remain relevant, is moving deeper and deeper into actual dangerously
subversive (to their goals) propgandizing - I mean, Che Guevera on t-shirts.
I'm all for it, but I'm surprised it's being sold out of malls, and hyped on
MTV. I mean, if I was trying to create a passive spectator democracy, I
wouldn't let stuff like that go on.
:>You see, there's big
:>money to be made off of pandering to the behavoir of the lower orders. The
:>undisciplined and unprincipled are so easily led around by their senses that
:>such fools and their money are soon parted.
:
:That's not really those people who are and can be touched by such
:tactics. It's very easy to rebel against today's major "opressor",
:because it's all based on buying and selling and vice versa. It's very
:easy to choose where your money will go in many cases.
But you're still playing their game. You're still spending money.
With a very
:minor effort, you can even track where your money will go at the end
:of the chain. If I buy a book, for an example, I know who gets the
:money, from the store, to the publisher, to the press, to the paper
:mill and even to the forestry company, if I can bother'nuff to look
:up. I know exaclty who ends up with this money.
Well, it's not quite that easy. If you trace ownership of all those companies,
and then trace ownership of those companies owners, it can get pretty murky.
Numbered swiss bank accounts, etc.
:No need to be member
:#xxxxx of x organisation to do that. It's something everybody can do
:without effort.
Yes, consuming is easy. Going to the library is pretty easy to.
:That sure isn't all and it's almost impossible to never buy something
:from a multinational glutton, today,
No, it's impossible. You can avoid a few of them, but you can't not funnel
money into, say, 3M's pockets.
but that's still a few
:kbucks/head per year oriented in a specific direction. That's an act
:of self determination. By doing this, you slipped out of the active
:market statistics. Besides, whenever there's an alternative, chances
:are that it's better than what's offered by the loud machine and
:sometimes even cheaper.
Yes. yes, definetely. And always buy used if you can. After market is so
much better.
This is why I do drugs rather than see movies. I'd rather support the black
market than the global cash hesit, I mean, economy.
:And bravo to all the pirates and copyright
:violators who rip the shit out of the big c. That won't be such a big
:loss to the authors, anyway and maybe it'll make'em look for another
:mean of diffusion for their stuff, next time.
Go Napster!
:But that's enuff. I managed to bore myself, now.
I was entertained.
The Man-Like Madness
:> Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. What you're taling about is,
:> say, accusing anyone who says anything you disagree with of trolling? Would
:> that be bullying? It seems to match your definition.
:
:no, it doesn't. however, if they jumped into every thread with some
:kind of assertion that goths are all mean to animals, somehow working it
:into the topic, i'd say that yes, they are trolling.
I'm not talking about trolling, I'm talking about bullying. Is running amok
accusing people willy-nilly of "trolling" a form of bullying. That is the
question i am asking you. Obviously that didn't come across in the first
attempt.
:there is quite a
:difference between "accusing someone of exhibiting a characteristic"
:(such as: homosexuality, weakness, inability to relax etc; "i think you
:just say that because you're gay!") and disagreeing with someone ("i
:think you are wrong").
I agree. However, "accusing someone of exhibiting a characteristic" is
frequnetly a way of making them shut-up without actually addressing the
statements they have made. For example, it's very easy for people to label
John a "sexist", "jerk", or "asshole"...or a 'troll", and assume that
invalidates his statements (which it doesn't of course). Doing it excessively
and at every oppurtunity; as oppossed to simply killfiling and ignoring him, or
accepting the challenge and taking him to task for what he posts (and not who
he is); and is bullying.
:<troll>
:i think you have a very poor grasp of the english language.
No siani, that is not a troll. That is a flame. Like this is a flame: This
mistake, not being able to differentiate between two activities or actions, is
typical of dumb bitches such as yourself.
The Man-Like Madness
:of non-entrenched intellectual archives. Let the suburban bigots and the
:hypocrites find their tea party somewhere other than the middle of a
:tournament field.
Hell yeah.
HELL YEAH.
I'll bet they're not even goths.
kest
siani evans <sia...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Deviancy wrote:
> >
> > but you can't expect us all to have that same level of tact. It's
Why the hell not? I don't fall for the 'its a free country, I can be as
rude as I want' line. Your momma should have raised you better.
to damn
> > holier than thou of you to expect decency and maturity from a
We are Goth. We're not pretentious, we really _are_ better than you.
(you read the FAQ, right?)
> You have to take
> > the good with the bad and just accept it.
>
LIke hell we do. You know why I first came to a.g.? And why I stay?
Because its not just a newsgroup. Its a community. A community that
cares about keeping down the graffiti and helping out the neighbors. If
you don't grow up and contribute, we may not be able to kick you off,
but we have an artillery of flamethrowers and killfiles ready to make it
less fun for you to be here.
You're just growing complacent because people have been feeding you.
> you haven't done anything. 'deviancy' has. you've said yourself that
> you aren't really like this, that's why you use a screen name. you
> think of yourself, and all of the other posters as fictional
> characters. we don't.
>
:) tell me about. 'kest' is, if anything, _more_ the real me than the
person who goes by that name my family calls me.
k
--
"It's just not a good idea to argue philosophy with God. Especially when
he's stoned."
-Spider, on God, Satan, and the duckbilled platypus
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John Everett
>
> And of course I dismiss your opinion. You have none, your
> opinion is to be contrary, rude, and try and alienate and
> infuriate all you talk to. You sir are a caricature. You
> are no longer a person of true nature. A friend of mine has
> a word for the kind of person you are, a twitcher. You just
> so revel on being the inteligencia and being on the fringes of
> society you can't function around people who get along.
> You have to stir shit up.
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya
is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so."
-- Uncle Remus
> I sir am not the hypocrite, never have been,
> never will be.
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya
is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so."
-- Uncle Remus
>I do not however tolerate hate. I do not allow
> people to impose their beliefs on others, and
> I do not impose mine on others.....
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya
is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so."
-- Uncle Remus
> By the way siani finds it very flattering that you've
> taken the time to find out so much about her when
> she doesn't even know what country you live in.
Yes, from her comments on Wilde, I figured she wasn't as sharp as I when it
comes to reading comprehension and retention.
> You have lampooned and insulted to the point of
> becoming a joke. Not even a humorous one....
What part don't you understand of:
*snarf*
LOL
The people who take take a joke, take the jokes in my messages. The people
with a head for the serious, take the serious in my messages seriously.
Only the wound-too-tight spazzes like you, seem to only be blowing steam out
of their ears.
But then, you live with an abusive spouse -- it's only natural for you to
perpetuate the cycle of abuse by blaming your own lack of internal
self-control upon an external "provocation". Right, Matt, and Siana only
yells and hits you "when you deserve it." Poor sap. Wait until your
testicles finally decend and you try to assume some other role than the
henpecked dope.
> It's a loose collection of people with
> similar tastes in dress and music.
Nope, it's a culturally recurring artistic phenomenon. The salesperson lied
to you in order to sell you those silly shoes, that ridiculous haircut, the
unflattering make-up, and those awful Morrissey and Cure records.
> I believe you are quite intelligent
> John, but I also believe you are a
> sad, lonely little man who desperately
> wants to be loved but doesn't know how.
> You have my pity sir.
If you really believed that, don't you think you should reach out to me with
love and kindness, rather than abuse and accusations? Why then aren't you
trying to help me rather than tweak me? Just getting your kicks poking me
with sticks? Hypocrite!
John
John Everett
> I can't understand what wrong you see with the
> use of deception in a good babblering session.
> Especially if used in obvious ways. I use it often
> for the greatest amusement of the readers.
> Deception, used properly, only deceive the
> object of the joke. Almost everything having the
> latent power of being a joke, deceptive tactics
> are a superb tool of exploitation.
I disagree -- the best 'deception' is not obvious, but ambivilent. The
obvious stuff is the school yard quality variety.
> Yes. And the "secret" to rebel effectively is to not
> use that canned revolution, as an individual, but
> make your own by detaching yourself from the
> important tools used to exploit both ends of the
> human spectrum.... the serious stuff(2) shouldn't
> be ever in direct contact with this machine....
> ...
> (2)Like going to st-viateur to buy a dozen of
> bagels, instead of dropping by the
> megasupermarket where you can buy everything,
> even a small house, if you want.
Here, you deceive yourself. Even at st-viateur, the bagels are made from
modern wheat, a toxic Frankenstein grain genetically engineered and
hybridized by multinational gluttons to increase yield at the expense of
taste and nutrition. You didn't bother to read the label -- your revolution
is just as canned as the food at Disneyworld.
John
John Everett
> Jane's Addiction posters.
The 'Nothing's Shocking' one?
I used to have that one in my living room (along with Picasso's Guarnica)
for a while -- way back in the day (like back when I saw Jane's Addiction
play the old Masquerade in Ybor City).
John
Deviancy
"kest" <kestthew...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:923pe5$539$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> We are Goth. We're not pretentious, we really _are_ better than you.
> (you read the FAQ, right?)
And who's to say I am not goth? And yes I have read the drivel, all ng's
have a faq and I find it kind of silly to try to put rules on something you
have no control over. If you could password lock the ng, ok, set rules.
But it's a public forum so get over it. And you are welcome to killfile me
but I consider that to be kinda pussy like. "Oh I can't handle Deviancy,
I'll just ignore him because he gets on my nerves"
You should do really good outside of your house if that's the case. Because
if you find me annoying you mustn't go out much, the majority of humanity is
quite an annoyance
Hrmm??
Perhaps I'm the Ubergoth from Gothland who's come to put judgement on all of
you false goths
I am GothMan hear me rooooooooar
And I'm not one of them inbred perkygoths either, doot doot.
> but we have an artillery of flamethrowers and killfiles ready to make it
> less fun for you to be here.
I have my supporters, I like my supporters, they are a nice bunch of guys.
We shall judge you like you have judged me. I have decided ye are unworth
of your gothness, hand in goth id card now please. Don't make me beat you
with my giant ankh and gothic anal beads.
> You're just growing complacent because people have been feeding you.
I'm just happy because the holidays are here and I want to spread joy
siani evans
The Man-Like Madness wrote:
> :<troll>
> :i think you have a very poor grasp of the english language.
>
> No siani, that is not a troll. That is a flame. Like this is a flame: This
> mistake, not being able to differentiate between two activities or actions, is
> typical of dumb bitches such as yourself.
LOL!
anyone else see the humour in what he just did?
siani (it was also a successful troll. it got a strong emotional
response.:)
kest
"Deviancy" <hardroc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "kest" <kestthew...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:923pe5$539$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > We are Goth. We're not pretentious, we really _are_ better than you.
> > (you read the FAQ, right?)
>
> but I consider that to be kinda pussy like. "Oh I can't handle Deviancy,
> I'll just ignore him because he gets on my nerves"
>
no offense, but I haven't read anything by you yet that enlightened me
so I might as well save myself the time) but in general. However, I am
constrained to use deja, which is inferior, as free services usually
are, and has no killfile, so I must suffer. <hand-staple-forehead>
>if you find me annoying you mustn't go out much, the majority of
humanity is
> quite an annoyance
>
you noticed? yes, this is why I prefer to socialize online. at least, I
did before every fuckwit in the galaxy was given a free pass and didn't
have to earn their admittance by rubbing two braincells together.
> Perhaps I'm the Ubergoth from Gothland who's come to put judgement on
all of
> you false goths
>
I'm not really a goth. Just so you know. I just play one on the internet.
>I have my supporters, I like my supporters, they are a nice bunch of guys.
They support you in email, right?
siani evans
Deviancy wrote:
>
> "siani evans" <sia...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A43BE20...@home.com...
> > ya know what? most of the regulars do have decency and tact. JE
> > doesn't, but i've been saying since he first showed up that he was a
> > troll.
> > we can expect it from all the people on the group. if it isn't
> > forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time, they generally hear a chorus
> > of plonks. you are walking that line.
>
> Oh please, Siani like your hubbie you need to relax a little. When did you
> two become the King and Queen of Ag anywho???
>
> Did y'all meet at some support group for uptight bastiches?
no, we met on ag. :) about 5 years ago this march.
>
> > you haven't done anything. 'deviancy' has. you've said yourself that
> > you aren't really like this, that's why you use a screen name. you
> > think of yourself, and all of the other posters as fictional
> > characters. we don't.
>
> Deviancy and Bryan are two different people in some ways but the same in
> others. Deviancy starts off as an ass then is nice to people once they show
> him a little heart. Bryan is nice from the get go. That's the only
> difference really. Deviancy can rip into anyone at any time and not have
> any consequences to pay, Bryan has to be nice because if he told off his
> co-workers for being asses he'd probably end up with a pink slip and a nice
> severance check. Bryan likes his co-workers though because they like him :)
>
> Whooo I have a split idenity.
i don't. siani posts, and siani goes to college and regrets ever going
to university, and siani plays with the ferrets in her pjs. it's all
me, that's pretty much all there is. back when i first appeared on ag,
it was 'cool' to use a tag, but i could never think of one, and i felt
funny about being someone else. so i just signed as siani, with an
ascii hedgehog. what i post is my own opinion.
>
> >
> > and while i'm at it, i'm sorry, but usenet just doesn't work the way
> > you think it does. if you troll, no one will have a serious discussion
> > with you after a while. you can't be both a troll and a serious
> > person. as soon as you troll, all of your comments in other discussions
> > are devalued accordingly, because no-one knows whether or not to take
> > you seriously.
>
> I don't believe that, I think as soon as some of you newbies realize who I
> really am you will know the difference between my shit and my serious shit.
> I apologize if you aren't a newbie, but I didn't see you here in the
> beginning, I just noticed you here in the last 6 months or so.
go look up a few things. i was around before c1. i tried to go, but it
was all 19+, so my dear mum said no going to chicago just to hang out
with people you met on the computer.:) i've just posted photographic
evidence that i was at c2.
i'm pretty fuckin' certain that i predate you by a few years.
i do remember another deviancy from back in the day, though. i don't
think it was you, because i don't recall as many to/too mistakes.
> >
> > we have laws against something called "hate speech" in canada. we do not
> > have your absolute freedom of speech. we censor incitement of hatred.
> >
> WHAT???
>
> You censor peoples right of speech?
>
> What kind of bs is that?
it's the way we work. many places work that way.
i just thought that it might help you understand why the non-US people
don't get all worked up when you say freedom of speech, and try to cry
censorship.
we're like "so? censorship is sometimes necessary."
siani
siani evans
Jhaerak wrote:
>
> Deviancy wrote:
> >
> > "siani evans" <sia...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A43BE20...@home.com...
> > > ya know what? most of the regulars do have decency and tact. JE
> > > doesn't, but i've been saying since he first showed up that he was a
> > > troll.
> Ummmm....Sorry for jumping in off topic, but.... Me? A troll? In r/l I
> can be a bit scathing when pissed off, but here? Its easier to calm down
> b4 hitting send.
>
> Or have I just gotten myself confused with someone else? Time to change
> the sig again *sigh*
no, short for John Everett. don't worry honey, you're fine. :)
sorry, forgot someone else was a JE.
siani
siani evans
The Man-Like Madness wrote:
>
> For the record, this rant about trolls (in perpetuation of the perpetual witch
> hunt) was brought to you by Mathew Adril and his co-hort, Siani Evans - two of
> alt.gothic's more vocal hypocrits, who have consistently done their part to
> drag every interesting conversation down to the level of the lowest common
> denominator, primarily by bullying anyone who says anything they find
> controversial until they are quiet (and usually accussing them of trolling).
> I, unlike Matthew, am more than willing to name names.
nah, i had nothing to do with it. you can tell if i'm involved with a
post of matt's because the spelling and grammar are better.
siani
siani evans
WorLord wrote:
>
> Taken from the obscure and questionable writings of "John Everett"
> <eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> :
> >"The Man-Like Madness" wrote...
>
> >One can't help but wonder how a cute suburban Canadian married couple,
> >working their way through college, saving up for their first kids and first
> >Toyota Echo,
>
> *snarf*
>
> LOL
hey... i think the Echo is cute. and i need something smaller than the
minivan, because the hearse takes up too much damn space. :)
and i like babies. i want some. but when i can afford them.
siani
siani evans
same thing, really. i've never really paid them much mind. if they get
too constantly irritating i go "plonk" and ignore them in blissful
peace. what i find so silly about trolling, is that it's really not
something you can win at. you won't change any opinions with it, that's
bloody obvious, and if you irritate people they can just killfile you
and never have to hear you at all. seems like a very silly hobby to me.
siani
Killjoy Kilroy
>> Jane's Addiction posters.
>
>The 'Nothing's Shocking' one?
If memory serves. That was 7 years ago & to be quite honest,
the details of the poster weren't the focus of my attention.
>I used to have that one in my living room (along with Picasso's Guarnica)
>for a while -- way back in the day (like back when I saw Jane's Addiction
>play the old Masquerade in Ybor City).
You are as multifaceted as those new "perfectly cut diamonds"
(forgive me if I've forgotten their name, I've had a few cups of cheer)
they advertise on the tellyvision. Do you cost $18K, too?
>John
We know you're priceless,
Carrie
Siobhan
<mka...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>I'll bet they're not even goths.
I'm not a goth.
Siobhan
....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.virulent.org} sio...@virulent.org
There's nothing wrong with failure. It makes success taste sweet.
~The Demics
Alain Cislaghi
<mka...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Alain Cislaghi wrote in...
>:>Actually, it's quite easy to master -- and quite encouraged! Corporate
>:>America these days relentlessly preaches rebellion, selfishness, and
>:>indulgendence -- it's the new state of normality.
>:
>:Yes. And the "secret" to rebel effectively is to not use that canned
>:revolution, as an individual, but make your own by detaching yourself
>:from the important tools used to exploit both ends of the human
>:spectrum.
>
>Could you clarify that last part? The "important tools...spectrum"?
The tools. They can intake about anything that comes from the populace
and process it into something that is acceptable and marketable. All
what could be wrong for them is excised or modified in such a way that
renders it sterile, harmless to them. Then they can feed it back to
the populace and make a profit. Because they own most of the mediatic
forms of communication, their altered product is the most easily
accessible. What you'll hear the most about on the tv, radio, subway
station walls, etc is this stuff. Most people will therefore be more
inclined to buy it. The spectrum is probably not a very good term to
describe accurately what I meant, however, but I liked it because it
implied different layers of people. But I could've said that the
populace is like a worm that occasionally shits nice stuff but intake
whatever comes in. The populace being varied can intake and process
lots of things, no matter where it comes from, but the crap it eats
will always be crap while the good stuff will make good fertilizer for
other good stuff to grow up.
>:Using the medias can be successful to broadcast the most
>:blunt and unalterable visions of rebellion. They might try to exploit
>:it, but it'd be useless to them (not fashionable'nuff yet).
>
>I think the reasoning behind the rebellion-as-advertising-gimick is "Everyone
>is kinda rebellious, let's tap into that!" Hey, we're appealing to your
>rebellious streak, buy our shoe, Just Do It!
What's hard to understand clearly is why it works on certain people. I
guess it might either means that there are lots of intellectually poor
folks or that they don't buy into this but like the fashion. Maybe a
bit of both.
>I also think that they are
>stirring up something that is...well, dangerous when not focused effectvely.
>Pumping every little kids head full of Just Do It! and Obey Your Thirst! can't
>be healthy.
It's not the corporation's concern. It's not such an evil thing,
however. The corps has no consciousness, it's not even an animal. It's
just a program we built and which has only one purpose, once revered
highly by all of us : to exploit -everything- as much as possible with
maximum profit as the supreme goal.
>If everyone was so self-aware that they could conciously filter
>out all useless information from birth, then it would be a moot point that mass
>media is filled with these reckless memes promoting rebellion for the hell of
>it. But many adults can't even manage that herculean task, let alone kids.
>There's got to be some sort of fall-out at some point.
The society corp has built is built the same way religion built
societies. It's all a matter of generations. Kids are formed by their
rents before the media take over to finish the job. But the
rents'behaviours and ways of life have the most important effect
during the first few years. Fortunately, there's this antique
phenomenon of rebellion in all people. It seems that every generation
has the need to do the complete opposite of what their rents did. It's
never entirely successful, but each new generation tears down a bit
more the older ideologies. Just like what is still happening with the
most rigid judeo-christian ideals. There are still lots of people
sexually inhibited and unable to live well the way they want, in this
domain, but they are obviously a dying breed.
>: But the
>:serious stuff(2) shouldn't be ever in direct contact with this
>:machine, which could swallow it (the output end of the spectrum) and
>:be restitued in a sythetised, standardized and conformized ephemeral
>:consumption product to the end of the chain (the input end of the
>:spectrum).
>
>That's a very interesting sentence. What does it mean?
Your good ideas will be copied, rendered marketable, often losing in
quality, and sold back to you and the others around you and it'll be
like that till people cease to buy'em, when the trend dies. Then
they'll find other ideas among the same populace. heh. And, unlike
you, they have the financial capability to make their crappy product
known to everybody in the world.
> Fortunately, too, the theme park rebellion the corporate
>:machine encourages is presented in a rather boring and artificial
>:fashion and flavour. You just can't push bad quality beyond a certain
>:limit, before people start looking for alternatives that you don't
>:have in the back store.
>:Rebels'images are only marketable when they're dead, past history.
>:When they exist, they are a problem.
>
>I totally agree...but I think that the "mainstream/Corporate" media, in an
>attempt to remain relevant, is moving deeper and deeper into actual dangerously
>subversive (to their goals) propgandizing - I mean, Che Guevera on t-shirts.
>I'm all for it, but I'm surprised it's being sold out of malls, and hyped on
>MTV.
Che pictures were very hip, 15-20 years ago and they could be found in
malls and stuff.
But, of course, corps aren't perfect. If an individual has enough
power in the chain to promote a specific idea and that nobody yet has
been instructed that this idea can be harmful, it might pretty well
makes its way to us before being stopped. But these things don't
happen often. What I think is that more often, we are offered a vision
of what is okay to denounce. Bitching at apartheid was okay because it
was a racial topic and no matter what happened with it, it would have
no menacing effect on our business. But what about a bunch of freaks
in south america fighting against our nice corps trying to bring in
investment and economical development? If I watch tv, all I know
about'em damn criminal revolutionaries is that they ruthlessly make
money out of illegal activities, including murders and kidnaping of
imported european and northamerican corporate employees.
>I mean, if I was trying to create a passive spectator democracy, I
>wouldn't let stuff like that go on.
I would select my stuff, that's all. Sometimes, it might even serve my
challenged interests aside of giving the people a feeling that I'm
keeping'em informed about what truly happens in their world.
>:>You see, there's big
>:>money to be made off of pandering to the behavoir of the lower orders. The
>:>undisciplined and unprincipled are so easily led around by their senses that
>:>such fools and their money are soon parted.
>:
>:That's not really those people who are and can be touched by such
>:tactics. It's very easy to rebel against today's major "opressor",
>:because it's all based on buying and selling and vice versa. It's very
>:easy to choose where your money will go in many cases.
>
>But you're still playing their game. You're still spending money.
Firstly, I'm not really playing their game. I'm not a model of
consumption, to say the least. This year, I consumed like a bourgeois,
but it only did cost me as if I had lived a tad under the limit of
official poverty. I sure consume corporate products and I even pay for
some of it, but if I didn't, I'd be physically sick and possibly
depressive. Yes, there are domains in which there's simply no
alternative. It's not surprising : we live in a society physically
owned by corp. It's already a feat to be able to limit it. I can't
visit my local puter maker and ask him to make me a new HD. Not yet.
I'm not a revolutionary, I'm just supporting it. I'm doing my best to
limit my association with what I despise and I do it well. The day
open war explode, I might join it. But, in pacifistic mode, I have
nothing to offer. I'm not an artisan, I can't make pretty and
affordable things, I'm not a politician, not an artist, nothing of it.
So I can't contribute in another way than being a "selective
consumer".
And spending money's good. I've never been against currency.
The more money I can spend in certain businesses, the more I spend.
I'm all for an healty economy. All I'm against is too powerful
entities, be it individual people or corporations.
> With a very
>:minor effort, you can even track where your money will go at the end
>:of the chain. If I buy a book, for an example, I know who gets the
>:money, from the store, to the publisher, to the press, to the paper
>:mill and even to the forestry company, if I can bother'nuff to look
>:up. I know exaclty who ends up with this money.
>
>Well, it's not quite that easy. If you trace ownership of all those companies,
>and then trace ownership of those companies owners, it can get pretty murky.
>Numbered swiss bank accounts, etc.
Hell, I wouldn't go that far. What I consider to be relevant info is
in the chain itself. Knowing a company's behaviour is really the most
useful thing to allow me to decide what I think of'em.
In the case of a book, most of the information is contained in the
first and last pages.
The bookstore's info is probably on the net, if you don't already know
the owner personally.
>:No need to be member
>:#xxxxx of x organisation to do that. It's something everybody can do
>:without effort.
>
>Yes, consuming is easy. Going to the library is pretty easy to.
heh The library sure is the most economic way and often my way. There
aren't many books I wanna own.
>:That sure isn't all and it's almost impossible to never buy something
>:from a multinational glutton, today,
>
>No, it's impossible. You can avoid a few of them, but you can't not funnel
>money into, say, 3M's pockets.
Alas. But, hey, it's not set in stone. And if you'd like it to change,
you have to start somewhere. Small, owner operated businesses appear
out of nowhere, offering more alternatives. The thing is to know
about'em and support'em so that more will come. That's a very simple
and working concept. It might seem utopic that the whole chain will
mutate that way, but that's the common appearance of a radical change
to seem impossible. However, things of such importance happened in the
past and will most certainly continue to happen.
> but that's still a few
>:kbucks/head per year oriented in a specific direction. That's an act
>:of self determination. By doing this, you slipped out of the active
>:market statistics. Besides, whenever there's an alternative, chances
>:are that it's better than what's offered by the loud machine and
>:sometimes even cheaper.
>
>Yes. yes, definetely. And always buy used if you can. After market is so
>much better.
Yeah! It's possible to buy lots of good crap in the used market! Hell,
if more people did more of that, imagine all the shit it would make in
the corps! Some wouldn't survive, others would revise their way to
build and sell. heh.
>This is why I do drugs rather than see movies. I'd rather support the black
>market than the global cash hesit, I mean, economy.
Or you can download the flicks or buy cds and dvds from china. heh.
>:And bravo to all the pirates and copyright
>:violators who rip the shit out of the big c. That won't be such a big
>:loss to the authors, anyway and maybe it'll make'em look for another
>:mean of diffusion for their stuff, next time.
>
>Go Napster!
I do, naturally. heh. So far, napster is still a pretty good and free
tool. It allowed me to get CDs I'd never have paid for and find out
about CDs I decided to buy.
>:But that's enuff. I managed to bore myself, now.
>
>I was entertained.
When I type too much on a topic my mind becomes anesthezied. Too much
drugs when I was 15-16, maybe. heh.
Alain Cislaghi
<eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>"Alain Cislaghi" wrote...
>> I can't understand what wrong you see with the
>> use of deception in a good babblering session.
>> Especially if used in obvious ways. I use it often
>> for the greatest amusement of the readers.
>> Deception, used properly, only deceive the
>> object of the joke. Almost everything having the
>> latent power of being a joke, deceptive tactics
>> are a superb tool of exploitation.
>
>I disagree -- the best 'deception' is not obvious, but ambivilent. The
>obvious stuff is the school yard quality variety.
No way. In certain circumpstances, it has to be obvious to at least
certain witnesses or it destroy the original intent.
Especially in my case. I rarely use it outside of humour. I found out
I don't really need it in "serious" matters. And, as I keep saying, if
the deceptive quality of my illusion isn't obvious to the witnesses,
the joke is crapped because nobody gets it. Get it?
>> Yes. And the "secret" to rebel effectively is to not
>> use that canned revolution, as an individual, but
>> make your own by detaching yourself from the
>> important tools used to exploit both ends of the
>> human spectrum.... the serious stuff(2) shouldn't
>> be ever in direct contact with this machine....
>> ...
>> (2)Like going to st-viateur to buy a dozen of
>> bagels, instead of dropping by the
>> megasupermarket where you can buy everything,
>> even a small house, if you want.
>
>Here, you deceive yourself. Even at st-viateur, the bagels are made from
>modern wheat
How come st-viateur's using that kind of stuff? They don't have an
alternative or what?
>, a toxic Frankenstein grain genetically engineered and
>hybridized by multinational gluttons to increase yield at the expense of
>taste and nutrition. You didn't bother to read the label --
I did! I always read the labels. I use it for family humour, in fact.
But you won't find out this kind of info on the ingredient list, will
you? You have to ask to the dude "Hey, where does that flour comes
from?".
>your revolution
>is just as canned as the food at Disneyworld.
Even if I stuffed my face strictly with grains over which seeds a
megacorp has all the rights of production, that wouldn't lower the
effect of the succesful move I did against let say loblaws by not
buying there but at this small owner operated bagel shop. And it was
easy to do. And if more did that, that'd be an easily won battle.
If you believe that you can't make a difference, simply because you
can't cut everything corporate out of your life, you are living in can
of disneyworld food. heh. No, really! You've gotta start with the easy
stuff, first, to weaken the hard knot in the middle.
Is that so hard to understand?
You don't throw your forces in all directions at once if you plan to
take over the world.
pixie
wrote:
>And who's to say I am not goth?
Me. I've told you before. You even handed back your goth card. Don't
make me find the post.
^_^
>Perhaps I'm the Ubergoth from Gothland who's come to put judgement on all of
>you false goths
>
>I am GothMan hear me rooooooooar
*blink* Goths don't roar. They whimper, whine and occasionally orgasm
loudly.
>And I'm not one of them inbred perkygoths either, doot doot.
*throws glitter on you* Now you are.
>I have my supporters, I like my supporters, they are a nice bunch of guys.
>We shall judge you like you have judged me. I have decided ye are unworth
>of your gothness, hand in goth id card now please. Don't make me beat you
>with my giant ankh and gothic anal beads.
Damn you and your anal beads!!!!!!!
You already gave in *your* goth card, anyway. Now play nice or we'll
steal your lunch.
>I'm just happy because the holidays are here and I want to spread joy
I thought you were spreading herpes...oh, but then, no one would touch
you, so you've settled for joy.
Perhaps you should get a Joycam and post pictures of your butt?
pixie, "did I miss something yesterday?"
"We've upgraded the storm from winter wonderland to
class 3 kill storm."
Cavalorn
Everett <eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> writes
>Your long history of posting inane filth tells a different story. You are
>the online equivalent of a hemorrhoid cream, genital herpes medicine, or
>sanitary napkin commercial.
Apart from that, Mr. Ruskin, how did you enjoy your wedding night?
Cav
--
Give me a woman who's taken her knocks,
Who's tasted both gutter and stars.
Give me a lady with holes in her socks.
Give me a princess with scars.
Jhaerak
> > the sig again *sigh*
>
> no, short for John Everett. don't worry honey, you're fine. :)
>
> sorry, forgot someone else was a JE.
>
> siani
Hmmm... to be an annoying troll or instantly forgettable? *sigh* :-)
Guess we can't all be as lucky as Mat ;-)
(nice pic btw you two :-) )
John Everett
>
> ... successful troll. it got a strong emotional
> response....
A troll is NOT something which causes a strong emotional response --
otherwise the only troll around would be the utter lack of composure and
self-control situated between your two ears.
You are doing nothing but playing with words in order to try to
'criminalize' -- the extremely valid form of intellectual discourse known
as -- repartee. I can sympathize, however, with your contempt for
repartee -- I would feel the same way if, like you, I were a slow minded
sissy incapable of holding my own in a battle of wits.
Nevertheless, your status as a loser doesn't change the rules -- this
newsgroup isn't your ball; you can't take it and go home crying when things
don't go your way.
But, you may, however, run home crying anytime you'd like -- or just stick
your fingers in your kill file and whine, "I'm not listening." (Either one
of those are always good for a laugh.)
John
John Everett
> Deviancy wrote:
> >
> go look up a few things. i was around before c1.
> i tried to go, but it was all 19+, so my dear mum said
> no going to chicago just to hang out with people you
> met on the computer.:) i've just posted photographic
> evidence that i was at c2.
Funny how you should attempt to date yourself by the landmark of
Party(tm)promoters scamming to make money off of an online discussion group.
Of course, this year, when Convergence shows beyond a shadow of a doubt how
distant it is from anything but a commercialized night out for clueless
dweebs, we'll all know that you were on the forefront of that Movement(tm).
I guess I'll just have to settle for being 'here' since _Juju_ was a new
album and when SDC were playing Heaven.
> > You censor peoples right of speech?
> > What kind of bs is that?
>
> it's the way we work. many places work that way.
> i just thought that it might help you understand why
> the non-US people don't get all worked up when
> you say freedom of speech, and try to cry
> censorship. we're like "so? censorship is sometimes
> necessary."
You didn't finish the sentence: Censorship is sometimes necessary... in
order to create an authoritarian hegenomy of thought. US people get worked
up, not because of the abstract lack of freedom of speech, but because,
given the diversity of voices in our culture, we recognize the particular
attempt to shove -- without thinking or intellectual discourse -- a
partyline down our throats.
Of course, given your weakness at intellectual discourse, you're all for an
authoritiarian hegenomy of thought. It gives you a ready-made set of
slogans -- which all of your teachers taught you to dutifully repeat by
pasting gold stars on your forhead -- that you can endlessly regurgitate in
order to make yourself feel Smart(tm) and Educated(tm).
Trouble is, when you get outside of your closed system, you just sound like
a blowhard twit.
John
Deviancy
> i'm pretty fuckin' certain that i predate you by a few years.
> i do remember another deviancy from back in the day, though. i don't
> think it was you, because i don't recall as many to/too mistakes.
Hrmm I've been here since 94 or 95, and I doubt there was another Deviancy
since this is my nick gothdamnit. No one else can have it or I'll slice
their throat and shit down their neck. Hehe. Ok, I was trying to be
dramatic.
It probably was me, it's a chance at least. I used to be a nice lil guy who
just followed everyone elses opinions and never caused any trouble. I was
new and I didn't feel it was my place. But as more and more newbies pop in
here I feel I have more of a right then ever to jump on a few people. I'm
still waiting for a smithes thread so I can jump up and down on Morrisey.
Hate that little twit.
But in reality I really don't have any issues with the Smiths, sure I think
the music is borderline New Kids on the Block mixed with a little bit of the
Cure but as long as it's not in my stereo I don't care. I think what you're
missing here is this is my free place to just vent and shout and twist all
around.
> i just thought that it might help you understand why the non-US people
> don't get all worked up when you say freedom of speech, and try to cry
> censorship.
Well it's wrong, as human beings we should all have the right to say as we
will. If I want to yell nigger or kike through a mic that's my business.
Someone is free to yell wop or dego or whichever. It's just our right to
speak our minds, it's only a hateful term if you let it get to you. From
the right person a word can hurt but usually, uh uh. The only word I don't
like is racist and that's because I have always tried to never be prejudice
because of someones skin color. And I never have, even during the LA riots,
the Oj Simpson stuff, the way the area I grew up in changed etc. I knew
alot of people who did alter their opinion based on all of this, I didn't.
So it bothers me when someone thinks I am a racisit.
> we're like "so? censorship is sometimes necessary."
What's next then?
No child rearing unless theres a wedding before?
All of your cds being censored?
I mean once the foot is in the door it never goes away. Which is why I fight
this smoking thing. I had no issue when they banned it in most resteraunts
because I thought it was right. The problem is they then had their foot in
the door and I knew they wouldn't stop. It's like the whole abortion thing,
first they'll want to ban the late term abortions. We may think that's
proper since the late term ones are iffy. But once they have that foot in
the door will they stop or will they push on till abortion is once again
illegal and we have to get out the hanger to get it done.
I don't like people stepping on my feet when it comes to my personal
choices. As long as another person always has the choice to walk away from
my antics then I should be left alone. I hate to be censored and I hate
when someone comes off all holier than thou and tries to smack me down.
They need to realize they can't. My opinions don't change and my ways remain
the same.