The Wintaliban
Seeker1
planet. It is dark and unforgiving and ideologically rigid. Its
proponents want to do nothing but terrorize the people they perceive to
be the opposition.
This group is the Wintaliban.
Like all fanatics, they believe truth lies in numbers. "There are more
of us than there are of you, ergo we are right!"
Death to OS/2, BeOS, Darwin, and non-Microsoft OSes, they proclaim!
Death to non-x86 hardware, they shout!
Death to the Macintosh and its users!
Death to the Amiga and the Sun!
Death to anyone who does not see the righteousness and holiness that is
WinXP!
Like all fanatical cults, the Wintaliban has its offshoots, just like
Islam has Sunni and Shi'a. Some members of the Wintaliban worship the
AMD and Linux instead of Intel and Microsoft, but they are united with
other Wintaliban members in their hatred of all things non-x86.
They will not rest in their holy crusade until there is one faith and
one creed. There shall be only one platform and one OS and it will
unite (assimilate) the world.
Most fascinating, they accuse their opposition of cultism, which is
surely the pot calling the kettle black.
The Wintaliban cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be bargained with.
Worst of all, you cannot get them to leave. They are like Mormons
tramping from door to door and they will not be satisfied until you see
the righteousness of their faith.
Pray you do not lose your sons and daughters to this cult!
Mayor Of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
This is in such poor taste that it simply boggles the mind to
contemplate the utter juvenileness of the person who concieved it. To
compare people who use a different OS than you to a group that gives
aid and comfort to a mass murderer is beyond the pale. Hopefully you
will read this later and realize just how far gone you are. You really
need to take a break from your computer.
--
"When I take action I’m not going to fire a $2 million
missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the
butt. It’s going to be decisive."
President George W. Bush
macman
But advocating dropping nuclear weapons on innocent civilians is not in
poor taste? Advocating killing all drunks is not in poor taste?
Advocating wiping out the Japanese is not in poor taste?
Do you have any clue what you're talking about?
Mayor Of R'lyeh
Why did I expect that the same bunch who cheered wildly when it was
said that all Windows users should die of AIDS and that they weren't
human anyway would suddenly develop if not genuine commonsense then at
least a sense of decorum. Thanks, Joe, for providing clarity to my
vision when viewing Maccies even if it was unintentional.
PS: How's that company you pretend to run doing? Has this sudden
economic downturn affected their imaginary business any? What was the
imaginary product they made anyway?
macman
I see you're still living in your fantasy land.
Feel free to provide a list of Mac users who suggested any such foolish
things.
If you can.....
Mcleanzep
"There is a new and terrible form of religious fanaticism stalking the
planet. It is dark and unforgiving and ideologically rigid. Its
proponents want to do nothing but terrorize the people they perceive to
be the opposition. This group is the Wintaliban."
This is really, really low class, but unfortunately seems to be representative
of the society we live in. Nothing is viewed as sacred anymore. Perhaps this
war will have some good effect and make us reexamine our Jerry Springer society
when we realize that life really IS precious.
I liked it twenty years ago when when people heard about a divorce,they just
felt sadness about how children and a family would be harmed forever. Today
people actually celebrate it with endless jokes about Monica Lewinsky.
The disappearance of respect starts with small things. Twenty five years ago,
if NASA scientists lost a $2 billion telescope, Johnny Carson would NOT have
made jokes about it. Scientists and engineers were thought of as people who
contributed greatly to our country and only a fool would have made a joke about
their work. You start with something small like that, and then pretty soon
it's jokes about infidelity, and than you have comedy skits on Saturday Night
Live about the Gulf War. And this leads to the idiot above and some other
idiot I overheard talking about how "bin Laden really ruined my weekend".
Oh well. I guess that's life in America. And much of the rest of the
"civilised" world.
Lance Togar
news:200920012005162577%smiz...@bellsouth.net...
A large percentage of CSMA regulars have resorted to tasteless bullshit like
this. Others blindly defend it. How sad.
..
..
Woofbert
"Lance Togar" <lto...@hub.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Pray you do not lose your sons and daughters to this cult!
> ..
> A large percentage of CSMA regulars have resorted to tasteless bullshit like
> this. Others blindly defend it. How sad.
Oh, Lance, how you must suffer in this world which you take sooo
seriously.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
I'm sure the Taliband and Usama bin Laden appreciate Jerry Falwell's words of
support for religious fanaticism, intolerance, and international terrorism.
Seeker1
> contemplate the utter juvenileness of the person who concieved it. To
> compare people who use a different OS than you to a group that gives
> aid and comfort to a mass murderer is beyond the pale. Hopefully you
> will read this later and realize just how far gone you are. You really
> need to take a break from your computer.
Suggestion:
Read Jonathan Swift, "A Modest Proposal"
Brian
:> A large percentage of CSMA regulars have resorted to tasteless bullshit like
:> this. Others blindly defend it. How sad.
: Oh, Lance, how you must suffer in this world which you take sooo
: seriously.
And Ralph Wiggum thus declared: "I like the fat crayons."
It's tasteless. And yes, war is always serious.
Jim Polaski
You think Joe's company is imaginary? You really don't know how to use a
search engine. What a complete friggin dolt you are.
--
Regards,Jim Polaski"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return.
"COMPLETE MACINTOSH is now at http://people.ce.mediaone.net/jpolaski/index.html
GotaRoastYa
>There is a new and terrible form of religious fanaticism stalking the
>planet. It is dark and unforgiving and ideologically rigid. Its
>proponents want to do nothing but terrorize the people they perceive to
>be the opposition.
>
>This group is the Wintaliban.
>
>Like all fanatics, they believe truth lies in numbers. "There are more
>of us than there are of you, ergo we are right!"
You must be newbie if you think this is new. Of course your
characterization is wrong and the Taliban reference is in very poor
taste. Bet bin Laden ain't using a Mac. In his business reliabiltity
and compatability are just too important to trust to the Mac.
>
>Death to OS/2, BeOS, Darwin, and non-Microsoft OSes, they proclaim!
>Death to non-x86 hardware, they shout!
>Death to the Macintosh and its users!
>Death to the Amiga and the Sun!
>Death to anyone who does not see the righteousness and holiness that is
>WinXP!
I believe everyone should be able to run the osen of their choice.
Guess which platform gives you the widest choice ? [HINT] It isn't the
Mac. My x86 AMD system can run many more osen than the Mac.
>
>Like all fanatical cults, the Wintaliban has its offshoots, just like
>Islam has Sunni and Shi'a. Some members of the Wintaliban worship the
>AMD and Linux instead of Intel and Microsoft, but they are united with
>other Wintaliban members in their hatred of all things non-x86.
LOL. You really think there is some love between Windows and Linux
advocates ?
>
>They will not rest in their holy crusade until there is one faith and
>one creed. There shall be only one platform and one OS and it will
>unite (assimilate) the world.
Jobs/Apple ?
>
>Most fascinating, they accuse their opposition of cultism, which is
>surely the pot calling the kettle black.
5% market share. Runs few osen compared to x86. Not ported to x86. How
is Mac not cult-like ?
>
>The Wintaliban cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be bargained with.
>Worst of all, you cannot get them to leave. They are like Mormons
>tramping from door to door and they will not be satisfied until you see
>the righteousness of their faith.
Let me get this straight. x86 users are like the Taliban, they are
also like the Mormons. How about Roman Catholics, Jews, and Muslims ?
Care to develop your religous bigotry ideas a bit further ? Maybe you
you should go beatup a Sikh while you're at it.
>
>Pray you do not lose your sons and daughters to this cult!
Sorry, I encourage my son to get a wide experience of platforms, Mac
included. In real life it's the best tool for for the job that is
important. Sometimes that means MacOS, most times it doesn't. Sorry,
that's reality.
Rick
While the post was indeed in poor taste, you again show your poor
communications skills. Seeker was in no way comparing "people who use a
different OS" to anyone. It seems to me he was comparing corporate
murder to actual murder. Again, I agree that the post was in poosr taste
BUT - you cannot reason with m$. They will not leave. Gates has been
quoted many times as saying he wants a computer in every home running m$
software. m$ has repeatedly shown it will do whatever it takes to get
this done.
In addition, you have advocted nuking civillians, killing all drunks,
and yet profess to be a minister. You gleefully help despoil the
environment. So, while Seeker hasnt shown the best of taste, you arent
the best person in the world to point this out.
--
Rick
Rick
>
<large snip>
>
> I believe everyone should be able to run the osen of their choice.
What the hell is an osen? Where did this "word" come from. Are you
trying to convince someone you are one of these computer kiddies in
college that think the word bozen is cool?
> Guess which platform gives you the widest choice ? [HINT] It isn't the
> Mac. My x86 AMD system can run many more osen than the Mac.
>
There you go again.
You show your poor communications skills too:
> Let me get this straight. x86 users are like the Taliban, they are
> also like the Mormons. How about Roman Catholics, Jews, and Muslims ?
> Care to develop your religous bigotry ideas a bit further ? Maybe you
> you should go beatup a Sikh while you're at it.
>
I believe he is comparing micro$oft to the Taliban. Poor taste, yes.
But, mabe you should take a couple reading courses.
>
> Sorry, I encourage my son to get a wide experience of platforms, Mac
> included. In real life it's the best tool for for the job that is
> important. Sometimes that means MacOS, most times it doesn't. Sorry,
> that's reality.
... and you have more that a passing acquaintance with reality?
--
Rick
Steve Hix
> GotaRoastYa wrote:
> >
>
> <large snip>
>
> >
> > I believe everyone should be able to run the osen of their choice.
>
> What the hell is an osen? Where did this "word" come from. Are you
> trying to convince someone you are one of these computer kiddies in
> college that think the word bozen is cool?
Osen is the plural of OS, as boxen is the plural of box. It's a stretch,
but has been in use in parts of the software/hardware communities for
a decade or more.
Alan Baker
Seeker1 <smiz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>
Poor taste.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
"Lance Togar" <lto...@hub.microsoft.com> wrote:
Bullshit. I don't see anyone defending this.
HawaiianJavelina
> This is in such poor taste that it simply
> boggles the mind to contemplate the utter
> juvenileness of the person who conceived
> it.
Are you advocating censorship in CSMA, Mayor?
On the day that tasteless posts and humor are
no longer allowed in CSMA, on that day we
wave the white flag and concede victory to
terrorism. Freedom is lost inch by tiny inch.
I have a post referencing terrorism that I'd like
to post in CSMA. Please give me the email address
to send it to for review by your official CSMA
Panel of Patriots for their Minuteman Seal of Approval.
I wouldn't want to step on any toes, you know.
George Graves
Yeah, the other day, they flew two horse-flies into my G3 B&W Tower. But
Apple's polycarbonate cases are made of sterner stuff than the WTC, and
all that happened was that the horse-flies got massive headaches before
I swatted them with my Wintaliban Terrorist Exterminator. They'll try
again though. My heightened sense of security has caused me to put new
screens in the doors and on the windows, and I won't let anybody in
without "platform profile-ing" them first.
--
George Graves
"Nothing handles like an Alfa Romeo"
Woofbert
wrote:
You haven't seen Black Adder IV (or is it V? The WWI one).
Macman
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
Make sure you advocate wiping out at least one group of people if you
want it to get past the pseudo-mayor.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
(HawaiianJavelina) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Mayor wrote:
>
>> This is in such poor taste that it simply
>> boggles the mind to contemplate the utter
>> juvenileness of the person who conceived
>> it.
>
>Are you advocating censorship in CSMA, Mayor?
And just what convoluted thought proces did you use to arrive at that
conclusion?
>
>On the day that tasteless posts and humor are
>no longer allowed in CSMA, on that day we
>wave the white flag and concede victory to
>terrorism. Freedom is lost inch by tiny inch.
'No longer allowed'? And just how would that be implemented anyway?
You're not one of those 'free' speech advocates who thinks he has the
freedom to say anything he wants but no one has the right to say
anything critical about his speech are you? Free speech cuts both
ways. You can say anything you want and I'm free to tell you you're an
idiot for saying it.
>
>I have a post referencing terrorism that I'd like
>to post in CSMA. Please give me the email address
>to send it to for review by your official CSMA
>Panel of Patriots for their Minuteman Seal of Approval.
>I wouldn't want to step on any toes, you know.
Yet Another Idiot who thinks freedom of speech doesn't include anyone
speaking critically of his pet causes heard from.
Rick
... and I'll bet osen came into use after boxen. Box has a perfectly
good plural, why isnt that used?
--
Rick
Gregory L. Hansen
The plural of box is boxes.
Boxen is computer jargon again, as in "Unix boxen", in analogy with VAXen,
used by hackers to refer to multiple VAX computers.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Alan Baker
>Mayor wrote:
>
>> This is in such poor taste that it simply
>> boggles the mind to contemplate the utter
>> juvenileness of the person who conceived
>> it.
>
>Are you advocating censorship in CSMA, Mayor?
Obviously, he is not. Commenting on a post is not advocating censorship.
It is taking advantage of the same right to speak freely that the
original poster also enjoys.
Heat, kitchen, etc.
>
>On the day that tasteless posts and humor are
>no longer allowed in CSMA, on that day we
>wave the white flag and concede victory to
>terrorism. Freedom is lost inch by tiny inch.
Get down of that particular hobby horse. No one said they're not allowed.
>
>I have a post referencing terrorism that I'd like
>to post in CSMA. Please give me the email address
>to send it to for review by your official CSMA
>Panel of Patriots for their Minuteman Seal of Approval.
>I wouldn't want to step on any toes, you know.
I do shut up. (And no: I'm not advocating censoring you. I'm expressing
my opinion on the value of what you've just posted.)
HawaiianJavelina
>> Are you advocating censorship in CSMA, Mayor?
> And just what convoluted thought process did
> you use to arrive at that conclusion?
I booted into Windows and clicked on 'Help'.
What do you click on?
So I take it that your answer is 'No.' That's good.
HawaiianJavelina
> Obviously, he is not. Commenting on a post
> is not advocating censorship.
Depends. Knowing Mayor, he may view bullying
as a form of accepted censorship. If he can
make someone feel that their post was 'un-American',
then he can succeed in censoring them from
posting something with which he doesn't agree
or doesn't like.
This is CSMA. If someone doesn't like something,
then they're free to LEAVE. There are no rules
here, that's the way we like it.
I notice Natie didn't like the humor in CSMA either.
He left and has never returned. Unlike others
with which we're familiar.
> It is taking advantage of the same right to
> speak freely that the original poster also enjoys.
Mayor was trying to paint a post in here as
being inappropriate. This is CSMA, nothing is
inappropriate, whether we agree with it or not.
And this is the most important part ---> HUMOR
IS NEVER INAPPROPRIATE! This is a newsgroup,
not your living room.
> Heat, kitchen, etc.
I'm turning the heat up to Eleven. I don't know
about your range, but mine goes up to Eleven.
That's one hotter.
> Get down of that particular hobby horse. No
> one said they're not allowed.
That's good.
> I do shut up. (And no: I'm not advocating censoring
> you. I'm expressing my opinion on the value of what
> you've just posted.)
Value noted. No change. No tip.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
(HawaiianJavelina) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Mayor wrote:
>
>>> Are you advocating censorship in CSMA, Mayor?
>
>> And just what convoluted thought process did
>> you use to arrive at that conclusion?
>
>I booted into Windows and clicked on 'Help'.
>What do you click on?
Crack must be dirt cheap in Hawaii. Ever since you moved there you've
made no sense whatsoever.
>
>So I take it that your answer is 'No.' That's good.
And there was no reason to think otherwise.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>> This is in such poor taste that it simply boggles the mind to
You can't be serious. Are you really comparing yourself to Swift? I
knew Swift (I feel that old anyway.) You sir, are no Jonathon Swift!
Mayor Of R'lyeh
WTF is 'corporate murder'?
> Again, I agree that the post was in poosr taste
>BUT - you cannot reason with m$. They will not leave.
LOL! That's your idea of 'reasoning'? Since Microsoft won't dissolve
itself no matter how nicely you ask they are unreasonable? Has it ever
ocurred to you that maybe you're the one being unreasonable?
> Gates has been quoted many times as saying he wants a computer in every home running m$
>software. m$ has repeatedly shown it will do whatever it takes to get
>this done.
Imagine that. A businessman wanting his product to be used by
everyone. What a shock! 8)
>In addition, you have advocted nuking civillians, killing all drunks,
>and yet profess to be a minister.
Both of which will save more lives than they take. Sometimes you've
got to make hard decisions, RR. There's no sense in shying away from
it.
> You gleefully help despoil the environment.
No more than nature does itself. How many forest fires were started by
lightning last year? How many animals pee on the ground every day?
> So, while Seeker hasnt shown the best of taste, you arent
>the best person in the world to point this out.
I wasn't aware that there was a hierarchy. Could you shoot me a copy
of the organization chart? 8)
Mayor Of R'lyeh
What's it name then? You claim to know all about Joe. That shouldn't
be a surprise since you're just another of Joe's personality.
> You really don't know how to use a
>search engine.
Sure I do. Here's Joe now.
http://www.nybobcats.com/Team%20Photo.htm
> What a complete friggin dolt you are.
Its simply amazing that you have the gall to call anyone a dolt.
HawaiianJavelina
> Crack must be dirt cheap in Hawaii. Ever
> since you moved there you've made no
> sense whatsoever.
There was a time when you and I could
humorously banter back and forth, Mayor.
But I guess that was in the old days, huh?
That's too bad.
Stick another tire on the fire, I think you're
suffering from withdrawal. That or you're
taking yourself way too seriously in CSMA,
more's the pity. Nobody takes what you say
seriously, Mayor. Least of all me.
Whenever you speak in here, I always flash
back to old sitcoms with Archie Bunker sitting
his fat ass into an old recliner and opening
his yap to spew something insane. "Nuke
'em all! The only good Arab is a glowing Arab!"
I loved that show, always good for a laugh.
Just like you.
HawaiianJavelina
>> In addition, you have advocted nuking civilians,
>> killing all drunks, and yet profess to be a minister.
> Both of which will save more lives than they take.
> Sometimes you've got to make hard decisions, RR.
> There's no sense in shying away from it.
LOL! Hey, Mayor, could you do me a favor and
put the following words into a sound file and
email it to me?
"Stifle yourself, Edith!"
"Meathead!"
Thanks. I owe you one.
Rick
>
> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >> This is in such poor taste that it simply boggles the mind to
> >> contemplate the utter juvenileness of the person who concieved it. To
> >> compare people who use a different OS than you to a group that gives
> >> aid and comfort to a mass murderer is beyond the pale. Hopefully you
> >> will read this later and realize just how far gone you are. You really
> >> need to take a break from your computer.
> >
> >Suggestion:
> >
> >Read Jonathan Swift, "A Modest Proposal"
>
> You can't be serious. Are you really comparing yourself to Swift? I
> knew Swift (I feel that old anyway.) You sir, are no Jonathon Swift!
>
... and yet again, the non-mayor's psychosis raises its ugly head.
--
Rick
Rick
... and he's stupid too...
> > Again, I agree that the post was in poosr taste
> >BUT - you cannot reason with m$. They will not leave.
>
> LOL! That's your idea of 'reasoning'? Since Microsoft won't dissolve
> itself no matter how nicely you ask they are unreasonable? Has it ever
> ocurred to you that maybe you're the one being unreasonable?
>
Dissolve itself? Dissolve itself? m$ wont leave. They will do whatever
they have to either get a deal going (they wont leave they, just keep
hammering away) or buy you out or kill off your company.
> > Gates has been quoted many times as saying he wants a computer in every home running m$
> >software. m$ has repeatedly shown it will do whatever it takes to get
> >this done.
>
> Imagine that. A businessman wanting his product to be used by
> everyone. What a shock! 8)
>
Imagine that. An illegaly gained and held monopoly.
> >In addition, you have advocted nuking civillians, killing all drunks,
> >and yet profess to be a minister.
>
> Both of which will save more lives than they take.
You are advocating killing people that have done no wrong. None. You are
advocating cold blooded murder.
> Sometimes you've got to make hard decisions, RR.
Who is this RR you keep talking to? More vocies in your head?
> There's no sense in shying away from
> it.
>
I dont shy away from hard decisions. I know Ive made more than you ever
will. Life and death decisions.
> > You gleefully help despoil the environment.
>
> No more than nature does itself. How many forest fires were started by
> lightning last year? How many animals pee on the ground every day?
>
Lightening generated fires are a natural occurence that happen quite
frequently in nature. In fact, many trees depend on that fire to
propogate. And animal urination (do you understad the word?) is also a
natural occurence. Where does tire burning occur naturally, outside of
you psychotic realm?
> > So, while Seeker hasnt shown the best of taste, you arent
> >the best person in the world to point this out.
>
> I wasn't aware that there was a hierarchy. Could you shoot me a copy
> of the organization chart? 8)
>
Picture a very large pile. Millions of people. You are on the bottom.
--
Rick
Alan Baker
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Obviously, he is not. Commenting on a post
>> is not advocating censorship.
>
>Depends. Knowing Mayor, he may view bullying
>as a form of accepted censorship. If he can
>make someone feel that their post was 'un-American',
>then he can succeed in censoring them from
>posting something with which he doesn't agree
>or doesn't like.
Convincing someone not to post something with words just isn't
censorship.
>
>This is CSMA. If someone doesn't like something,
>then they're free to LEAVE. There are no rules
>here, that's the way we like it.
>
>I notice Natie didn't like the humor in CSMA either.
>He left and has never returned. Unlike others
>with which we're familiar.
>
>> It is taking advantage of the same right to
>> speak freely that the original poster also enjoys.
>
>Mayor was trying to paint a post in here as
>being inappropriate. This is CSMA, nothing is
>inappropriate, whether we agree with it or not.
>And this is the most important part ---> HUMOR
>IS NEVER INAPPROPRIATE! This is a newsgroup,
>not your living room.
Just as the original poster was free to express himself, the Mayor is
free to express his views on the original post.
Nothing in doing that prevents the original poster from continuing to
post whatever he or she wanst to.
>
>> Heat, kitchen, etc.
>
>I'm turning the heat up to Eleven. I don't know
>about your range, but mine goes up to Eleven.
>That's one hotter.
Yawn.
>
>> Get down of that particular hobby horse. No
>> one said they're not allowed.
>
>That's good.
Just not what you'd implied...
>
>> I do shut up. (And no: I'm not advocating censoring
>> you. I'm expressing my opinion on the value of what
>> you've just posted.)
>
>Value noted. No change. No tip.
>
--
HawaiianJavelina
> Convincing someone not to post something with
> words just isn't censorship.
LOL! Whatever you say.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
(HawaiianJavelina) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Obviously, he is not. Commenting on a post
>> is not advocating censorship.
>
>Depends. Knowing Mayor, he may view bullying
>as a form of accepted censorship.
You take that back or I'm going to smack you around!
> If he can
>make someone feel that their post was 'un-American',
>then he can succeed in censoring them from
>posting something with which he doesn't agree
>or doesn't like.
That's exactly the kind of thing a communist like you would think
isn't it?
>
>This is CSMA. If someone doesn't like something,
>then they're free to LEAVE. There are no rules
>here, that's the way we like it.
What happened to the rule that you have to be naked to post?
>
>I notice Natie didn't like the humor in CSMA either.
>He left and has never returned. Unlike others
>with which we're familiar.
Who has a familiar? And so long as Robert keeps waving him around as a
talisman Natie will never truly be gone.
>> It is taking advantage of the same right to
>> speak freely that the original poster also enjoys.
>
>Mayor was trying to paint a post in here as
>being inappropriate.
No I wasn't. I said it was tasteless. That seemed to be the popular
opinion. Were all the other people pointing out its tastelessness
budding censors as well?
> This is CSMA, nothing is
>inappropriate, whether we agree with it or not.
>And this is the most important part ---> HUMOR
>IS NEVER INAPPROPRIATE!
Try the old 'Looks like So-and-so is putting on weight' gag at the
next funeral you attend where the person was cremated and get back
with us.
> This is a newsgroup, not your living room.
This is both a newsgroup and my living room...ok its actually my home
office but the living room is just down the hall.
>> Heat, kitchen, etc.
>
>I'm turning the heat up to Eleven. I don't know
>about your range, but mine goes up to Eleven.
>That's one hotter.
Wuss. I had my range custom made. It goes all the way up to 15. Now
that's a range for a real man!
>
>> Get down of that particular hobby horse. No
>> one said they're not allowed.
>
>That's good.
>
>> I do shut up. (And no: I'm not advocating censoring
>> you. I'm expressing my opinion on the value of what
>> you've just posted.)
>
>Value noted. No change. No tip.
--
Gregory L. Hansen
Come on, if you believe in freedom of speech, then as much right as anyone
has of publicly expressing something distasteful, anyone has else has the
right to publicly express their dismay at something distasteful. That's
not censorship. The original post is still there for everyone to read,
right?
Gregory L. Hansen
HawaiianJavelina <hawaiian...@aol.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Obviously, he is not. Commenting on a post
>> is not advocating censorship.
>
>Depends. Knowing Mayor, he may view bullying
>as a form of accepted censorship. If he can
>make someone feel that their post was 'un-American',
>then he can succeed in censoring them from
>posting something with which he doesn't agree
>or doesn't like.
How dare you try to shame Mayor into not posting anything that will make
someone feel their post was "un-American"? Are you trying to censor him?
(And how dare Greg try to shame HawaiianJavelina into not posting anything
that will shame Mayor into not posting anything that will shame someone
into not posting anything "un-American"?)
macman
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > Obviously, he is not. Commenting on a post
> > is not advocating censorship.
>
> Depends. Knowing Mayor, he may view bullying
> as a form of accepted censorship. If he can
> make someone feel that their post was 'un-American',
> then he can succeed in censoring them from
> posting something with which he doesn't agree
> or doesn't like.
>
> This is CSMA. If someone doesn't like something,
> then they're free to LEAVE. There are no rules
> here, that's the way we like it.
>
> I notice Natie didn't like the humor in CSMA either.
> He left and has never returned. Unlike others
> with which we're familiar.
>
> > It is taking advantage of the same right to
> > speak freely that the original poster also enjoys.
>
> Mayor was trying to paint a post in here as
> being inappropriate. This is CSMA, nothing is
> inappropriate, whether we agree with it or not.
> And this is the most important part ---> HUMOR
> IS NEVER INAPPROPRIATE! This is a newsgroup,
> not your living room.
It was particularly sad since Mayor apparently thinks that it's OK to
advocate wiping out any group he doesn't like (Japanese, Arabs, drunks,
so far) yet finds a satire (admittedly, one in very poor taste) to be so
offensive the poster should be asked to leave.
Jim Naylor
Mayor Of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, and it didn't prevent the mass fusion and meltdown of
all the irony meters in the vicinity of every monitor
displaying D'uh M'ayor's pos't. ';-)
>
> > This is CSMA, nothing is
> >inappropriate, whether we agree with it or not.
> >And this is the most important part ---> HUMOR
> >IS NEVER INAPPROPRIATE!
>
> Try the old 'Looks like So-and-so is putting on weight' gag at the
> next funeral you attend where the person was cremated and get back
> with us.
>
> > This is a newsgroup, not your living room.
>
> This is both a newsgroup and my living room...ok its actually my home
> office but the living room is just down the hall.
>
> >> Heat, kitchen, etc.
> >
> >I'm turning the heat up to Eleven. I don't know
> >about your range, but mine goes up to Eleven.
> >That's one hotter.
>
> Wuss. I had my range custom made. It goes all the way up to 15. Now
> that's a range for a real man!
> >
> >> Get down of that particular hobby horse. No
> >> one said they're not allowed.
> >
> >That's good.
> >
> >> I do shut up. (And no: I'm not advocating censoring
> >> you. I'm expressing my opinion on the value of what
> >> you've just posted.)
> >
> >Value noted. No change. No tip.
--
Jim Naylor
HawaiianJavelina
> What happened to the rule that you have
> to be naked to post?
It was upgraded to include socks and a jockstrap.
> Try the old 'Looks like So-and-so is putting on
> weight' gag at the next funeral you attend where
> the person was cremated and get back with us.
One more time for those of you who have been
bitten in the cerebral cortex by a ferret:
CSMA is not a funeral home.
CSMA is not your living room.
CSMA is not your classroom.
CSMA is not your church.
CSMA is a state of mind, desperately in need of
a frontal lobotomy and electric shock therapy.
HawaiianJavelina
> How dare you try to shame Mayor into not
> posting anything that will make someone feel
> their post was "un-American"? Are you trying
> to censor him?
Yes. And if that doesn't work I can always try
bribery. The old tires on my Corolla are almost
due for replacement and I gotta get rid of 'em.
HawaiianJavelina
> Come on, if you believe in freedom of speech,
> then as much right as anyone has of publicly
> expressing something distasteful, anyone has
> esle has the right to publicly express their
> dismay at something distasteful. That's not
> censorship. The original post is still there for
> everyone to read, right?
Yes, the *original post* is still there for everyone
to read. Was there going to be any follow-up?
Will we ever know? Luckily for us and the poster,
it was just a joke, so we probably don't really
care that much about it.
But consider this:
When Bill Maher called into question the bravery
of politicians who order the launching of cruise
missiles against an enemy thousands of miles
away, I'm sure that the uproar that ensued has effectively squelched any
further similar expressions
of opinion from Bill. But, hey, his original expression
is still there for us all to read, right? But the
subject has been censored. Everyone else is
fearful to bring it up again.
There are many forms of censorship, some obvious,
some subtle.
Yesterday on a talk show, one of the media reporters
related that she has been called un-American or
even Communist for wondering what President
Clinton's exit strategy is for this War on Terrorism.
The reason this is a legitimate question is that
during the campaign Bush said he'd never take
our nation into any war unless there was a clear
exit strategy. She further related that she is now
hesitant to bring the question up again because she
doesn't want to be painted an un-patriotic during
a period when emotions are running rampant.
Censorship encompasses far more than simply
deleting email or wielding a black magic marker.
Richard K. McPike
thinks that the massive loss of life in NYC is just another source of fodder
for his "humor." Sickening that our military is about to have men die to
protect worthless sacks of shit like you.
Kirk
"Seeker1" <smiz...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:200920012005162577%smiz...@bellsouth.net...
HawaiianJavelina
> Sickening that our military is about to have
> men die to protect worthless sacks of shit
> like you.
Our military exists to protect ALL of our freedoms.
Have you ever served? If not, are you planning
on enlisting? If not, what would it take to get
you to serve?
I've seen many discussions in the past where
posters announced that if our nation was ever
directly attacked, then they'd join up. Well,
we've been directly attacked. I wonder if those
same guys have joined up now that we're at war.
Hmmm, I think that tomorrow afternoon for a little
Google search might be interesting. Now that
I've brought the subject up, I want to see what's
become of some of those old posters and see
if they're acting upon their convictions.
Gregory L. Hansen
HawaiianJavelina <hawaiian...@aol.com> wrote:
>glhansen wrote:
>Censorship encompasses far more than simply
>deleting email or wielding a black magic marker.
But that is the only form of censorship you have any business complaining
about. Not that comp.sys.mac.advocacy is a possession of the United
States or must adhere to U.S. laws, but critics have First Amendment
rights, too. Freedom of speech in no way implies freedom from criticism.
If you speak publicly, then be prepared to take your lumps.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
(HawaiianJavelina) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>glhansen wrote:
You're going to have to do better than that. I've got a lifetime
supply of Firestones now.
Seeker1
K. McPike <mcpik...@home.com> wrote:
> This is repugnant, and in poor taste. Another sniveling little punk who
> thinks that the massive loss of life in NYC is just another source of fodder
> for his "humor." Sickening that our military is about to have men die to
> protect worthless sacks of shit like you.
For those not paying attention:
1. This was satire.
2. You will notice it is not directed at people who use Windows in
general. Nor even, as someone suggested, at Microsoft itself, which is
merely obeying the profit motive.
It IS directed at people who use Windows and/or x86 and feel a need to
force their beliefs on other people. This is where I believe they and
the Taliban actually overlap.
2a. The idea for the term "Wintaliban" came from someone else's post.
Felt the need to run with it. Otherwise, I had no desire to "exploit"
the WTC tragedy in any way.
3. I'm sorry if some people find that comparison in poor taste. No
other similarities to any other persons, living or dead, were implied.
4. Suggesting people read Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" was merely
to get them to consider it in a different light. No similarities
between my literary abilities and Swift's were implied.
and finally, to the person who posted this idiocy above,
5. Fighting for freedom is a bit ridiculous if you only want people you
like and who agree with you to be free. The USA, fortunately, is based
on different principles. If you don't like them, there are other
options (the Islamic Republic of Iran, for example.)
Richard K. McPike
"HawaiianJavelina" <hawaiian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010922171731...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> Richard K. McPike wrote:
>
> > Sickening that our military is about to have
> > men die to protect worthless sacks of shit
> > like you.
>
> Our military exists to protect ALL of our freedoms.
> Have you ever served? If not, are you planning
> on enlisting? If not, what would it take to get
> you to serve?
I hope to become a Naval intelligence officer upon graduation from college.
Kirk
Richard K. McPike
> In article <gZ6r7.32947$707.19...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Richard
> K. McPike <mcpik...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > This is repugnant, and in poor taste. Another sniveling little punk who
> > thinks that the massive loss of life in NYC is just another source of
fodder
> > for his "humor." Sickening that our military is about to have men die to
> > protect worthless sacks of shit like you.
>
> For those not paying attention:
>
> 1. This was satire.
Satire or not, it was in vile taste. What happened in NYC is not proper use
for satire, to make a political point, or any other purpose. To do so
belittles the deaths there, and cheapens our nation. Scum like you abuse the
first ammendment.
Kirk
HawaiianJavelina
>> Censorship encompasses far more than simply
>> deleting email or wielding a black magic marker.
> But that is the only form of censorship you have
> any business complaining about.
Are you implying that there are proper forms
of censorship and improper forms of censorship
and that I am only allowed to complain about
certain ones? I'm starting to enter the Twilight
Zone here, so please help me...
Which form of censorship am I ALLOWED to
complain about? I wasn't aware there were
forms of censorship which I wasn't allowed to
complain about.
> If you speak publicly, then be prepared to take
> your lumps.
Why does it have to be 'lumps'? Why can't it
be dialogue? Oh, I forgot, lumps are in now and
dialogue is out. I'm having trouble keeping up
with current events.
HawaiianJavelina
> You're going to have to do better than that.
> I've got a lifetime supply of Firestones now.
Ah, but Mayor my boy, these are *special* tires.
These treads have kissed nothing but good ole
American soil for all of their lives. They were
manufactured in a plant in the Kentucky bluegrass
where illegals weren't even allowed to mop the
floors. There ain't a drop of foreign Arab oil
in any of these belts, Sonny, no sir-eeee. These
tires were pressed from local, home grown,
oil from the twice-blessed slopes of Alaska where
the bears roam free, when they ain't dodging
drilling rigs, that is. And even if some of the bears
was run over, well, by God it was probably by
a Peterbilt and that's okay, yes sir. Don't you
worry none. Them Firestones on your hands?
Ha! You can keep 'em, all I care. Probably made
in Mexico or some other foreign mudhole. But
these tires I've got for you, Mayor, I swear,
when you're on the right kind of asphalt, you can
hear 'em singing 'God Bless America' when you're
breaking the speed limit.
Whaddaya say, Mayor? I can let you have these
genuine treads for the once-only monopoly
price of $450. We got a deal or what?
My scientists in the Lab tell me that they'll smoke
bigger than any you've ever seen and guaranteed
not to harm the Ozone. And even if they do,
well hell, that'd still be less than one millionth of
one percent of what any ole volcano puts out
in just one minute. Hell, these are 'Green' tires,
Mayor! Don't let this one get by ya.
HawaiianJavelina
> Satire or not, it was in vile taste. What
> happened in NYC is not proper use for
> satire, to make a political point, or any
> other purpose. To do so belittles the
> deaths there, and cheapens our nation.
> Scum like you abuse the first ammendment.
Who are you to decide what is 'proper use'
for satire?
And please don't post back and try to paint
me as un-patriotic or un-American or some other
form of cowardice. My father retired from
the Army, I served in the Army, my younger
brother served in the Navy, and my youngest
brother is still in the Army. All of the men in
my family have served.
So trying to paint me as un-patriotic just isn't
going to cut it. You're going to have to explain
yourself clearly and concisely as to why satire
isn't appropriate at this time or on that subject.
I'm calling you out to put your brain in gear and
back up your statements, instead of just opening
your mouth and calling others 'scum'.
HawaiianJavelina
> I hope to become a Naval intelligence officer
> upon graduation from college.
Good for you! Really.
But as I have often witnessed in the military,
it takes a few years for someone to understand
what it is that they're truly protecting and
volunteering to die for.
The 'gung-ho disease' that you pick up the
first year eventually wears out and that's
when you start thinking about why you're really
in the military and why you're really putting
up with all of the hardships. And let's face it,
day to day life in the military usually sucks.
If you're only there to protect the freedoms that
you happen to agree with, well... that's not really
the kind of guardian that we need. Imagine
a Secret Service Agent who only puts in 100%
effort for a Democratic President or Republican
President.
Ten bucks says that after four years in the Navy,
you're more than willing to give 100% to protect
ALL freedoms no matter how badly you disagree
with them. If not, then after four years, it's time
to weed you out.
Richard K. McPike
deaths of innocent Americans. That is poor taste. Free speech is worthless
is used in an egregious manner.
Kirk
"HawaiianJavelina" <hawaiian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010923025909...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Tim Adams
McPike at mcpik...@home.com wrote on 9/23/01 2:12 AM:
Isn't that an Oxymoron - Naval intelligence?
>
> Kirk
>
>
Mayor Of R'lyeh
(HawaiianJavelina) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Mayor wrote:
You had me drooling up until this last paragraph. Haven't you heard
that my sole reason for burning tires on earth day is to destroy the
atmosphere and kill the entire human race? It couldn't possibly be a
celebration of the expulsion of thieving scum who were constantly
threatening everyone from our neighborhood like I claim. After all,
how could I possibly know more about my motivtions than the sage bunch
of mindreaders we have gathered here?
Mayor Of R'lyeh
(HawaiianJavelina) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Richard K. McPike wrote:
Why does this make you more patriotic than average? Plenty of traitors
have come from within the military ranks as well as patriots.
Rick
You claim to what everyone else's true motivations are. Why do you think
its strange if others claim to know the saem about you?
--
Rick
Rick
Volunteering to serve in the military, where you may be your life on the
line at a moments notice, is a lot more patriotic that sitting around
claiming to be a minister, and dissing everything.
--
Rick
Rick
Abuse the First Amendment? How did he abuse his right to free speech.
Michael Douglas describes free speech very well at the end of The
American President... (paraphrasing), free speech is guarranteeing
someone's right to say things you spend you life yelling against.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> This sophomoric "satire" is inappropriate because it makes light of the
> deaths of innocent Americans. That is poor taste. Free speech is worthless
> is used in an egregious manner.
>
> Kirk
>
I am very glad that you did not craft the First Amendment. Otherwise, we
would only have speech in good taste according to Kirk.
--
Rick
Mayor Of R'lyeh
And just where have I claimed any such thing, RR?
> Why do you think
>its strange if others claim to know the saem about you?
Mainly because they are 100% wrong.
Rick
Who is the RR you keep talking to? I see your psychosis has again clouded
your memory.
>> Why do you think
>>its strange if others claim to know the saem about you?
>
>Mainly because they are 100% wrong.
I see... and you're never worng? How grandiosly arrognat of you. Typical.
--
Rick
Mayor Of R'lyeh
bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:31:04 -0400, Rick <nom...@nomail.com> chose to
>> bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>> >Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:05:16 -0400, Seeker1 <smiz...@bellsouth.net>
>> >> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> This is in such poor taste that it simply boggles the mind to
>> >> contemplate the utter juvenileness of the person who concieved it. To
>> >> compare people who use a different OS than you to a group that gives
>> >> aid and comfort to a mass murderer is beyond the pale. Hopefully you
>> >> will read this later and realize just how far gone you are. You really
>> >> need to take a break from your computer.
>> >>
>> >
>> >While the post was indeed in poor taste, you again show your poor
>> >communications skills. Seeker was in no way comparing "people who use a
>> >different OS" to anyone. It seems to me he was comparing corporate
>> >murder to actual murder.
>>
>> WTF is 'corporate murder'?
>>
>
>... and he's stupid too...
This is your codeword, RR. You use it to show your disdain for the
freemarket and competition. Its a bit of nonsense that means nothing
to anyone but yourself and other anti-capitalists.
>
>> > Again, I agree that the post was in poosr taste
>> >BUT - you cannot reason with m$. They will not leave.
>>
>> LOL! That's your idea of 'reasoning'? Since Microsoft won't dissolve
>> itself no matter how nicely you ask they are unreasonable? Has it ever
>> ocurred to you that maybe you're the one being unreasonable?
>>
>
>Dissolve itself? Dissolve itself? m$ wont leave. They will do whatever
>they have to either get a deal going (they wont leave they, just keep
>hammering away) or buy you out or kill off your company.
Again we see your hatred for capitalism in action.
>
>> > Gates has been quoted many times as saying he wants a computer in every home running m$
>> >software. m$ has repeatedly shown it will do whatever it takes to get
>> >this done.
>>
>> Imagine that. A businessman wanting his product to be used by
>> everyone. What a shock! 8)
>>
>
>Imagine that. An illegaly gained and held monopoly.
So now you think making a better deal than your competitors is
illegal? Amazing, simply amazing.
>
>> >In addition, you have advocted nuking civillians, killing all drunks,
>> >and yet profess to be a minister.
>>
>> Both of which will save more lives than they take.
>
>You are advocating killing people that have done no wrong.
Drunks kill thousands every year. That seems like a wrong to me. If
you know how to fight a war without killing civilians you need to quit
keeping it to yourself and share your knowledge with the world.
> None. You are advocating cold blooded murder.
Hardly. I'm advocating survival for the innocent. Apparently you're
against that.
>
>> Sometimes you've got to make hard decisions, RR.
>
>Who is this RR you keep talking to? More vocies in your head?
LOL!
>> There's no sense in shying away from
>> it.
>>
>
>I dont shy away from hard decisions. I know Ive made more than you ever
>will. Life and death decisions.
I'm sorry, RR, but deciding between grape and orange Nehi doesn't
count as life and death.
>> > You gleefully help despoil the environment.
>>
>> No more than nature does itself. How many forest fires were started by
>> lightning last year? How many animals pee on the ground every day?
>>
>
>Lightening generated fires are a natural occurence that happen quite
>frequently in nature.
Which was my point.
> In fact, many trees depend on that fire to
>propogate.
But what about the plants that die in the fire. You're totally
discounting their lives! You go so far it seems like you're advocating
the 'nuking' of those innocent plants so the trees can live in peace.
How dare you! That is a totally unacceptable attitude to have! We
should find a way for all the plants to live in peae and harmony
without killing any of them.
>And animal urination (do you understad the word?)
It means 'piss'.
> is also a natural occurence.
So is striking back when you're attacked but you're against that. It
is within our ability to diaper every animal in the world. If you
cared about the enviroment as much as you want us to believe you do
you'd start a movement to do that.
> Where does tire burning occur naturally, outside of
>you psychotic realm?
Everytime a lightning strike occurs on a tirepile.
>
>> > So, while Seeker hasnt shown the best of taste, you arent
>> >the best person in the world to point this out.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that there was a hierarchy. Could you shoot me a copy
>> of the organization chart? 8)
>>
>
>Picture a very large pile. Millions of people. You are on the bottom.
Dreaming of me in an orgy, RR? I thought we had moved past these
fantasies you're having about me?
Rick
You are stupid.
You are a liar.
You have lost touch with reality.
The proof is in your paragraph above.
> >
> >> > Again, I agree that the post was in poosr taste
> >> >BUT - you cannot reason with m$. They will not leave.
> >>
> >> LOL! That's your idea of 'reasoning'? Since Microsoft won't dissolve
> >> itself no matter how nicely you ask they are unreasonable? Has it ever
> >> ocurred to you that maybe you're the one being unreasonable?
> >>
> >
> >Dissolve itself? Dissolve itself? m$ wont leave. They will do whatever
> >they have to either get a deal going (they wont leave they, just keep
> >hammering away) or buy you out or kill off your company.
>
> Again we see your hatred for capitalism in action.
You are a liar.
> >
> >> > Gates has been quoted many times as saying he wants a computer in every home running m$
> >> >software. m$ has repeatedly shown it will do whatever it takes to get
> >> >this done.
> >>
> >> Imagine that. A businessman wanting his product to be used by
> >> everyone. What a shock! 8)
> >>
> >
> >Imagine that. An illegaly gained and held monopoly.
>
> So now you think making a better deal than your competitors is
> illegal? Amazing, simply amazing.
> >
> >> >In addition, you have advocted nuking civillians, killing all drunks,
> >> >and yet profess to be a minister.
> >>
> >> Both of which will save more lives than they take.
> >
> >You are advocating killing people that have done no wrong.
>
> Drunks kill thousands every year.
-S O M E- drunks do. The ovewhelming majority do not.
> That seems like a wrong to me.
A psychotic professing to know the difference between right and wrong.
Amazing.
> If
> you know how to fight a war without killing civilians you need to quit
> keeping it to yourself and share your knowledge with the world.
>
But you advocate using nuclear bombs to kill an entire nations, rather
than just 2 to convince that nation to surrender.
> > None. You are advocating cold blooded murder.
>
> Hardly. I'm advocating survival for the innocent. Apparently you're
> against that.
How is killing all drunks, the great majority of whom havent done
anything to anyaaone advocating survival of the innocent. You are a liar
and a bigot.
> >
> >> Sometimes you've got to make hard decisions, RR.
> >
> >Who is this RR you keep talking to? More vocies in your head?
>
> LOL!
>
More psychosis shows iself.
> >> There's no sense in shying away from
> >> it.
> >>
> >
> >I dont shy away from hard decisions. I know Ive made more than you ever
> >will. Life and death decisions.
>
> I'm sorry, RR, but deciding between grape and orange Nehi doesn't
> count as life and death.
>
No it doesnt. And I dont drink Nehi.
> >> > You gleefully help despoil the environment.
> >>
> >> No more than nature does itself. How many forest fires were started by
> >> lightning last year? How many animals pee on the ground every day?
> >>
> >
> >Lightening generated fires are a natural occurence that happen quite
> >frequently in nature.
>
> Which was my point.
>
> > In fact, many trees depend on that fire to
> >propogate.
>
> But what about the plants that die in the fire. You're totally
> discounting their lives! You go so far it seems like you're advocating
> the 'nuking' of those innocent plants so the trees can live in peace.
> How dare you! That is a totally unacceptable attitude to have! We
> should find a way for all the plants to live in peae and harmony
> without killing any of them.
>
Tell it to God. He (She? It? Whatever) designed the system. A
self-proclaimed minister should know that.
> >And animal urination (do you understad the word?)
>
> It means 'piss'.
>
> > is also a natural occurence.
>
> So is striking back when you're attacked but you're against that. It
> is within our ability to diaper every animal in the world. If you
> cared about the enviroment as much as you want us to believe you do
> you'd start a movement to do that.
>
Hmm... so you're stupid, arrogant, a bigot, a psychotic and an idiot.
> > Where does tire burning occur naturally, outside of
> >you psychotic realm?
>
> Everytime a lightning strike occurs on a tirepile.
>
Yeah, right.
> >
> >> > So, while Seeker hasnt shown the best of taste, you arent
> >> >the best person in the world to point this out.
> >>
> >> I wasn't aware that there was a hierarchy. Could you shoot me a copy
> >> of the organization chart? 8)
> >>
> >
> >Picture a very large pile. Millions of people. You are on the bottom.
>
> Dreaming of me in an orgy, RR? I thought we had moved past these
> fantasies you're having about me?
>
maybe Im wrong in my descriptions of you. Maybe you are just a pile of
shit encased in skin.
--
Rick
Jim Naylor
Mayor Of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, lessee, maybe javelina's trying to be as good a
mindreader as you claimed to be when you accused me of lying
about my cancer diagnosis and treatment?
--
Jim Naylor
Alan Baker
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
>Richard K. McPike wrote:
>
>> Satire or not, it was in vile taste. What
>> happened in NYC is not proper use for
>> satire, to make a political point, or any
>> other purpose. To do so belittles the
>> deaths there, and cheapens our nation.
>> Scum like you abuse the first ammendment.
>
>Who are you to decide what is 'proper use'
>for satire?
>
>And please don't post back and try to paint
>me as un-patriotic or un-American or some other
>form of cowardice. My father retired from
>the Army, I served in the Army, my younger
>brother served in the Navy, and my youngest
>brother is still in the Army. All of the men in
>my family have served.
Get this through your head:
He has every bit as much right to post that this tragedy is not proper
use for satire as the original poster had to make his tasteless little
satire in the first place.
>
>So trying to paint me as un-patriotic just isn't
>going to cut it. You're going to have to explain
>yourself clearly and concisely as to why satire
>isn't appropriate at this time or on that subject.
>I'm calling you out to put your brain in gear and
>back up your statements, instead of just opening
>your mouth and calling others 'scum'.
I don't give a damn about your patriotism or lack of it.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that most people are going to react
badly to someone satirizing an event that's killed thousands while they
are still in the process of recovering the bodies.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
wrote:
He's not saying that the poster should have had the right to say those
things.
He's saying that the poster has _wasted_ that right with this particular
expression of it.
Alan Baker
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
It is dialogue:
Someone used his right to free speech to post some "satire" and a bunch
of us have used ours to tell him it stinks.
The funny thing is that you are engaging in the exact same conduct with
regard to our posts as you are claiming we aren't entitled to engage
with regard to the original post.
Just a little inconsistency in your argument, don't you think?
HawaiianJavelina
> It is dialogue:
He posts satire. He gets called scum.
This is called dialogue.
Okay. I think that I understand now. Thanks.
> The funny thing is that you are engaging in
> the exact same conduct ...
Show me where any of my words are
synonyms for 'scum'.
Fess up, you're not really reading these posts,
right?
HawaiianJavelina
> You had me drooling up until this last paragraph.
"Missed it by THAT much!" Sorry, Chief.
> After all, how could I possibly know more about
> my motivations than the sage bunch of mindreaders
> we have gathered here?
Aaaah, sage. A beautiful iMac color.
Alan Baker
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> It is dialogue:
>
>He posts satire. He gets called scum.
>This is called dialogue.
>
>Okay. I think that I understand now. Thanks.
You didn't single out posts that used such language for your objections.
And isn't your whole point that people don't get to object to others'
posts because they don't like the content?
>
>> The funny thing is that you are engaging in
>> the exact same conduct ...
>
>Show me where any of my words are
>synonyms for 'scum'.
>
>Fess up, you're not really reading these posts,
>right?
Isn't your whole point that people don't get to object to others' posts
because they don't like the content?
HawaiianJavelina
> This sophomoric "satire" is inappropriate because
> it makes light of the deaths of innocent Americans.
> That is poor taste.
This is good stuff. I agree with it. His satire
was in poor taste and he should've waited until
people had finished grieving.
> Free speech is worthless is used in an
> egregrious manner.
Oops, this is where we part our ways. Free speech,
in any manner whatsoever, has value. Not because
of its content necessarily, but because of its use.
HawaiianJavelina
> Why does this make you more patriotic than
> average? Plenty of traitors have come from
> within the military ranks as well as patriots.
What do you think the odds are, Mayor?
Do you think that most soldiers are patriots
or traitors? What percentage of soldiers
are traitors, Mayor? 0.000001 percent?
I sold the Soviets the plans once for how
to dig a really swell foxhole. Does that count
as a strike against me? I don't know if the
average Soviet soldier could afford to stock
his foxhole with a refrigerator and big screen
TV, but hey, that's his problem not mine.
HawaiianJavelina
> Get this through your head:
> He has every bit as much right to post that
> this tragedy is not proper use for satire
> as the original poster had to make his
> tasteless little satire in the first place.
I've got it in my head fine, Alan. You're obviously
disregarding the little extra step that Kirk
and others are taking when they attack not
the satire but the poster and when they also
attack not the satire but our freedoms.
Sinking in yet?
HawaiianJavelina
> Isn't your whole point that people don't get
> to object to others' posts because they
> don't like the content?
I didn't like the satire either. But I like even
less the campaign to bully the poster into
submission through tactics that distort our
freedoms. Haven't you been catching all of
the references to free speech?
Seeker1
> It doesn't take a genius to realize that most people are going to react
> badly to someone satirizing an event that's killed thousands while they
> are still in the process of recovering the bodies.
I'm still scanning for where in that satire I ever mentioned any of the
following words: Trade Center, Pentagon, New York City, September 11th,
etc. Can't find them. So I'm not sure how what I even said has anything
to do with it.
I compared people who want to force their preference for a particular
consumer product (i.e. computers) on others to a religious
fundamentalist movement. One that happened to be in the news.
In point of fact, although many people accuse the Taliban of harboring
bin Laden, no one has yet suggested they carried out the attacks. I'm
sorry if people feel I was accusing Windows users of being terrorists;
they didn't get the point of the analogy.
I realize many people are still grieving over the loss of life from the
WTC, but I fail to see in what way I "minimized" what occurred there by
comparing technological fundamentalists to religious fundamentalists
that may or may not be harboring somebody who may or may not have
ordered the attacks. This to me is a considerable stretch, to say the
least.
Now, I can understand why people might be offended by being compared to
religious fundamentalists, but when they behave like them, then I do
not think the analogy is inappropriate. And however tasteless they
might find the comparison, I wouldn't shrink from it.
And, to echo something stated by Macman, that people find a harmless
satire that might have been in poor taste more a "waste" of free speech
than speech that advocates the idle liquidation of entire groups of
humanity, boggles my mind. I defend even THAT speech, but I also find
it far more tasteless than anything I said.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
That was harsh of me wasn't it? I'm sorry about that, Jim. I offer no
excuses. I was angry about several small things and I sent it your way
instead of where it should have gone. That was wrong of me. I am glad
to see that you're back amongst us and I hope you've made a full
recovery.
Alan Baker
Seeker1 <smiz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> It doesn't take a genius to realize that most people are going to react
>> badly to someone satirizing an event that's killed thousands while they
>> are still in the process of recovering the bodies.
>
>I'm still scanning for where in that satire I ever mentioned any of the
>following words: Trade Center, Pentagon, New York City, September 11th,
>etc. Can't find them. So I'm not sure how what I even said has anything
>to do with it.
Hmmm...
You don't think maybe the term "Wintaliban" would have brought such
things to mind for most people.
Please don't insult our intelligence.
>
>I compared people who want to force their preference for a particular
>consumer product (i.e. computers) on others to a religious
>fundamentalist movement. One that happened to be in the news.
>
>In point of fact, although many people accuse the Taliban of harboring
>bin Laden, no one has yet suggested they carried out the attacks. I'm
>sorry if people feel I was accusing Windows users of being terrorists;
>they didn't get the point of the analogy.
>
>I realize many people are still grieving over the loss of life from the
>WTC, but I fail to see in what way I "minimized" what occurred there by
>comparing technological fundamentalists to religious fundamentalists
>that may or may not be harboring somebody who may or may not have
>ordered the attacks. This to me is a considerable stretch, to say the
>least.
>
>Now, I can understand why people might be offended by being compared to
>religious fundamentalists, but when they behave like them, then I do
>not think the analogy is inappropriate. And however tasteless they
>might find the comparison, I wouldn't shrink from it.
>
>And, to echo something stated by Macman, that people find a harmless
>satire that might have been in poor taste more a "waste" of free speech
>than speech that advocates the idle liquidation of entire groups of
>humanity, boggles my mind. I defend even THAT speech, but I also find
>it far more tasteless than anything I said.
>
What you wrote was most certainly in poor taste.
And you wasted some of the precious freedom of speech that your life in
a free society affords you to write it.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Alan Baker
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
And what was it in the Mayor's first comment on this post that led you
to say this:
"Are you advocating censorship in CSMA, Mayor?
On the day that tasteless posts and humor are
no longer allowed in CSMA, on that day we
wave the white flag and concede victory to
terrorism. Freedom is lost inch by tiny inch."
Nothing he said advocated censorship of any kind. Nor did his reply
contain any reference to freedom of speech.
In fact, I'll be we'll find that in every instance, you were the one who
first mentioned freedom of speech; and in a manner that implied that to
criticize someone's comments was to somehow limit their freedom.
Which, of course, it's not.
Alan Baker
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
A car is worthless when used to write sonnets.
The _concept_ of freedom of speech has value. Not all expressions that
are made because we have freedom of speech have value.
Alan Baker
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
No one attacked our freedoms.
They expressed their dismay that someone would choose to use his or her
freedoms in such a tasteless manner.
But there were not attacks on the freedom itself.
macman
Alan Baker <AlanG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <20010923153541...@mb-fd.aol.com>,
> hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
>
> >Kirk wrote:
> >
> >> This sophomoric "satire" is inappropriate because
> >> it makes light of the deaths of innocent Americans.
> >> That is poor taste.
> >
> >This is good stuff. I agree with it. His satire
> >was in poor taste and he should've waited until
> >people had finished grieving.
> >
> >> Free speech is worthless is used in an
> >> egregrious manner.
> >
> >Oops, this is where we part our ways. Free speech,
> >in any manner whatsoever, has value. Not because
> >of its content necessarily, but because of its use.
> >
>
> A car is worthless when used to write sonnets.
>
>
> The _concept_ of freedom of speech has value. Not all expressions that
> are made because we have freedom of speech have value.
Agreed.
But you might have been able to find a better analogy than the 'a car is
worthless when used to write sonnets' part.
Alan Baker
macman <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
The point was the absurdity of it.
A car has value, but it is worthless when put to some uses. <g>
Seeker1
> You don't think maybe the term "Wintaliban" would have brought such
> things to mind for most people.
Some people think about sex when they see a rubber boot. I have no
control over that.
> Please don't insult our intelligence.
Show some.
I can't control the associations people make. If they're willing to go
out on a limb to claim they've been offended, I'm sorry.
If somebody really thinks I said Windows users are responsible for the
death of thousands of people in NYC, they can only reach that
interpretation through some form of delusion.
Also, I have no control over what people find offensive. Some people
are offended by naked women. I'm not.
But, as the Supreme Court established, in a case involving Jerry
Falwell ironically enough (he was angry that Larry Flynt showed a
cartoon where his parents were shown having sex in an outhouse), the
right to be protected from being offended does not trump the right to
say offensive things.
Furthermore, the Court rightly pointed out that a rational person would
not conclude from viewing the cartoon that Larry Flynt was trying to
make a factual statement about the good Reverend.
Was my timing bad? Maybe. But somehow, I have a feeling people would
have proclaimed their outrage regardless of whether it was a week or a
year later. I wonder how many of those folks have written letters
complaining about the overuse of claiming the label of "victimization"
in our society... just a random thought.
And sometimes it's only saying things that are offensive and
controversial that wake people up to how stupid they are acting,
something the Supreme Court recognized.
Those aren't squandered moments, they're critical ones.
OK, sorry for interrupting your consensus reality, go back to listening
to the War Chorus of Bush & Co.
Shpiel over. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
>> You don't think maybe the term "Wintaliban" would have brought such
>> things to mind for most people.
>
>Some people think about sex when they see a rubber boot. I have no
>control over that.
Oh, please! You deliberately picked that name to bring up those images
in people's minds. That you refuse to admit the obvious only serves to
bring your veracity into question.
I find it quite humorous that you fel the need to couch your argument
in free speech terms. You come across as yet another 'free speech'
advocate who thinks that no one has the right to criticize his
'speech'.
Alan Baker
Seeker1 <smiz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> You don't think maybe the term "Wintaliban" would have brought such
>> things to mind for most people.
>
>Some people think about sex when they see a rubber boot. I have no
>control over that.
>
>> Please don't insult our intelligence.
>
>Show some.
Spare me.
You made a tasteless post that played off the still-fresh horrific
events and now you're trying to back away from that stance.
Hypocrite.
You want the freedom to make tasteless posts but don't want anyone to
have the freedom to call you on it.
HawaiianJavelina
>> Free speech, in any manner whatsoever,
>> has value. Not because of its content
>> necessarily, but because of its use.
>
> The _concept_ of freedom of speech has
> value. Not all expressions that are made
> because we have freedom of speech
> have value.
Deja vu.
Alan Baker
hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
Hardly.
You claim that recognizing when someone was wasted one of the freedoms
(that we are fortunate enough to enjoy) by drawing a tasteless and
decidely unfunny parallel between certain critics of a computer platform
and those thought to be involved (at least peripherally) in a major and
horrific tragedy and calling them on it is some kind of attack on that
freedom itself.
Well that's crap.
Nobody suggested that the original poster shouldn't have been allowed to
use his freedom of speech in such a manner. They just recognized that
that freedom was put to no worthwhile use for the duration of that
exercise of it.
Recognizing that, while they may be free to say something, some people
have nothing worthwhile to say is a far more important point to make
than anything the original poster said.
Not censorship, but the very "open dialogue" that you claim to think is
threatened.
macman
Alan Baker <AlanG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <20010925213232...@mb-fs.aol.com>,
> hawaiian...@aol.com (HawaiianJavelina) wrote:
>
> >Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >>> Free speech, in any manner whatsoever,
> >>> has value. Not because of its content
> >>> necessarily, but because of its use.
> >>
> >> The _concept_ of freedom of speech has
> >> value. Not all expressions that are made
> >> because we have freedom of speech
> >> have value.
> >
> >Deja vu.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hardly.
>
> You claim that recognizing when someone was wasted one of the freedoms
> (that we are fortunate enough to enjoy) by drawing a tasteless and
> decidely unfunny parallel between certain critics of a computer platform
> and those thought to be involved (at least peripherally) in a major and
> horrific tragedy and calling them on it is some kind of attack on that
> freedom itself.
>
> Well that's crap.
A good example is flag burning. I believe that someone has the right to
burn a U.S. flag if they wish (assuming it's their own property). The
proposed Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning makes a mockery of
the Bill of Rights.
At the same time, I believe it's a juvenile, disgusting activity.
Seeker1
> You claim that recognizing when someone was wasted one of the freedoms
> (that we are fortunate enough to enjoy) by drawing a tasteless and
> decidely unfunny parallel between certain critics of a computer platform
> and those thought to be involved (at least peripherally) in a major and
> horrific tragedy and calling them on it is some kind of attack on that
> freedom itself.
The parallel may have been tasteless and unfunny (in your mind), and I
accept that the timing was bad, but I still disagree with your
assessment that what I had to say was worthless.
I do not think just because something can be tasteless and offensive to
SOME PEOPLES' TASTES that it lacks value. I did not make light of the
tragedy, and I do not accept as a moral principle that in the wake of
tragedy humor is inappropriate. If so, then all the cartoons I've seen
in newspapers of Osama bin Laden, etc., must be equally inappropriate
and tasteless.
I believe the analogy still holds -- technological fundamentalists
THINK like religious fundamentalists. I agree they may lack their
propensity for horrific action such as we saw on 9-11, but the thought
patterns are the same.
I have seen some of your "critics" on every other advocacy group on
Usenet, tormenting people on the Amiga groups, the Linux groups, the
OS/2 groups, the BeOS groups, etc., that they should just give up and
embrace the Wintel future. In short, they don't just hate the Mac, they
hate everybody who doesn't agree with them, and are willing to get them
to join their crusade by any means necessary.
What does that sound like to you? I gave a hint.
I like the Mac, but I can tell you I would never, ever do this to
anybody who makes choices different from me, nor force my choices on
anybody else.
Now, YOU may not agree with this observation, but this was the point of
the satire, and therein lies its worth - whether you choose to accept
it or not. I could have made the same point in a more "tasteful"
fashion.
Hmmm, maybe I am doing so now.
Alan Baker
macman <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Precisely.
HawaiianJavelina
>> Deja vu.
>
> Hardly.
The two statements said the same thing.
Now you're just making effort to draw the
argument along, repeating things hashed
over 4 or 5 days ago. Your other statements
I didn't bother replying to because they're
a repeat of what we're already going in
circles with. For my response, I'll just point
to google, unless I see something new.
Tom Elam
<smiz...@bellsouth.net>:
>Pray you do not lose your sons and daughters to this cult!
How can it be a "cult" when it rulz 98% of the PC marekt?
---------------------------------------------
Tom Elam
Chad Irby
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:05:16 -0400, Tom Elam wrote this reply to Seeker1
> <smiz...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >Pray you do not lose your sons and daughters to this cult!
>
> How can it be a "cult" when it rulz 98% of the PC marekt?
When it brainwashes a few of its members so badly that the ycan't
remember all of the times they said "I'll never come back" to a certain
newsgroup...
And your quoting is screwed up. Again. When are you going to get a
*real* newsreader?
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Lars Träger
> In article <240920012258176678%smiz...@bellsouth.net>,
> Seeker1 <smiz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> You don't think maybe the term "Wintaliban" would have brought such
> >> things to mind for most people.
> >
> >Some people think about sex when they see a rubber boot. I have no
> >control over that.
> >
> >> Please don't insult our intelligence.
> >
> >Show some.
>
> Spare me.
>
> You made a tasteless post that played off the still-fresh horrific
> events and now you're trying to back away from that stance.
>
> Hypocrite.
>
> You want the freedom to make tasteless posts but don't want anyone to
> have the freedom to call you on it.
So, if he had posted the text on September 10th, would it have been
tasteless?
Lars T.
Lars Träger
> "Seeker1" <smiz...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:230920010126374088%smiz...@bellsouth.net...
> > In article <gZ6r7.32947$707.19...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Richard
> > K. McPike <mcpik...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is repugnant, and in poor taste. Another sniveling little punk who
> > > thinks that the massive loss of life in NYC is just another source of
> fodder
> > > for his "humor." Sickening that our military is about to have men die to
> > > protect worthless sacks of shit like you.
> >
> > For those not paying attention:
> >
> > 1. This was satire.
>
> Satire or not, it was in vile taste. What happened in NYC is not proper use
> for satire, to make a political point, or any other purpose. To do so
> belittles the deaths there, and cheapens our nation. Scum like you abuse the
> first ammendment.
>
> Kirk
Where does it make a reference to what happened in NYC?
Lars T.