Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Pirate?! WTF?!

On 2006-06-15, flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:02:39 +0000, Edwards wrote:
>
>>
>> That if he calls someone a criminal without _some_ kind of evidence,
                              ^^^^^^^^
                              ^^^^^^^^
                              ^^^^^^^^

>> he will get called on it.
>
> Ask him to send you the email and see for yourself.

I addressed this already at the end of my last post, you even quoted
it below; Erik can send me email until the internet collapses, it
won't back up his claim of _criminal_ conduct on Roy's part.

>>> What if it were flatfish or Erik that did the same thing?
>> 
>> Did what same thing?  Got called a criminal without any supporting
>> evidence whatsoever?  When did anything like that happen?
>
> No.
> Continued to post copyrighted images on a website without permission.

My only issue here (as I've pointed out multiple times) is with the
"criminal" accusation.

>> Eh?  This whole stupid topic has been nothing but a witch hunt.  "He's
>> heavier than a duck, and he floats in water, so he's a _criminal_!"
>
> Ask Erik to send you the email.

I addressed this already at the end of my last post, you even quoted
it below; Erik can send me email until the internet collapses, it
won't back up his claim of _criminal_ conduct on Roy's part.

>> So much for "debating on technical points" as opposed to "name
>> calling".  But look who I'm talking to, you can go on and on calling
>> me and my compatriots "Linux nutsacks" and have that count towards
>> your "good linux advocacy" in somebody's little black book.
>
> Some of you are nutsacks.
> There is no advocacy in COLA so I am in fine company.

>> [Remeber kids, it's not _name calling_, it's debating on _technical
>> merits_.  Only a linux user could say "rabid" and have that be
>> considered "name calling" here.]
>
> Who cares?
>
> Are you another person with a thin skin hiding behind academia?
> If you can't take the heat, get out of the sewer.....

I'm not the one calling your "nutsacks" postings "good linux advocacy"
while berating the linux users for "name calling".  I just find the
collective hypocrisy a bit amusing; if you've got a problem with that,
maybe _you_ should "get out".

>> Like culling through someone's blog and then publicly calling them a
>> criminal based on what they found?  Yeah, that would _suck_.
>
> Culling?
> It's trivial to find.

Irrelevant to the issue of public harassment you brought up (but have
now snipped), which is what I was responding to.

>> If the letters do _not_ provide evidence of criminal conduct on Roy's
>> part, then I am not interested in seeing them.
>
> That's it, bury your head in the sand.

Um, that's _hiding_ from evidence.  I am _asking_ for evidence before
swallowing Erik's accusation of "criminal" behavior.

> You sound like a nut!

Because I asked for evidence?  The only issue I had _from the
beginning of my participation in this thread_ was with Erik's bogus
allegation of _criminal_ conduct on Roy's part, I _never_ defended any
other aspect of his alleged behavior.  So if the email doesn't provide
evidence of criminal conduct, it's obviously not relevant to an
allegation of criminal conduct.  If basic logic sounds "nuts" to you
that's your problem, not mine.

> I'll bet you think O.J is really *not guilty* because a jury of his
> peers (all morons BTW) found him not guilty...

If the prosecutor's case had consisted entirely of "I've got some
emails here", yeah, that's pretty much what I would have thought.

> I'd sure hate to have you on a jury.

If you were a prosecutor and your case consisted of "I've got some
emails here", my being on your jury would be the least of your
problems.

> You'd be the guy who would award the criminal $50,000 in damages
> because he cut his arm off smashing it through a plate glass window
> while trying to break into a 7-11.....

If the defendant's claim that he was actually trying to rob the store
instead of just walking in to buy a slurpee was based on "I've got
some emails here" instead of, you know, actual surveillance tape of
the guy _robbing the frigging store_, they might have a tough time
making that case, yeah.

>> If the letters _do_ provide evidence of criminal conduct on Roy's
>> part, then, not being a member of law enforcement or a duly appointed
>> officer of the court involved, I have no _right_ to see them.
>
> Yo, Barney Fife.....this is a discussion group, nothing more nothing
> less.

Yo, Andy, that's been pretty much _my_ point from the beginning.  I'm
not going to buy an accusation of someone being a _criminal_ based on
somebody's say-so on usenet.

> You are taking this WAYYYYYYYYYYY too seriously.

Me?  _I'm_ not the one trying to get somebody tarred a "criminal"
based only on my say-so, and motivated entirely by my dislike of their
posting habits.

-- 
Darrin

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index