Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: James Jolley on 5 Jun 2010 18:20 On 2010-06-05 21:06:54 +0100, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> said: > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:11:16 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter > Ceresole) wrote: > >> James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> Funny that, so speaking as a philosopher, it's reasonable to take digs >>> and smart arsed comments from people is it? McDonal seems to take pride >>> in whining about how ill he is, let him be ill off the internet then. >> >> He's ill. That's why he does it. What's ill is his brain, so no amount >> of reasoning can make any difference. Now imagine being locked into that >> situation. It must be terrifying- certainly horribly stressful and sad. >> So it's up to the people who *can* control their impulses to try to be >> kind to Rowland. I know he makes it almost impossible at times, but it's >> important. >> >> It's not a question of philosophy or of mental adequacy. Just plain >> kindness. > > Nice words. > > It reminds me of some of the stories my Mrs come home with when she's > spent a day as a carer on the dementia ward of the care home where she > works. > > 'Little 90 year old ladies' swinging at her because she's trying to > clean them up *again* and 10 seconds later they are her best friend. > > It does have a lighter side though, recovering 10 oranges from > someone's sock draw, or Yorkshire puddings from their handbag. > > She even noticed a little row Maltesers carefully placed on an old > typewriter they have in there ... except no one had Maltesers ... > > Cheers, T i m Nice story. There is one significant difference, those people are being looked after by people who actually want to do it. Nobody should be subjected to rowland's nastyness, but many here seem to put up with him because he created this group. Bollocks to that.
From: Peter Ceresole on 5 Jun 2010 18:26 Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > Backed up by the law. Repeated attacks on someone known to be suffering > from a mental disability are very much illegal and could lead to > criminal prosecution and possible jail sentences. Bear in mind that > usenet posts are archived and could be cited as evidence. I'd have said that the chances of anything like that happening in this case would be vanishingly small. Courts are not totally unreasonable and an archive of Rowland's posts here would show a great deal. None of the bile directed at him is gratuitous in the slightest. -- Peter
From: James Jolley on 5 Jun 2010 18:28 On 2010-06-05 23:26:47 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > >> Backed up by the law. Repeated attacks on someone known to be suffering >> from a mental disability are very much illegal and could lead to >> criminal prosecution and possible jail sentences. Bear in mind that >> usenet posts are archived and could be cited as evidence. > > I'd have said that the chances of anything like that happening in this > case would be vanishingly small. Courts are not totally unreasonable and > an archive of Rowland's posts here would show a great deal. None of the > bile directed at him is gratuitous in the slightest. True enough. I also wonder if they may take in to account his constant cry for sympathy as effectively asking for it? It's not unreasonable of folk to perhaps think he's only doing this on the internet because he can. Considering he's got a wife and such, you wonder if he ever treats her the same way, I suspect not. I susppect he's got many here feeling sorry for him because of his dubious mental state.
From: Peter Ceresole on 5 Jun 2010 18:32 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > I suppose so. I can't understand how he has a wife or whatever, and > still treats people like this? It's not a question of name calling and > such, it's a question of sticking up for onesself. Rowland has a wife. She must be a a remarkable person. -- Peter
From: James Jolley on 5 Jun 2010 18:33
On 2010-06-05 23:32:17 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Nobody should be >> subjected to rowland's nastyness, but many here seem to put up with him >> because he created this group. > > I don't think it's anything to do wth that. Just plain decency is all it > takes. I agree that confronted with Rowland, it's hard to sustain. But > the point is that we must. Fair enough. I think it's just that he's gone on for so long over the past few weeks that it's just irritating beyond belief. Kind of like there's no end in site. |