Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Oct 2006 21:27 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:13:47 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:40:03 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:17:57 -0700, JoeBloe >> >> <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> ><snip> >> >> >I know my rights, and the law you twits keep spewing on about will >> >> >get shot down in the supreme court, whether by me or another. >> >> >> >> Actually, I hope you are right about the Supreme Court on this >> >> subject. >> > >> >You think ppl *should* be allowed to use the net to harass or threaten >> >other ppl ? >> >> No, I just think that the kinds of name calling I see around here is >> pretty minor (bothersome, yes) compared with the costs of allowing >> some central, highly authoritarian system to jail folks with the final >> and ultimate willingness to kill folks over it (by this, I mean that >> if the local police come out to arrest you, for example, and you >> refuse to accept their authority, the ultimate place where increasing >> the level of refusal and insistance ultimately much culminate in the >> willingness of authorities to apply the ultimate force to achieve >> their authority.) >> >> I would rather a free expression forum, even if that means people go >> around making threats. The place I'd draw the line would be when they >> make "credible threats." It would be the credibility of that threat >> that would trigger, for me, the willingness to get authorities >> involved. >> >> That's how I see it, anyway. > >How about the harassment / online stalking ? "Names and faces can't hurt me," would probably apply. We can live with the verbal abuse without having to drag in 3rd party authorities. I mentally reserve the "harassment and stalking" phrase for physical presence. That _is_ threatening and it _is_ credible. No question. But when you use those words in the context of the internet, then I think that needs some additional definition before being applied just because it "seems" similiar in some ways or the words might be interpreted that way. If the harassment and online stalking is way beyond the pale, not just a matter of the kind of venting that might occur for a short period of time, but more a matter of a seriously irrational perseverations and it includes obvious attempts to gain information about the exact physical location and particulars of the person they are stalking, then it probably does become a _credible_ threat. I'm sure there are other ways for a threat to be considered credible, too. Again, this is where I draw the line -- when stalking and harassment amounts to a credible threat, on a scale similar to that when someone follows you around physically but doesn't make contact and where it would be rational to fear the potentials of that circumstance -- then it's time for authorities. Credibility of a physical threat is the important component, I think. I think it should also be applied in cases where a rational person would find the abuse a credible threat of psychological harm, as well. But I would worry about that standard, a bit. Many folks are very irrational about their fears, so I'd want some kind of objective standard here. Jon
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 21:35 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:24:36 -0700, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> Gave us: snip You should probably think about setting your PC clock to the correct time.
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 21:40 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:52:19 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:46:44 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:r8u4j2hmpu3rasu0p0se9mked9nn6g0cjq(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:52:33 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>news:14oqi297a2fr8b4fgkpbkm0p3nnq61kq12(a)4ax.com... >>>>> You guys? >>>>> >>>>> You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back >>>>> you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if >>>>> you were wrong? >>>> >>>>Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some >>>>points against Eeyore? >>>> >>>>I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up >>>>in >>>>military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of >>>>the >>>>US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. >>> >>> --- >>> Missed this the first time around, sorry... >>> >>> The fact is that the UK _always_ has US backup in any of her >>> military (ad)ventures, should she need it. Tacit, and she knows it. >>> >> >>Only when our interests collide. Which has not been the case for all our >>"wars." > >--- >Only when our interests _don't_ collide, no? He is quite confused. He is trying to use the word collide as a synonym for "join" or "meet".
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 21:52 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:20:08 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:47:22 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >Really? I seem to recall the British Empire went on to become quite large >> >and successfull while your nation was trying to expand. >> >> You mean "colonization"? Yeah... that is what resulted in slavery >> here, as well as apartheid in S. Africa, as well as the need for a >> person like Ghandi to take a stand. We won't even mention the opium >> trade, or the dens that existed in London even right up into the last >> century. > >Britain ended slavery about 100 years ( or more ? ) before the USA. > It was a british mindset that started it over here, dipshit. Also, you bastards were involved with the trade to here as well. You also had "servants" in ALL of your colonies. I'm sure you'll state that they were well paid. Why don't we ask someone like Steven Biko... Oh... that's right... we can't. You bastards murdered him.
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 21:55
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:32:47 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> I would also point to the day Saddam's statue was felled. Or do you >> think all those Iraqis cheering were paid for? > >They were cheering the fall of Saddam not the US troops. > So our facilitating said fall was merely coincidental? You're a real prize. I'll bet anyone from your country reading your tripe in this thread is quite proud of you. |