anonymous
Fri Jan 02 21:51:12 CST 2004
Riiiiggggghhhhht. You, Consultant, and Kline are the worst of the bunch. Associate expert in making people feel small and stupid maybe. Have you all in MCNGP made any worth contribution to this newsgroup other than make this the worst forum for certifications out there?
----- Larry Samuels MS-MVP XP (Shell/User) wrote: -----
Hi Marko,
The Maggie's son poster was clearly a troll, and I sincerely doubt he/she is
underage.
As for attending a Microsoft event and identifying myself, I do so on a
regular basis.
For the rest of your response, I would suggest you take a debating
class.Trying to dictate circumstances that don't exist and basing your
suppositions on the same is a quick way to get blown out of the water with
anyone with a shred of logical thinking ability.
As for myself, I choose not to waste the time it would take to rebut your
false allegations.
BTW--look up my posts sometime.You will find I attack no one but
braindumpers and trolls.
--
Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
MCNGP #68
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://home.earthlink.net/~larrysamuels/WS2003FAQ.htm
"Marko" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EFBBBB87-CE09-48CE-B9AD-4BB1E6B9437E@microsoft.com...
> MCNGP: You have not been chastised (on this occasion at least) for flaming
> brain dumpers, your wit or your ability to provide a degree of humorous
> relief. The fact that others don't always find your comments funny or
> worthwhile is not even the point. Heaps of posters are guilty of that
> crime - it isn't limited to MCNGP members.
>> What is objectionable is the fact that any normal person would be outraged
> if you chose to speak (or act) the same way in a physical, social setting.
> If any of you are lucky enough to be parents, I doubt that you would want
> to tolerate a supposed adult speaking to a child with a tone and language
> similar to Maggie's Son. I know I wouldn't. And I don't see any reason
> not to punish people if they think any type of child abuse is OK.
>> Be brave - any member of MCNGP - put your name to a post where you say
> "Abusing kiddies is OK by me".
>> My bet is that nobody would be stupid enough to do EXACTLY that. However,
> someone may try and put a clever twist on this and claim that verbal /
> written abuse directed at someone not yet an adult is not really kiddie
> abuse. In which case, I would like you to support this notion by citing
> any personal examples of where you have triumphed with this gem in the
> real world. Otherwise, don't bother replying to this challenge.
>> I plainly see why MS Paisleyskye is angry and she seems to be more so as
> MCNGP members continue to defend their posts to date. She writes in a
> style which is as if she was speaking face to face and probably thinks
> MCNGP's are capable of saying the exact same things they write to others,
> face to face. But I doubt that. I don't remember any member of MCNGP
> loudly proclaiming that fact in a public forum, wearing a T Shirt or badge
> to any MS do or other public outing - EVER - so that they could be
> personally identified. Sure, there would be some that would want to shake
> your hand. Others may just want to shake you.
>>> This whole sorry episode may well have dissipated quickly if any one of
> you would have been brave enough to say "OK - we should probably stop.
> Abusing children is probably not something we want to encourage or be
> known for..." But no. The tact taken was to keep kicking this kid when
> he already felt down and to keep doing it, repeatedly, for days. I don't
> see any evidence of prevailing sanity applied to that decision and can
> only wonder how an aberration could develop on what may be an otherwise
> healthy brain causing it to rapidly deteriorate and to function so poorly
> for so long. You could have stopped, many times, but chose not to. You
> actually thought it was a good idea. That (to me at least) is disturbing
> behaviour.
>>> Until now, I deliberately refrained from posting since I thought it would
> only add fuel to the fire. But I notice that there are around 100 posts
> on this topic in this newsgroup already and the issue is not going away.
>> So let's try and now settle this: We have heard a large part of the
> argument, for and against this type of posting. Specifically, where an
> individual identifies themselves as a young person (definitely not an
> adult by virtually any definition), is it OK to abuse them with ANY type
> of vulgarity, profanity or otherwise objectionable response?
>> Vote NO if you concede that there are at least some lines (on occasions)
> that should never be crossed.
>> Vote YES if you are in favour of completely free speech, child abuse,
> anarchy in newsgroups, untreated psychosis and you generally don't
> function well in society and couldn't care less about how others act
> either.
>> All anonymous posts will not be counted. If you are not brave enough to
> identify yourself, then you truly don't believe what you are saying and
> aren't prepared to stand by your convictions, are you? So just don't
> bother.
>> MCNGP: If your majority, collective response is yes (determined by
> individual responses affirming this notion), then it will be recorded -
> once and for all - that there are absolutely NO rules that would serve to
> contain or limit any expression of human behaviour, no matter how
> depraved. But, if you only have a trickle of YES voters, then perhaps you
> should no longer leave it to individuals choosing how far is too far
> (since that obviously doesn't work). Consider documenting some basic
> rules or codes of behaviour that would define acceptable standards of
> obscenity or vulgarity. Suggestion: Include a rule that would
> specifically mention complete distain for any potentially harmful
> interaction with young people.
>> Otherwise, go ahead and state that this form of verbal paedophilia is
> quite OK - that it is OK to f*&^ with them all, at any age, any way you
> can. For me at least, there is not a lot of difference between the
> varying forms of abuse that a child may experience and so you may finally
> sense why I am personally angry about what happened. All abuse is covered
> by the same word. Abuse.
>> So now hurry up and draw your line in the sand. Because if you abused
> Maggie's son or supported those who did and choose not to offer a sincere
> apology, that's fine. We now have a word starting with P that would help
> us to define your illness. We can also better explain where some of the
> abhorrent character defects you possess, displayed through your writing
> style and indicative of a a truly sick mind, may stem from.
>