Jan 30, 2003 4:59 PM
|Something struck my about some recent posts from a handle called "Casual Viewer." I didn't recall seeing the handle anywhere else, except for a few personal attacks against yours truly. I did a search here for "Casual Viewer", and guess what? It was true. Someone went to the trouble of creating an identity for the sole purpose of attacking one person. Good grief, people. Aside from being sort of chickensh!t, nothing we discuss here is worth that, is it? If you can't own up to who you are, at least on some sort of consistent basis, at least don't go around attacking others. Get a life.
|I want my own personal cyber stalker too||Alpedhuez55|
Jan 30, 2003 5:23 PM
|I guess I have to settle for my psycho ex-girlfriend ;)
|Harlett put up with that a lot. WHERE are you Harlett?||critmass|
Jan 30, 2003 6:10 PM
|I remember Harlett's cowardly obnoxious antagonist posting under a number of one-time names.
I'm missing her. No one here has that kind of soul that she has. Some of these threads are also in desperate need of a Lotus Blossom!
Jan 31, 2003 5:06 AM
|Leave her to her imaginary ivory tower being self absorbed She never said anything about bicycling anyway
just another selfish complainer
Jan 31, 2003 6:58 AM
|She never deserved what she got. While it may have been just one attacker with several handles, the reactions to her were far out of proporation to anything she had to say. There was another guy who someone ran off, who had very meaningfully contributed for well over a year, because some jerk posted nasty things about the the guy's wife in a cycling photo. It sucked. Who needs that crap? I don't blame them for leaving. While I'd often like to, also, I'm not going to give some jerk the satisfaction.
|God, I remember the guy||OldEdScott|
Jan 31, 2003 7:07 AM
|whose wife got attacked. It was awful. He was obviously crazy about her, and proudly posted this picture of her, and some asshole just skewered her looks. It was this board's worst moment.|
|yes, it was||DougSloan|
Jan 31, 2003 7:32 AM
|Yes, that was the single worst moment. Didn't you just want to beat the crap out of the chicken.... who did it? There wasn't anything we could do about it, though. It's bad enough to have personal attacks, but to attack someone's wife? That was low. I know that guy, too, and didn't want him to stop posting. I don't blame him one bit, though. Who needs it?
BTW, I think some people may have totally misunderstood our little game the other day. Humor and sarcasm just doesn't work here.
|As witnessed by||OldEdScott|
Jan 31, 2003 7:49 AM
|my cohorts jumping my ass for a change. LOL!
Hey, tell you what: Let's do it again. Maybe we can get CV to stalk me instead of you!
|Actually it wasn't one poster||Kristin|
Jan 31, 2003 8:11 AM
|It was several regulars who made jokes about her appearance.|
|Some of us "got" the role-reversal thread from earlier in||RhodyRider|
Jan 31, 2003 9:12 AM
|the week, and I meant to say it sooner - nice job, you two! It was brilliant, I was very entertained. A regular Abbott & Costello thing. Also, I agree with Doug's frustration about these cyber-insulters, with the way-too-personal attacks. They are useless; chickensh!t about sums it up.|
Jan 31, 2003 6:14 AM
|I have been reading in on this board for a while, but, unlike a lot of folk, I can keep my fingers off the keyboard when I have nothing to say on a topic - which is always when it comes to bikes. I can do my own wrenching, but I have nothing to tell 99.9% of the world that adds any value. I have one identity, and this is it. I think even you would have to concede that you have no idea of how many people read only on this board, or come and go, or whatever - I'm sure you'd like your own personal WWW, but that's how it goes.
I just happened to notice that you are the glaring example on this forum of a person who never hesitates to weigh in with a personal attack on someone or their view, which doesn't ammount to jack, other than some intellectual snobbery or false accusations about their polictics/beleifs or whatever, purely on the grounds that your decuce that they differ from yours. It often, as you keep getting in early, spoils other more considered and balanced threads of debate, IMHO. Your post above is a nice example of your general style. Given how much time you have, for a lawyer with a kid, to just waffle on the internet, I'd say that either you just can't help yourself, this is some kinda relief from a lot of troubles at home or in the office, or who knows what actually. Take it or leave it, you just seem full of spite and derision - that's how it reads. Oh and I have "a life". Thank you for your concern though.
Jan 31, 2003 6:23 AM
|"People posting these things are not concerned with the facts; hell, Saddam could nuke Israel right now and people would come on here saying Israel asked for it, and we shouldn't butt in. They will say anything to oppose President Bush. The fact that they keep making excuses to defend Saddam, a proven vicious, maniacal, dictator, is proof enough that the facts don't matter. Where were all the Saddam apologists / pacifists when Clinton was bombing? We didn't hear crap from them. They were too busy defending Clinton's sexual exploits and calling his victims whores and liars. It's so damn transparent, I don't know why anyone bothers discussing it."
That's just little short of just swearing and vitriol - what's your problem? Where's the "argument" in that? Where's the reason? What are you adding?
Anyways - it's just he web - free speach for those who want to shout, so who cares? Shame it spoils a generally good and balanced board.
|looks more like "right" to me||DougSloan|
Jan 31, 2003 6:51 AM
|So, you admit that the only times you have posted were to attack me. Anyone doing a simple search can see that.
What I don't understand is your continued accusations about me doing "personal attacks," when not only do I very rarely do them, but that's ALL you have done.
Attacking a position, like "being soft on Saddam," and the like, is not a personal attack. "You're an asshole" -- that's a personal attack, and you are the one who said it.
You and others may well disagree with me. I have no problem with that. However, having a contrary position is not the same, unless you are far too arrogant to see it, as having nothing to contribute. Some people have gone so far in their political correct thinking that they can't tolerate any opposing views. You might want to rethink what the First Amendment means, in light of your defense of it.
As far as meaningfully contributing here, I've been doing so since the day the forum was born. Sure, after a while the same old rehashes of topics gets a little old, and some of us spice it up a bit. We spent an entire day taking opposing views and being very sarcastic, just for fun. Maybe you didn't "get" that. Besides, you don't have to read it. On the other hand, you have contributed exactly zero aside from attacking me. If it weren't an imposition, I'd love to see everyone weigh in on our relative contributions to this website. Ask anyone if the board is "spoiled." If anything spoils this board, it's the one small time trolls like you who pop in just to attack and flame.
Whatever. I won't be responding to your posts any more. It's fairly obvious what you are up to. Go create another identity and start all over now. Have fun.
Jan 31, 2003 9:53 AM
|What an arrogant SOB you are.
And no, I'll do exactly what I like because, despite what you clearly think, you DON'T own the board.
|Wong, no Wight! Doug twapped a wabbit! nm||Spunout|
Jan 31, 2003 8:32 AM
|got him with my illodium Q-36 explosive space modulator! nm||DougSloan|
Jan 31, 2003 8:40 AM
|Did you get that from Iraq, could be proof of WMD ;-) nm||Alpedhuez55|
Jan 31, 2003 1:06 PM
|Just as much proof of its existance as any other. }: ] (nm)||czardonic|
Jan 31, 2003 2:06 PM