Text 44012, 122 rader
Skriven 2006-12-13 20:23:07 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
  Kommentar till text 43984 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Insults
===============

 RC>>> Each of us can find a website with content that offends us, its not that
 RC>>> hard to do.

 RC>>> Try this one on for size:

 RC>>> http://www.godhatesfags.com

 RC>>> I find everything about them people (associated with that organization),
 RC>>> offensive, but the reality is, they have the same rights that I or you
 RC>>> do.

 BF>> But I don't see MY name on any of those sites, do you?

 RC> Does your name have to be affixed to something for you to be offended?

Of course not, as you have seen, but when my words are taken out of context
and twisted like Shannon did I'm really offended. If he had only quoted my text
without that it hadn't been a problem and that I've tried to tell you for so
long.

 RC> The point is, there is alot of stuff out in the world that can offend.

Sure, like:

 RC>> You should see what he has for a wife now, she better watch her back too.


 RC>>> Actually, he, you or anyone else can put up a website and publish on it
 RC>>> anything they damn well please.

 BF>> And why did you then had a problem with Feltens site? And if Shannon had
 BF>> been here in Sweden I would have left it to a lawer and I think that he
 BF>> wouldn't have gotten away with it.

 RC> But of course, you all over there want the govt entwined in your lives.

I see that you didn't answer my question and what does a lawyer have to do with
the govt.?

 BF>>>> <SIGH>
 BF>>>> Would YOU like if I put up an anonomyous website and twisted your words
 BF>>>> so you would look like a gay leftwing anarchist?

 RC>>> First off, Shannons web site is hardly anonymous .

 BF>> Where do you see his name on that site? Please show me!

 RC> Its the web site for his BBS, is it not?

I don't know since there is no name saying who the owner is or do you see
something that I don't?

 RC>>> Secondly as to your question, I wouldnt like it, but if that happened to
 RC>>> me, please elaborate on the steps available to me to remedy the
 RC>>> situation?

 BF>> I'm not sure what you mean here so I ask you to explain it before I
 BF>> answer.

 RC> What could I do to eliminate the problem?

I have been asking Shannon to put his name under his words and be the man
he claim to be without any success so perhaps you could make him do that but
I doubt it.

 RC>>> Maybe you are giving this matter more attention that it deserves?

 BF>> It wasn't me who published that shit on a website. He did it in pure and
 BF>> simple retaliation, he have said so himself in a netmail and that guy
 BF>> represent the American military and say he's a Christian. Nice dudes you
 BF>> have, eh.........

 RC> Whatever, now how has that website affected your daily life?

As you ought to have seen I've said I will give it up and let him have it since
it
makes him chuckle and perhaps it even turns him on, I don't know.....

 RC>>> and why is Shannon stupid, because you say so?

 BF>> How else can his behaviour be explained after having been asked over 20
 BF>> times to put his name under his words? Either he is the fucking coward I
 BF>> say he is or he must be very very stupid. Pick a choise.

 RC> Since it is his website, why does he have to do as you say?

Even you have said it was wrong of him to do it, and:

 st> Honesty goes a long way with me.....

.....and Honesty for ME is to put my name under my words so he doesn't live the
way he preach as I've pointed out SO many times.

 RC> You are being naive.

Yeah, I thought he was the MAN he claimed to be, my mistake.

 RC>>> What racist comment?

 RC>>> Oh wait, you are a mind reader now? I see..

 BF>> Oh, jeeezzzz........are you just playing stupid or what?

 RC> Its easy to pin a name or label on someone if they dont conform to ones
 RC> own thinking (this is why Wayne and I dont get along), they must be a
 RC> "fill in the blank".

Is this enough?

Quote.
 RC>> You should see what he has for a wife now, she better watch her back too.
End quote.

 RC> Now since you are asserting that I am a racist, the onus is on you to
 RC> prove it, by the way, proof does not consist of non-conformity to your
 RC> thought processes.

See above.

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)