Whoah! Waaaiiiiiiiiitttttttt a minute.........
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| thenixedreport Oct 08, 2007 10:55 PM EDT |
Well, it looks like it's my turn to be the skeptic..... Look here: http://tinyurl.com/2jl2c9 (tinyurl used as the URL itself was a bit long there) Then scroll down to comment #90... As horribly written as it is, and as silly as it sounds reading it... 1.) I fail to see how it was a death threat against this individual... 2.) What I read appears to be gibberish at the end, and it also causes me to ask, "Does this warrant going to the FBI?" That does seem to be a bit extreme in my view. Whatever happened to the concept of doing nothing unless something is done to you? |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2007 1:54 AM EDT |
>1.) I fail to see how it was a death threat against this individual...Quoting: Besides, it serves notice - if she wishes to continue in her vanities - Esp. RE published political rantings : There WILL be hell to pay, (not from me) = who needs yet more terrorist 'justifications" to worry about ? It probably is just some acne-addled idiot trying to sound tough, but... Read letters sent by the Zodiac killer or Son of Sam or any number of psycho paths and this comment will look frighteningly similar. This weekend a hormonal idiot killed six people just a couple hundred miles north of me. Young losers walk into high schools or university buildings and start shooting away as if in an arcade. People on the wrong side of legal disputes do the same in law offices. >Whatever happened to the concept of doing nothing unless something is done to you? A threat is something done to you and waiting until after you're killed is a bad action plan. I am sure there are others in the world who agree. If you don't believe me, just walk into any airport and announce that you've got a bomb. |
| jacog Oct 09, 2007 2:51 AM EDT |
Amen |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 4:41 AM EDT |
I disagree. with you dino.... All I see is jibberish. While what they said is foolish, they appear to have gone to lengths to say they wouldn't do anything themselves. I think they may be speaking of more of a backlash from other people online than anything else. This whole be afraid thing is to me totally unnecessary since the anonymous poster in question shows to at least be in Canada. Now assuming that the author of this article was in the U.S., I doubt the person who posted such a statement would fly all the way from Canada to here (considering some of the restrictions now in place, such as requiring of a passport of all things). I believe they also stated that they weren't a regular user of Puppy Linux as well. I understand wanting to take precaution. Going to the FBI however is going way overboard. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 4:44 AM EDT |
After reading further comments in response to the article in question, it may appear that the person did not care for some of her writing (politics being involved, etc....) and simply lost their temper (I've done that before, and was called out here, which was a good thing). |
| jacog Oct 09, 2007 4:44 AM EDT |
Don't know, man... whether one intends to do something oneself or not, when making a statement that kind-of reads like: "You better watch your ass" - that sounds threatening to me. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 4:51 AM EDT |
But how do you know it means that? From what I read of it, it could also be interpreted as, "Repeating mistakes such as this will not help your career..." etc, etc.... They did not think things through. That much is clear. Now is not the time, however, to allow paranoia to take over common sense and reasoning. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 4:56 AM EDT |
Allow me to post a copy of a message from someone else's take on this: "Allow me to translate for the poor communication in Post #90, or my take on it anyway. Don't get me wrong I'm not defending this ignoramus or Puppy Linux (never tried, looks interesting though). However, I think you are a little quick to jump on the FBI wagon. I added a few quips for comedic relief. Hi Roadie, I am not a Puppy Linux user, however three different versions booted successfully on my hardware. My only real intent of running Puppy was to try out the "Live" version and see if it met my standards of a small Linux distro. Turns out, that it was actually useful. Having it nearby helped me quickly troubleshoot whether my recent Internet issues were related to my OS, Hardware, or ISP. The problem turned out to be a 9-yr old router (probably USRobotics, but was so old I couldn't tell, hell maybe it was my rusty 10base2 connection). After a week, I lost Internet again! However, this time it was my ISP. Both times Puppy booted right up without any confusing settings to mess with. With Puppy, the user has the ability to restart network services which are usually preset (or I just don't know how to access). I normally wouldn't argue with what I feel is an uninformed review, but there were what I felt to be more broad insults about Linux. It shows that Puppy is useful and her publications are self promoting with political rantings. I believe she will probably be fired soon if she keeps it up. It is obvious through your political rantings that you are an extreme republican. [reference book "DEAD Right"]. Do I need to elaborate on how Republicans are killing the Anarchist movement? xvalentinex | October 9, 2007 12:32 AM" |
| jdixon Oct 09, 2007 4:29 AM EDT |
> I fail to see how it was a death threat against this individual... Whether the person intended it as a threat or not is unknowable. There is no doubt that it can be taken as a threat. In such a case, the only prudent thing to do is notify law enforcement. I probably wouldn't worry about it, but then I've been known to be somewhat acerbic in my comments (of course, no one here would know anything about that, would they? :) ), which sometimes provokes people into making overly hasty comments in return. They're usually disavowed shortly thereafter. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 4:40 AM EDT |
No... I disagree. Words online should never warrant law enforcement involvement, especially since the person in question has not continually (to my knowledge and in all appearance) made such comments toward the author in question. As for your comments being "disavowed shortly thereafter," people on this site probably would be able to tell the difference between an actual threat and words that aren't always.... worded in a nice manner. That's the issue at hand: people here appear to know the difference. In my view, this author does not. |
| bigg Oct 09, 2007 4:49 AM EDT |
> Words online should never warrant law enforcement involvement So attempting to meet a 10-year old in person based on a chat room conversation is fine? You can just say "well, no officer, we were just talking online"? If someone posts a bomb threat for a university, it's okay, provided it's online? Saying "Someone is going to kill you. Not me, but someone." is okay if it's online? At the very least, the individual needs to explain what he knows. Normally those saying "anything goes if we're on the internet" are the ones chatting with young girls and making death threats. I think your opinion is really stupid. In fact, I think you're a complete idiot. It's okay to say that because we're online, right? Anything goes, no reason to worry about silly "old people things" like etiquette. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 6:07 AM EDT |
1.) It was not a bomb threat 2.) This isn't related to stalking children online 3.) You're assuming that the poster said they would die, when their words, poorly written, could have easily been taken way out of context Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Yes, it is a good idea to be polite and think things through as I have been learning the hard way. However, if paranoia overrides common sense and reasoning, then what's to stop trolls from being jailed for posting content that isn't very high per se? "I think your opinion is really stupid. In fact, I think you're a complete idiot." That's fine. You have a right to your views. You haven't gone out of your way to harass me nor have you attempted to physically harm me. I would disagree with the questioning of intelligence in such a manner, but.... there is a difference concerning a response and a threat. I was simply stating a response, and since my 1st amendment/free speech rights were not violated (i.e. not being allowed to respond to you here and now), I have no qualms about what you have said. The examples you have posted are red herrings, and have nothing to do with the article in question. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2007 6:09 AM EDT |
nixed - You need to wrap a few of your analytical cells around this and think risk/reward: It's easy, for example, to handle the huge risk of losing your money when you spend $1 to buy a lottery ticket. Lots of people will judge that the risk of breaking an arm or leg is an acceptable exchange for the pleasure of mountain biking or skiing. We accept a small risk of being killed every time we set out in a car, yet we still get outraged when some drunken idiot kills somebody on the highway. Society should not tolerate idiots who bring death to others by their recklessness or their indifference to life. Part of that intolerance is making certain that people who write things that read like death threats are checked out and that others are discouraged from similar behavior. Death threats are not cool and online is the worst place of all to make them, even as jokes. We have no chance to read the author's face. We don't know the author or his/her mindset. The posting doesn't alarm you. That's fine. You aren't the one being threatened, however, and that makes a difference. |
| NoDough Oct 09, 2007 6:35 AM EDT |
[opinion]
Comment #90 contains ambiguous language that could easily be (and, indeed, has been) construed as a death threat. Whether intended as such or not, prudence demands that it be investigated. Caitlyn Martin, the article's author, chose to base an article on the posit that comment #90 was indeed an actual death threat. While I agree that notifying the authorities was prudent, I believe that the article gives the poster much more attention than he/she deserves, and makes Caitlyn look a little silly. [/opinion] |
| hkwint Oct 09, 2007 6:43 AM EDT |
In my country a statement as made in #90 would certainly be a delict. Since an important politician was killed by an environment-extremist, and slightly after that the maker of a very critical film about the Islam was murdered by a muslim-extremist, people have threatened other people a lot, also on the web. It's the reason certain people need constant protection by bodyguards (which until a few years ago was very unusual, even our prime minister went to work by bike without bodyguards). If I threat a politician on the web or not on the web, doesn't matter, it's a delict. If it's only one time, I probably get a warning, but if it's more than once, I might end up going to jail. However, a few years back, anything could be said under the guise of Freedom of Speech. So, like you can understand, those threats being a delict or not an the penalty depend on the chance the one who threatens actually will harm someone. Till 2002, those chances were close to zero in my country. I think those chances should be part of the assessment of these kind of threats. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2007 6:49 AM EDT |
>I think those chances should be part of the assessment of these kind of threats. Yes, and your post is very much in point. Nobody here has said the poster should be thrown in jail. At most, people have said that the post should be investigated to insure that no actual threat exists, or, if it does, to eliminate it. Frankly, it doesn't bother my sense of decorum if some adolescent idiot gets a visit by people with badges and has to answer a lot of questions before being told "Don't do that again. If you do, bad things will happen." |
| number6x Oct 09, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
There is a certain amount of 'creepiness' about that post. I think Caitlyn did the right thing. I hope that whoever looks into the post does not over-react to it. That would be a tragedy as well. It is very hard to judge where to draw the line. With only written words, our other senses are not available to help us judge the intent of another person. It is very easy to judge wrong. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2007 7:14 AM EDT |
>That would be a tragedy as well. Tragedy is a word we throw around too easily. Over-reacting to the extent of a shootout that leaves somebody dead (hello Branch Davidians, hello Ruby Ridge) certainly would be a tragedy. Over-reacting to the point where a stupid kid's parents have to hire lawyers and we waste scarce judicial resources where they aren't needed is merely bad, not tragic. Maybe that's part of the problem here -- an inability to weigh and prioritize. Yeah. It's bad to send FBI agents to chat with somebody when there's no real need. It's tragic not to send them if there is a real need. The the rather high likelihood of wasting time vs the rather low likelihood of somebody wasting a human being? Sounds like a no-brainer to me -- you have a little chat. |
| bigg Oct 09, 2007 7:31 AM EDT |
> The examples you have posted are red herrings, and have nothing to do with the article in question. They were a response to your statement that "Words online should never warrant law enforcement involvement" I have difficulty seeing how they are too far off from a death threat as well. |
| azerthoth Oct 09, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
This may be why we at LXer have few of these issues. To a person almost all here agree that you own your words. We treat each other online much as would treat each other face to face. Even with that kind of respect I would suspect that on occasion a few of us would be reaching for blood pressure medicine if our debates were to happen face to face. My take ... online or off, you own your words. They reflect upon you as a person, and if one's rantings online would garner the interest of law enforcement if you said them offline, then that is the effect that one should expect. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 8:55 AM EDT |
I understand the concern, however, I simply focused on what the person wrote. This is the exact reason why I don't shorten things needlessly, and do my best to spell things correctly and have full complete sentences. So any words I have will not as likely be taken out of context (though it can still happen). You see, there are some problems in perception: 1.) This person said that they were not a regular Puppy Linux user. They only used for troubleshooting a few times. That was it. Supporter of a distro implies that they are a regular user of said distro. For example, I supported PCLinuxOS for a long time in a sense, and could be qualified as a supporter, since I have frequently used it. The same could go for Ubuntu and now Mint. 2.) "Besides, it serves notice - if she wishes to continue in her vanities - Esp. RE published political rantings : There WILL be hell to pay, (not from me) " Note the phrase in parenthesis. They said, "Not from me." In other words, they have stated they wouldn't do anything themselves, and possibly implied that they had no way of doing anything about it other than speaking their mind. Concerning political rantings, I believe they may have been referring to U.S. politics. There are those who are often turned off by such subjects, and depending on what publication one is writing for, too much of a focus on that can get you reprimanded and chewed out (possibly fired as well). In reference to vanity per se, the implication being that she is quite vane and egotistical, I can't speak to that, as I haven't read enough of her writing to make an assessment one way or another. I can say this however: I have had these problems in the past myself, and to an extent, I still have these issues, and I'm sure that has turned a few off here. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 9:10 AM EDT |
I would also like to address the comment concerning risk/reward: It's the Internet. Nothing more than binary data shifting between interconnected networks. Nothing more, nothing less. When the Internet is treated as if it were real life, then that is when it becomes time to get off the computer for a while and take a walk outside (especially if the weather is nice). The rest of the examples given were out in the real world, not the virtual world. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2007 9:44 AM EDT |
>It's the Internet. No. The internet, in this case, is merely the medium. The message came from some unbalanced human being sitting at a keyboard. We can be certain that the person is unbalanced from the message. What we can not know is the nature and extent of the imbalance. The person may be completely harmless. The person may also be the next Robert John Bardo, Ted Kaczynski, Marc David Chapman, John Hinckley, jr. I don't know the answer to that and neither do you. |
| azerthoth Oct 09, 2007 9:56 AM EDT |
Thomas, I can only agree with you in part of that comment. If I am playing a game, then yes, role playing becomes a part of the immersion into that virtual setting. However, conversing on forums, IRC, jabber, ect takes on a different level. As the internet has become the preferred method of communication when face to face conversation is not possible or feasible allowing such distinctions becomes non sensible. One should keep in mind (IMHO) that the difference between an e-mail or forum posting and snail mail is basically only the cost of postage. I don't believe that allowing the "virtual" distinction in a setting that is not subject to suspension of disbelief is appropriate. In many cases I can see where allowing that distinction would cloud issues and create more confusion. You and I have conversed separately from LXer and I have listened to your webcast (I hate the term podcast), I have respect for your honesty and your positions. However in allowing for the "virtual" distinction one would then be forced to ask the question. "Is this person who appears to have integrity and knowledge of this subject, actually just blowing smoke?" "He seems to be on a rant, why should I bother to believe a thing he says ... its just virtual fluff after all anyway." I know that personally, you, like I, subscribe to the theory of you own your words. You can perhaps see though where I have problems in allowing for the "virtual" distinction. Again, this is only my opinion, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Jim C. |
| NoDough Oct 09, 2007 10:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:When the Internet is treated as if it were real life... Is a telephone conversation real life? After all, it's just electricity moving through wires. Nothing more, nothing less. My point it this. Human interaction is real life. It doesn't matter if the tool used to achieve that interaction is the Internet or a bull-horn. It's still real life. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 2:14 PM EDT |
Telephoning another is closer to the real world per se as it involves two people speaking to each other rather than type. However, the difference between a phone call is that one can listen to the tone of voice on the other end to deduce the type of emotion. On the net however, it is different. Sure, there are emoticons, but not everyone uses them. My point is this: If one feels physically threatened by someone who is not even in the same country and they are likely a good distance away from them (say hundreds to thousands of miles), then it may be time for the author in question to step away from the computer and go outside for a while. The post did no harm in my view, except say for a few egos. For those who are curious, no, I don't subscribe to the post-9/11-be-very-afraid-syndrome, especially when it's just a forum post. Now, just one more question. Has this person in question done any other posts in that DW thread that are similar? If not, then I believe it's safe to say they simply were fed up, and communicated poorly. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 2:16 PM EDT |
Whoops. Forgot one more thing. If the person in question is from Canada like that post says they are, then it's useless to call the FBI..... Assuming they actually are from Canada, there isn't a thing that Federal law enforcement here can do really. |
| jdixon Oct 09, 2007 2:22 PM EDT |
> Assuming they actually are from Canada, there isn't a thing that Federal law enforcement here can do really. Sure they can. They can forward the results of their investigation to Canadian officials and request that they investigate. They can also determine that a crime has been committed under US law and ask for extradition. Canada doesn't have to do either, of course, but they probably would. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 2:39 PM EDT |
Reason why I said it was useless: Another individual by the name of Jeff called several people in Somerset County, Pennsylvania concerning the crash of Flight 93, and a photo of said crash that the person thought was fake. He recorded the conversation. Authorities were called, but.... as long as he doesn't enter the U.S., there's nothing that can be done, as Canada decided not to do anything in that instance. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2007 5:06 PM EDT |
>Reason why I said it was useless: Might be different in this case. There is an extradition treaty between the United States and Canada. Some things are not extraditable and some things are. Some things grant discretion and some things don't. I'm a guessin' death threats come under the some things are category. Again -- the problem is not that the writer is seriously making a death threat. The problem is that there is no clear bright line way to distinguish between somebody who is seriously making a death threat online and somebody who is play acting. |
| thenixedreport Oct 09, 2007 6:46 PM EDT |
No clear cut way? Possibly. However, there is a way of deducing the likelihood of seriousness, and from what I have seen, it is very, very low, if not non-existent altogether. How do we know that when the person said DEAD right, they weren't referring to a label on the "right wing" in politics in the U.S. in general (it's sort of a play on the words "dead center" from my understanding of it)? |
| dinotrac Oct 10, 2007 4:10 AM EDT |
nixed - Why are you making such a determined effort not to downplay the seriousness of this issue? We all agree that it's not very likely to be a serious threat. But we don't know. And - oh, wrap your logic around this -- if it's so freakin' clear cut, how come the rest of us don't seem able to get it. Are we all really just that stupid. Again, I strongly suggest that you go back and read letters from people like the Zodiac killer, Son of Sam, etc. and tell me you can't see a resemblance in tone. BTW - I noticed that, even as you try so hard to defend your position, you typed "dead center", not "DEAD center". Telling oversight? |
| thenixedreport Oct 10, 2007 5:43 AM EDT |
Dino, Sorry. I don't subscribe to being paranoid. "if it's so freakin' clear cut" Did I say that it was? Where did I say it was so? If you'll recall, my last post said something like this: "No clear cut way? Possibly." The whole point was about probability, and I feel the probability of said message being a threat to be minimal. Poor choice of wording? Absolutely. Death threat? I'm thinking no. "BTW - I noticed that, even as you try so hard to defend your position, you typed "dead center", not "DEAD center". Telling oversight?" No, just another red herring being thrown into this debate by you I'm afraid. |
| dinotrac Oct 10, 2007 6:07 AM EDT |
>The whole point was about probability, and I feel the probability of said message being a threat to be minimal. Sigh. Why do you have such a blind spot here? You are avoiding the plain and rational truth with every fiber of your being. The chances are actually pretty low that you'll kill somebody any time you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking. The chances are pretty low that you'll get hit by a train if you make a quick dash at the crossing. The chances are pretty low that you'll overdose on heroin/cocaine/meth/whathaveyou any time you take it. The chances are pretty low that your kid will blow himself away if you leave an unlocked gun in the house. The chances are pretty low that you'll get into a fatal accident. And yet, various places have enacted laws against drunk driving, crossing in front of a train, using dangerous drugs, leaving guns unlocked in a house with children, and not using seat belts. We invest a lot of energy into preventing things that aren't actually very likely in any single instance. But they happen. You can run away from reality all you want. After all, it's not your life. it's somebody else's. That makes it all ok, I guess. |
| caitlyn Oct 10, 2007 8:19 AM EDT |
A couple of quotes from commenters here sum up my feelings exactly: "Whether the person intended it as a threat or not is unknowable. There is no doubt that it can be taken as a threat. In such a case, the only prudent thing to do is notify law enforcement." "My take ... online or off, you own your words. They reflect upon you as a person, and if one's rantings online would garner the interest of law enforcement if you said them offline, then that is the effect that one should expect." "No. The internet, in this case, is merely the medium. The message came from some unbalanced human being sitting at a keyboard. We can be certain that the person is unbalanced from the message. What we can not know is the nature and extent of the imbalance. The person may be completely harmless." I do believe the person who wrote the semi-coherent ramblings which ended in the death threat is probably harmless. The problem I have is that I can't know that for sure, can I? The person who e-mailed me to inform me of what was happening on DWW saw it as a real threat. Since I can't be sure it is only prudent to treat it that way. Someone suggested that I have nothing to worry about since this individual is in Canada. It is way too easy to travel between the U.S. and Canada for me to assume he's too far away to harm me. I've driven across the border many times. I show some ID, state why I'm visiting Canada, and the border officer a nice visit. Entering the U.S. is about the same. In any case, the whole idea that someone would issue a death threat because I reported a problem with a distro is pretty much insane from my perspective. I make no assumptions about what an insane person might or might not do. |
| caitlyn Oct 10, 2007 8:30 AM EDT |
I'm going to respond to Thomas since, while I disagree with all he has said, he certainly has been civil in his disgreement and I do respect him for that: "For those who are curious, no, I don't subscribe to the post-9/11-be-very-afraid-syndrome, especially when it's just a forum post." As some people know I am an Israeli-American. I do subscribe to what Thomas describes as a "syndrome" because I have seen threats carried out. I know there are people in this world who want to kill me just because of my ethnicity, religion, and nationality. "Now, just one more question. Has this person in question done any other posts in that DW thread that are similar? If not, then I believe it's safe to say they simply were fed up, and communicated poorly." You are probably right. The operative word, though, is probably. As I said in the comments section of my post on the O'Reilly Linux Dev Center blog my first reaction was to not take this seriously. A close friend read the post on DWW and told me that I had better take it seriously just in case. She suggested I call the FBI. I decided she was right. I also decided to shine a light on what I see as a cancer in the Linux community and not just the Puppy Linux community. Fanaticism and zealotry only hurt Linux adoption and make us all look bad. "Whoops. Forgot one more thing. If the person in question is from Canada like that post says they are, then it's useless to call the FBI..... Assuming they actually are from Canada, there isn't a thing that Federal law enforcement here can do really." Not so. The FBI works hand in hand with similar national law enforcement agencies around the world including in Canada. If the person who wrote the threat does get a visit it will undoubtedly by by Canadian authorities, possibly with an FBI agent present. |
| thenixedreport Oct 10, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
"Not so. The FBI works hand in hand with similar national law enforcement agencies around the world including in Canada." On an isolated incident such as this? I'm thinking possibly not. If it were repeated, I could see it. Again, I'm citing that argument based on another case in which an individual from Canada was calling people (and recording the conversation) in the Somerset County area of Pennsylvania concerning Flight 93 and the Val McClatchey photo (of the smoke plume). When I asked them about it, they informed me that as long as they did not enter the U.S., they would be fine (law enforcement was contacted btw). Also, I heard about the requirement of a passport when traveling from this country to Canada (or to Mexico and somewhere else... I forget) via USA Radio News, which is syndicated on several radio networks, thus in my mind, the probability of the threat being diminished. |
| The_Joker Nov 24, 2007 1:40 PM EDT |
Wake up people! The threat from Puppy Linux is real. Consider the evidence: 1.) It's fans are rabid. 2.) It comes from a nation that distributes a mind-altering chemical worldwide (Fosters). 3.) It loads itself into memory like a virus. The other day, my neighbor's chihuahua, foaming at the mouth, lunged at me. Safe in my apartment, I began to wonder, perhaps there is something to these charges against Puppy Linux after all, so I did an investigation of its creator, Barry Kauler. What did I find? That this linux is in fact the first step towards Aussie world domination. Look at the picture at the top of this page: http://puppylinux.org/wikka/AboutPuppy/ What do you see over the BLOOD-RED word "PUPPY" (sounds innocent doesn't it?)? A chihuhua with a poppy flower in its mouth. This raises some questions: A.) What is an outbacker doing with Mexican dogs in the first place? answer 1: He is training an army of attack dogs in a remote desert region, they have to come from a similar locale, the desert, to survive. answer 2: He can easily have this army of Mexican dogs "emigrate" into the U.S. under the nose of immigration officials unnoticed. Clever, eh? B.) Why is the dog wearing a military hat? answer: It is a diabolical downunder deed, a plot to take over North America, starting with promoting Linux, an operating system known to confuse and intimidate the unsuspecting, innocent Windows users who were minding their own business when this upstart creates mayhem. C.) Why does the dog have a poppy flower in it's mouth? answer: It is well known that Tasmania is one of the world's leading producers of Opium poppies. Kauler is obviously drugging him to make him take ANY orders on command, no matter how viscious. I have received word from others who are watching the Puppy Linux trend that Kauler is also the master-mind of the Roo Virus. It hops from computer to computer and unleashes a pouch-full of evil outback code. We have only one message to Barry Kauler: just drink your bloody stubbies, watch footie, and leave the rest of us alone! Linux Unleashed, indeed! |
| azerthoth Nov 24, 2007 4:52 PM EDT |
Resurrecting one thread from the boneyard was plenty, thanks. |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 24, 2007 10:14 PM EDT |
I agree, your post was funny but copying and pasting it to multiple threads cheapens it. |
| samben Nov 26, 2007 3:47 PM EDT |
How does copying and pasting to multiple threads cheapen a story? samben |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 26, 2007 4:36 PM EDT |
He had a funny post and everyone who was interested in the story the thread is attached to saw it, there ws no need to copy it to another thread attached to the same story. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!