Fr33d0m 0f t3h pR355! :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#52 Apr 20 2007 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Jophiel wrote:

It was within NBC's rights to show it. I still think that they should have made the editorial decision not to show it. It serves the public no real use except to titillate with gossip while providing validation to the killer's actions in that he got his stuff published.

I don't think it'll create a rise in mass-killings or whatever, just that it was a poor journalistic decision. And, yes, I know all the usual "they're just in it for money!!" lines -- it doesn't mean I agree with it even if I understand it.

'Swhat I said!

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#53 Apr 20 2007 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Personally, I've had a lifelong and ongoing interest in psychology, so I'm always intellectually piqued by seeing what makes people tick. I didn't actually see the video on NBC---I went looking for it on Youtube to see if I would have, had I met the guy, thought he was obviously deranged or just an introvert. Of course it's hard to tell, but I wanted to see it. How do you sort me out from any person who's ready to bomb the school? Should you cancel "To Catch a Predator" or "Inside the Mind of a Killer" type shows?

This stuff is isolated as far as how often it occurs in a general population, but it existed before and will exist after. This WILL happen again, and in your lifetime. Several times. The only chance anyone has is hoping that treatment advances to a degree where it can be controlled and it's caught in very early stages, but even so, people have to choose to take their meds and go to therapy. Not everyone looks for help. Part of the illness is the feeling of persecution and isolation, which causes many to turn inward and violent.

It probably wan't the most sensitive thing NBC could have done timing-wise, but not that large a segment of society was affected. It was no 9/11. Damn, more people have died in Iraq that went there to work, not fight, than died at that school. What people are reacting to, as they did on 9/11, is that "city on a hill" feeling that nothing can touch us here in the good 'ol USof A as we go about our daily lives but that feeling is an illusion. Know that it's an illusion, don't let it ruin your life and make you hypervigilant. **** happens.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#54 Apr 20 2007 at 12:57 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

trickybeck wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Tricky. It's the first day after the video was aired. Obviously, the folks acting out right now are those who are just figuring they can scare people with a threat and a prank.

I'm glad you finally agree.

The question then becomes, why did you use that as evidence in your earlier argument?

Um... The earlier argument in which I said this?:

me wrote:

If we're lucky it'll only result in a whole bunch of panic and school closures over the next few months. Most likely they will be directly responsible for a goodly number of deaths. I can't think of a more irresponsible act then putting that idiots ranting on the news. It sent *exactly* the wrong message.

So. When the very next day after NBC choose to "publish" his ramblings, there are a dozen or so school closings due to threats of various sorts, I think that's a pretty good support for the exact argument I was making.

I'll repeat myself (again): We'll be lucky if all that happens is some panic and school closures over the next few months.

Quote:

Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

Neither. I made an observation about the effect that releasing his videos would have. I was absolutely right.

What part of that is confusing to you? We have already seen the "panic and school closures" part. We'll see if the "copy cat" part happens as well. Hopefully it wont (in which case we'll be lucky). I don't see how any of this becomes a "lie" on my part. Not even sure how you even begin to twist it around to make it so. What I predicted is *exactly* what happened. If I was right about the first part of the reaction to this, maybe you might consider that I'm right on the second part as well...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#55 Apr 20 2007 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good

trickybeck

Tracer Bullet

12,636 posts

I quoted it in the first post I made. Do you really write that much that you don't remember your own posts?

Wait, don't answer that.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#56 Apr 20 2007 at 1:01 PM Rating: Good

Nobby

Ministry of Silly Cnuts

19,524 posts

gbaji

Your bra-strap is showing

____________________________

"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#57 Apr 20 2007 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good

trickybeck

Tracer Bullet

12,636 posts

gbaji wrote:

What I predicted is *exactly* what happened. If I was right about the first part of the reaction to this, maybe you might consider that I'm right on the second part as well...

Just preserving this gem, I'll let someone else respond to it.

Or ignore it, like we should be doing actually.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#58 Apr 20 2007 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

trickybeck wrote:

I quoted it in the first post I made. Do you really write that much that you don't remember your own posts?

Are you really that dense?

How about you actually argue against what I said instead of quibbling over semantics? I know exactly what I wrote. I know exactly what I meant when I wrote it. Maybe you didn't understand me? Or maybe you're deliberately misreading what I wrote. I can't tell what sort of moronic process is going on inside your head that makes what should be an incredibly obvious correlation so uncomprehensible to you.

Perhaps you could regale us with explanation as to why the airing of Cho's ramblings *cant* result in an affirmation of what he did, a reward for what he did, and thus serve as increased incentive for other nutjobs to follow in his footsteps? Maybe if you start at the beginning instead of rambling all over the place, some of us might have a clue how you arrive at your ridiculous conclusions?

Just a thought...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#59 Apr 20 2007 at 2:33 PM Rating: Decent

Smasharoo

Lunatic

30,086 posts

I know exactly what I meant when I wrote it.

You're the only one.

I'll just assume that as usual it's so ambiguously worded that it could mean anything since I'm too lazy to read it. Let me offer my summary of your feelings here in a more concise format.

NBC bad. Me agree public opinion. Me lovable. Folks. Come on, we all know. Heh. Folks. How can you not understand what I was thinking when I can? Meh. Folks. Heh.

That about sum it up, little pumpkin?

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#60 Apr 20 2007 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Smasharoo wrote:

I'll just assume that as usual it's so ambiguously worded that it could mean anything since I'm too lazy to read it.

Lol! From the guy who can write a line by line response to a post without ever once actually defining his position on the topic, and when called on it, will repeatedly change said position with the patented Smasharoo "I didn't say that...".

Pot. Kettle. I at least *try* to be clear about what I'm saying. It's part of why I tend to be wordy. Those extra words aren't just there for decoration. They're there to clarify and define what I'm trying to say. You manage to be intentionally vague so as to make it harder for someone to counter your argument, all the while taking one sentence from my post and deliberately interpreting it in a way directly contradicted by 5 paragraphs of explanatory text in the same post.

Apparently Tricky has decided to emulate your posting style. I'll tell him the same thing I tell you. It's annoying. If you have a point to make, make it. Being deliberately cryptic so as to avoid having to actually make an argument is debating cowardice IMO.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#61 Apr 21 2007 at 12:59 AM Rating: Good

Nobby

Ministry of Silly Cnuts

19,524 posts

gbaji wrote:

I know exactly what I meant when I wrote it.

Today's word is 'incoherent'.

In coming weeks we'll also explore 'intelligibility' and 'gibberish'.

Once again, I am reminded of

Dr McCartney wrote:

...and next week, on "Let's not make any fUcking sense" I'll be waxing an owl.

____________________________

"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#62 Apr 21 2007 at 1:36 AM Rating: Good

Smasharoo

Lunatic

30,086 posts

Lol! From the guy who can write a line by line response to a post without ever once actually defining his position on the topic

Put the crack pipe down, Jimmy.

Here's my position on this: The press should be able to unapologetically present any information they have to the public.

See how easy that was? I think you'd find if you actually read my posts that I always state a clear simple position.

and when called on it, will repeatedly change said position with the patented Smasharoo "I didn't say that...".

Oh I see where the confusion is. Let me clarify. When I say "There is no reason private citizens should be allowed to own handguns" and you reply "What? You think gellato is better than sorbet?" that's not me being unclear.

:(

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#63 Apr 21 2007 at 1:58 AM Rating: Good

Nobby

Ministry of Silly Cnuts

19,524 posts

Smasharoo wrote:

You think gellato is better than sorbet?

You secretly do though, don't you.

Weirdo

____________________________

"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve

▲ Page top