|
|
| rubbernecker |
I've been lurking on this controversy
for some time without posting anything, so I don't have any personal
attachments to either side (or I should say to any side, since there
are several). As a detached but facinated observer, here are some of
my thoughts written down for the first time and all my humble
opinions:
1. KUH is driven by an almost pathological need
for status, and that's what the BFC gave him. He desperately wants
people to think of him as better than anyone else -- not a mere
mortal but an angel, and king of the angels at that. I think he
needs people to acknowledge he's better because that's how he thinks
of himself. That's why he lies (9/11 stuff) and that's why he does
kind things as well, in service of his selfish objective.
2.
When it comes to being a good person, the proof is in the pudding. A
kind person doesn't tell lies about the most traumatic event to hit
this country in decades so he will look better. A kind person
doesn't bully low-wage service personnel just so he (a comparatively
wealthy animal doctor) can get benefits to which he is not entitled,
also known as stealing. A kind person doesn't cause a scene with
security personnel at WDW -- which I'm sure mortified his family --
and delude himself into thinking he is a victim fighting back. And a
kind person doesn't say cruel things even when under attack.
3. YKW2 is by far the worst character in this whole thing.
His actions are textbook examples of propaganda ("this is online
terrorism"), Orwellian facism (changing posts, banning people from
responding and taunting them for not doing so), cult establishment
("we angels must close our circle and exclude the haters"), and mind
control ("you're afraid now, aren't you?"). He is utterly
reprehensible. If there is any justice in the universe, his pathetic
little career will be ruined by his inexcusable actions.
4.
The facts of this situation have gotten buried under so many layers
of spin that it's easy to forget that (with the exception of
unproven death threats) nobody did anything wrong in a legal sense.
It's not illegal to game Disney's corporate policies. It's not
illegal to post negative reviews of books without actual malice
(which is almost impossible to prove). It's not illegal to pass
along rumors, especially rumors that are very close to the truth
with only minor details misreported. You can't sue for $10 million
for the equivalent of having your business picketed, especially when
it is a money-losing business in the first place.
5.
Therefore everything currently going on with their evidence
collection is nothing more than an effort to save face. Their vague
hints about invading computers, working with law enforcement, haters
running scared and destroying evidence, and payouts to come are
nothing more than an effort to save face and delude themselves into
thinking they are in control.
6. I think YKW herself is
less to blame, because she strikes me as a genuine fruitcake rather
than a cynical manipulator like YKW2. When she said that her little
message board had healed the sick, combined with her pre-Disney
writing career, I decided she is too detached from reality to be
held fully accountable. I think she is a victim as much as some of
the other people here.
Again, these are just my opinions.
Since I'm speaking up for the first time, I'd be curious to see what
you all think. |
|
|
| Kim H |
Here's what I think...you don't know
KUH, and to start a topic like this, is asking for people to argue
with you.
kim |
|
|
| Steve Russo |
Nice summary and I agree with most of
what you said. My own additions:
1. It was never about breakfast
(to all those who said "it's only a breakfast").
2. Can't
remember the first salvo but, I do remember my first visit to the
Pit when the first post I read was "Where are the scum now?" from
Loribell.
3. Agreed that YKW2 is the worst. Genii is a close
second (unless they're the same person...has anyone seen them in the
same room?).
4. YKW a "fruitcake"? Could be. You cited the
"healing the sick" quote and that does feed that fire. I don't know
her so I'll withhold judgement.
5. Other than YKW2/Genii, the
only real sore spot with me was the continual use of the word
"haters" - from the principles and some RCH members. I don't recall
hating anything or anyone.
6. Regarding KUH... I exchanged
several emails with him during the height of the debate. He wanted
to explain himself and felt I offered a somewhat sane view. I
promised I would never post his comments and I'll stick to that. He
is certainly a complex personality. I might tend to agree with your
assessment - he certainly enjoyed the praise but, shoot, who
wouldn't. He did indicate to me that he had planned to give up his
BC role (it was taking too much of his time) and he did do
that. |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
I have to mostly agree with
rubbernecker. I, also, wasn't involved with BC or any of that and
became aware of it only when it spilled over to the DIS earlier this
year.
Once this 'argument' was removed from the DIS, I
forgot all about it until it spilled over again earlier this month.
After that I just HAD to find out what all the fuss was about and
began researching. (Research is my life after all)
I'm
unaware of any previous name-calling and hate-mongering. I've seen
few posts that I would deem 'unreasonable'. (However, I have an
ability to brush off remarks that others would take to heart, so my
opinion may be skewed in that respect) People bicker and call each
other names. I would have thought this would have been grown out of
by the 4th grade, but my experience on the internet has shown this
not to be the case.
However, name-calling and hate-mongering
aside, I DO have a huge problem with using deception to gain a
'greater good'. IE: 'greater good' meaning reservations for people
with daughters who want to meet Cinderella.
What makes me a
little angry is when a group of people storm the phone lines and tie
up operators at exactly 6:59am to further their 'cause' every day.
This may inhibit total strangers who call before work and just get
put on hold and finally give up after 15 minutes because they can't
afford the phone bill. It affects people who may not even be
connected to the internet or aware of the group tactics that the BC
is espousing and encouraging.
I think rubbernecker is also
right when it comes to advertising the BC's 'angelic' status. True
angels do not seek adulation or recognition. True angels simply do
their good works and move on to help others. They don't spout on a
public BB things like "Hey! I've got a new system that works better
than the old and, for obvious reasons, I can't tell you about it
here. Email me".
To me, that's not angelic. That's
deception. I abhor deception.
As always, JMO. |
|
|
| angie henry |
I have to agree with Kim. Disagreeing
is different than starting off an argument in a way that seems to be
intentionally inflamatory.
quote:
Kim H wrote:
Here's what I think...you don't know KUH, and
to start a topic like this, is asking for people to argue with
you.
kim
|
|
|
| Robey |
The following is my humble opinion.
Very good assessment!Although I would add the following:
YKW2- He is probably among other things~ a psychopathic
control freak.
YKW- I would add that she exhibits signs of
typical emotional abuse~ and in that sense only~ she may very well
be, “a victim as much as some of the other people here.” In other
words, the mind control attempts exhibited by YKW2 is not limited to
“the haters”.
Just what is emotional abuse? It is the
ongoing emotional environment created by your abuser for the
purposes of control. http://www.myndtalk.org/htm/abuse.htm
Just my opinion.
Robey
quote:
rubbernecker wrote:
I've been lurking on this controversy for
some time without posting anything, so I don't have any personal
attachments to either side (or I should say to any side, since
there are several). As a detached but facinated observer, here are
some of my thoughts written down for the first time and all my
humble opinions:
1. KUH is driven by an almost
pathological need for status, and that's what the BFC gave him. He
desperately wants people to think of him as better than anyone
else -- not a mere mortal but an angel, and king of the angels at
that. I think he needs people to acknowledge he's better because
that's how he thinks of himself. That's why he lies (9/11 stuff)
and that's why he does kind things as well, in service of his
selfish objective.
2. When it comes to being a good
person, the proof is in the pudding. A kind person doesn't tell
lies about the most traumatic event to hit this country in decades
so he will look better. A kind person doesn't bully low-wage
service personnel just so he (a comparatively wealthy animal
doctor) can get benefits to which he is not entitled, also known
as stealing. A kind person doesn't cause a scene with security
personnel at WDW -- which I'm sure mortified his family -- and
delude himself into thinking he is a victim fighting back. And a
kind person doesn't say cruel things even when under attack.
3. YKW2 is by far the worst character in this whole thing.
His actions are textbook examples of propaganda ("this is online
terrorism"), Orwellian facism (changing posts, banning people from
responding and taunting them for not doing so), cult establishment
("we angels must close our circle and exclude the haters"), and
mind control ("you're afraid now, aren't you?"). He is utterly
reprehensible. If there is any justice in the universe, his
pathetic little career will be ruined by his inexcusable actions.
4. The facts of this situation have gotten buried under so
many layers of spin that it's easy to forget that (with the
exception of unproven death threats) nobody did anything wrong in
a legal sense. It's not illegal to game Disney's corporate
policies. It's not illegal to post negative reviews of books
without actual malice (which is almost impossible to prove). It's
not illegal to pass along rumors, especially rumors that are very
close to the truth with only minor details misreported. You can't
sue for $10 million for the equivalent of having your business
picketed, especially when it is a money-losing business in the
first place.
5. Therefore everything currently going on
with their evidence collection is nothing more than an effort to
save face. Their vague hints about invading computers, working
with law enforcement, haters running scared and destroying
evidence, and payouts to come are nothing more than an effort to
save face and delude themselves into thinking they are in control.
6. I think YKW herself is less to blame, because she
strikes me as a genuine fruitcake rather than a cynical
manipulator like YKW2. When she said that her little message board
had healed the sick, combined with her pre-Disney writing career,
I decided she is too detached from reality to be held fully
accountable. I think she is a victim as much as some of the other
people here.
Again, these are just my opinions. Since I'm
speaking up for the first time, I'd be curious to see what you all
think.
|
|
|
| Robey |
Angie,
I think the keyword here
is "argument".
I really don't think what rubberneck said is an
argument. I think it is a well thought out opinion based on known
fact. Nor do I think it is inflammatory. There were no accusations,
just opinions. That's ok. If you have a different opinion, that's
great! Please share. We really do want to hear it.
quote:
angie henry wrote:
I have to agree with Kim. Disagreeing is
different than starting off an argument in a way that seems to be
intentionally inflamatory.
|
|
|
| Steve Russo |
Robey wrote:
"I think the keyword
here is "argument".
I really don't think what rubberneck said is
an argument. I think it is a well thought out opinion based on known
fact. Nor do I think it is inflammatory. There were no accusations,
just opinions. That's ok. If you have a different opinion, that's
great! Please share. We really do want to hear it."
Agreed.
I was accused of having a "silver tongue" and "baiting" in the
Dungeon when all I really did was express opinions (against the BC
tactics) and ask supporters to explain theirs. I never argued, just
debated. The "inflammations" started when it digressed to name
calling.
If this board is to succeed, it has to allow a free
exchange of ideas and opinions - and not digress to argument and
name-calling. |
|
|
| Coastalwader |
I'm going to lock this thread for a bit
and open up a discussion in reference to it. Please check it
out. |
|
|
| Kim H |
I would just like to say, that I
disagree with rubbernecker's opinions of KUH, and for what it is
worth, I did see the death threat, it was posted on another site,
and pulled the same day. What that person said was bizarre and
scary.
kim |
|
|
| rubbernecker |
Thanks to CostalWader and everyone who
made such excellent input and unlocked the thread. I'd like to
apologize again for the comments I made that were over the top and
assure you I will keep it civil while calling them like I see them.
I'm very disturbed by today's Damages Report #2 statement by
YKW, which sounds more like it was written by YKW2. She complains
that the haters are trying to scare people into silence, but isn't
she continuing to do the same? Mentioning "law enforcement
officials, prosecutors, and plantiffs" and "big surprises in store"
and "he people who hurt you are very, very frightened."
It
sickens me that she (or YKW2) would use this kind of propaganda
tactic. It needs to be called for what it is. |
|
|
| Crank |
quote:
Kim H wrote:
I would just like to say, that I disagree with
rubbernecker's opinions of KUH, and for what it is worth, I did
see the death threat, it was posted on another site, and pulled
the same day. What that person said was bizarre and scary.
kim
Kim, could you give us a brief synopsis of the
death threat please? |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
rubbernecker wrote:"the people who hurt you are very, very
frightened."
It sickens me that she (or YKW2) would use
this kind of propaganda tactic. It needs to be called for what it
is.
I love to tear apart words and inflictions, find the
double-meaning and review whether or not they can be considered
'control tactics'.
When I saw this particular sentence in
reading today's (or maybe yesterday's) "missile to the people", I
thought back on what was considered 'bullying' tactics in my
research. I also remembered lessons my parents taught me.
Bullies take after weaker people than themselves because
they know they are guaranteed a win. Hence, this line "...the people
who hurt you are very, very frightened" may be considered a red flag
to someone who sees a 'frightened' person and wishes to go after
that person. A control tactic designed to influence the people that
don't recognize it for what it is.
But this makes them just
as bad as the "attackers" and "terrorists" that affected them as
well. It also ties into this simplistic need to do damage or make
their 'enemy' feel as badly as they felt. Eye for an eye and all
that rot. They haven't risen above the need for revenge yet.
But in my youth my parents taught us that hate is merely
fear. Fear of black people. Fear of Vietnamese. Fear of Hispanics.
Fear of the unknown. They would tell us that it's not honorable to
go after a group that's very, very frightened because they have to
live with that fear and we don't.
I think this teaching was
meant to curb us from becoming bullies. I know if someone told me
that the person I was arguing with was already frightened by someone
like me, it would make me think twice about arguing with them any
further. I do not need to propagate their fear of me, hence I would
either attempt to educate them to relieve that fear, so I would
simply choose to not let them into my circle anymore.
Just a
few thoughts and, as always, JMO. |
|
|
| Kim H |
Crank, I can't give a description of
what was in the threat. I just wanted to point out that there was
indeed a death threat made, it seemed as if many people are thinking
it was made up. I only mentioned it today after asking KUH's
permission.
kim |
|
|
| judy |
quote:
Mentioning "law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and plantiffs"
and "big surprises in store" and "he people who hurt you are very,
very frightened."
It sickens me that she (or YKW2) would
use this kind of propaganda tactic. It needs to be called for what
it is.
OK - MAYBE she's right about "the people who
hurt you are very, very frightened."
Maybe it's a matter of
defining WHO it was that did the hurting. |
|
|
| judy |
quote:
Kim H wrote:
I would just like to say, that I disagree with
rubbernecker's opinions of KUH, and for what it is worth, I did
see the death threat, it was posted on another site, and pulled
the same day. What that person said was bizarre and scary.
kim
Ok - I believe you. Until now, I doubted the
existence of a death threat, because nobody but KUH, YKW2, and YKW
had mentioned it.
But, I think it's important that nobody HERE
made that threat, or agrees with that sort of tactic. It's not the
way to win an argument.
It still doesn't make sense to me that
the RCH CLOSED because someone made a threat on another site.
|
|
|
| OhMickeyYoureSoFine |
quote:
judy wrote:
But, I think it's important that nobody HERE made
that threat, or agrees with that sort of tactic. It's not the way
to win an argument.
I admire your position, but it sounds like
wishful thinking when you project your position on every other
person in this forum. The truth is that you do not have psychic
powers to know whether it was a person here who made the threat, or
whether anyone here agrees with that sort of tactic. With this forum
being a nexus for those seeking to demonize and trash KUH, it is
actually not a big stretch to suspect that the person who made the
death threat reads this very forum. I think it is safe to say that
the motivation for this act developed on the Internet. It is also
safe to say that this forum has served to amplify and dwell on anger
at KUH.
If you scroll down in this very outback forum, you
can see a thread titled, "So where Can I Kick some YKW2 Ass?",
including a cheering fellow respondant and no opposition from
moderators. Does this thread title sounds like a threat on another
key personality in the clubhouse, this time YKW2? So are you folks
going to do anything about it? Or is the mentality that YKW2 is "fair
game" and all manner of attacks are valid, even implied threats?
|
|
|
| Carla0030 |
Oh Mickey, this really isn't a debate
forum. In order to debate there must be an opposing position. Look
down the list and read the messages therein, there is no opposing
views. I can almost imagine I'm reading on RADP.
There would
be ONE post with an opposing position. Apparently, someone posted
anonymously on Common Ground before the site moved to this website
in support of YKW, or YKW2, or BC. I'm not sure because it was
deleted or rolled off that board pretty quickly and it was
determined here that it was someone trying to stir the pot or some
such phrase and therefore not reposted.
|
|
|
| judy |
quote:
Carla0030 wrote:
Oh Mickey, this really isn't a debate forum.
In order to debate there must be an opposing position. Look down
the list and read the messages therein, there is no opposing
views. I can almost imagine I'm reading on RADP.
There
would be ONE post with an opposing position. Apparently, someone
posted anonymously on Common Ground before the site moved to this
website in support of YKW, or YKW2, or BC. I'm not sure because it
was deleted or rolled off that board pretty quickly and it was
determined here that it was someone trying to stir the pot or some
such phrase and therefore not reposted.
Carla - If you have an opposing viewpoint,
please let us know. All of us here are talking about our own
experiences. If yours are different, I can appreciate that. You ARE
allowed to give your opinion.
We moved from the previos forum
because only a certain number of pots could be displayed. Because of
the volume of posts, some "dropped off" the bottom of the page. The
moderators aren't going to choose certain posts to put back on the
top - that wouldn't be fair to others. None of MY witty, insightful
posts were re-posted after dropping off, why should anyone else's
be?
If there is a view that YOU think needs to be presented - OK
- present it! You're not going to be censored. As long as you're not
calling other people names, or swearing , your posts are not going
to be deleted because of content. - hey TRY it! |
|
|
| judy |
quote:
OhMickeyYoureSoFine wrote:
I admire your position, but
it sounds like wishful thinking when you project your position on
every other person in this forum. The truth is that you do not
have psychic powers to know whether it was a person here who made
the threat, or whether anyone here agrees with that sort of
tactic. With this forum being a nexus for those seeking to
demonize and trash KUH, it is actually not a big stretch to
suspect that the person who made the death threat reads this very
forum. I think it is safe to say that the motivation for this act
developed on the Internet. It is also safe to say that this forum
has served to amplify and dwell on anger at KUH.
If you
scroll down in this very outback forum, you can see a thread
titled, "So where Can I Kick some YKW2 Ass?", including a cheering
fellow respondant and no opposition from moderators. Does this
thread title sounds like a threat on another key personality in
the clubhouse, this time YKW2? So are you folks going to do
anything about it? Or is the mentality that YKW2 is "fair game" and
all manner of attacks are valid, even implied threats?
Ok you're right about the first point - I mean
nobody posting here agrees with or makes, death threats. Of course,
anyone can be reading, and they can hold all sorts of ideas and
opinions that I dont agree with. THIS forum is not about bashing
KUH, or about making death threats.
As to the subject about
"kicking YKW2 ass" - that's not even CLOSE to a death threat!
|
|
|
| Carla0030 |
Judy, thanks for the encouragement, but
really I'm not interested in opening up myself to the masses here.
Let's see - no namecalling hmmmm? I've been called a 'stepford host'
(no, not directly by name), then told if I weren't one I wouldn't be
offended, YKW2 has been called a dick and I cannot count how many
times I've read the 'implication' that KUH is a liar or perhaps a
wimp or some such because he happened to take a death threat
seriously. My opinion is that I wanted a place free from the
continuing saga and staff bashing. How is one person's need to 'get
it out' going to bring people together? I simply pointed out that
this isn't a debate. |
|
|
| judy |
quote:
Carla0030 wrote:
Judy, thanks for the encouragement, but
really I'm not interested in opening up myself to the masses here.
Let's see - no namecalling hmmmm? I've been called a 'stepford
host' (no, not directly by name), then told if I weren't one I
wouldn't be offended, YKW2 has been called a dick and I cannot
count how many times I've read the 'implication' that KUH is a
liar or perhaps a wimp or some such because he happened to take a
death threat seriously. My opinion is that I wanted a place free
from the continuing saga and staff bashing. How is one person's
need to 'get it out' going to bring people together? I simply
pointed out that this isn't a debate.
OK - go back then, to the main board here, and
see what all the other "rooms" are about. people are enjoying each
other's comments and having fun getting o know one another. The "out
back" is the place for any controversy, in order to keep it off the
other rooms. People who want to read it, or participate, can. Think
of it as our "dungeon."
I don't undestand your point about a
debate forum. If you've got an opinion, state it. If you dont want
to, Then what is the point of saying that only one point of view is
offered here?
I didn't see anyone call you a name. I don't know
who was being referred to as "stepford hosts." And IMPLYING that
KUH lied is not name-calling. I was simply that everyone was told
there was a death threat, yet until someone spoke up, nobody had
SEEN any evidence. Do I think the people running RCH lie? YES - I
know they do, because they have lied about me. that's not oly my
opinion, it's my experience. other people here are saying they have
had similar experiences.
AND, some people have also said nice
things about KUH and about YKW. And they haven't been attacked
for it. |
|
|
| discernment |
OK, I for one believe that KUH got a
death threat. KimH has said she has seen it. I do not think KUH is
a wimp or a liar. I find it deplorable that some wacko would take
this to an extreme.
The Death Threat thread was discussing
the context of the threat since KimH is, understandable, not at
liberty to discuss the specifics of the threat. I think the whole
matter of the Death threat would subside if we could actually see
what was said in that post on another message board. When people do
not have all the facts, people tend to speculate. That is why Carla
you see people, not me, have claimed that KUH may have over
reacted. I do not recall anyone saying KUH was a wimp in that
thread. KUH responded in the manner he felt was appropriate. We
may all have dealt with that in the same way.
Carla, i do
hope you stick around. We can all learn from each other and come to
a mutual respect even though we may not see eye to eye. |
|
|
| Carla0030 |
Discernment, can I just ask why you
(you cannot answer for the rest I know) feel if you could SEE the
death threat that the argument would stop? Not to be a snot or
anything but just who the heck are you? Why is it not enough that
KUH and the authorities took it seriously? I cannot remember who
I've told what to so please bear with me here. For 11 yrs I worked
in the Social Services field investigating child abuse. During that
time I cannot tell you how many times I was threatened. One father
who had lost his children due to physical abuse threatened me and I
was not particularly concerned in that he lived out of state. I
learned that threats are in fact real and should not be taken
lightly. That father was arrested in the lobby of the building where
I worked and found to have a shotgun in his car. So, am I wrong to
consider that a threat? Am I jumping to illogical conclusions, after
all, if someone was really after me, he wouldn't have told me so
right? I am of the opinion that a threat is a threat is a threat at
least to whom it is directed. I find it incredibly insensitive to
suggest that anyone should take death threats lightly. No, in answer
to your post, no one directly called him a wimp; in fact, it was
pointed out that KUH was not necessarily even the reason for the
post. Since so many seem big on quoting, here is the one that I
interpreted to mean 'wimp':
"My thinking is that to get your
skivvies in a knot simply because someone said they're going to kill
someone is simply assinine and over-reaction. I also agree with
Crank on the idea that a serious whacko isn't going to warn you that
they're coming after you. They'd just do it."
A whole lot of
things make us who we are. Our judgments and assumptions are decided
based on our own personal history. Just because someone throws
around terms like 'I'd like to kill so and so', doesn't mean the
rest of us do as well. What seems ludicrous and out of proportion to
some, seem very real to others and to make light of that or dismiss
those feelings is reprehensible.
|
|
|
| rubbernecker |
Carla--
I can't speak for
anyone else, but I think hard evidence of the death threat is
important for several reasons:
1. Many people (myself
included) believe that certain people involved with RCH are
exceedingly melodramatic. If complaining about BFC practices gets
inflated to terrorism, then perhaps a vague or unserious remark was
inflated to "death threat."
2. This alleged death threat and
the subsequent alleged involvement of law enforcement and
prosecutors is, in my opinion, a driving force in getting the good
people at the RCH to assist YKW and YKW2 with their evidence
collection drive.
3. The evidence collection drive (damages
reports) will in turn be used to launch lawsuits against innocent
people who never wanted to be a part of this mess. Lawsuits are
horrible things, causing financial and emotional strain.
I
have no first hand knowledge, but I believe that something was
posted that was taken as a death threat though it almost certainly
was not intended as a serious threat. I'm very skeptical of
involvement by the authorities, "big surprises in store," or
anything beyond that.
If people are cooperating with YKW2's
effort to disrupt the lives of innocent people because they believe
they need to fight back against the "haters" who make death threats,
then the death threat is important. Unless better evidence is
produced, I cannot help but assume that YKW2 is lying in an effort to
enlist assistance for his petty revenge fantasy. |
|
|
| phamton |
I think death threats should be taken
seriously. There were some emails to Santana students after the
shootings in their school and also to students at Columbine. These
emails were along the lines of "We're going to start another blood
bath at your school" "Don't go to school on Friday" etc. These
emails were not from students who even lived in that area. They were
teens pranksters who had no intention of carrying out any shootings.
Several of them were arrested because of the emails and charged and
convicted. It was a joke but still very, very wrong.
We have
had students call in bomb threats simply to get out of taking a test
in high school here. They were arrested. I think threats should be
taken seriously and be given its day in court. As far as joking
about killing someone, if both parties know it is a joke, then
neither would be compelled to report it as a crime.
If KUH
was threatened (which I accept after hearing from Kim), then it
should be followed up by law enforcement.
Bev
Hamilton |
|
|
| rubbernecker |
I once received an e-mail from a
stranger ranting about my negative review of a Chow Yun Fat movie
and ending with, "If I ever see you on the street I will shoot you
in the head." Doesn't get much more explicit than that.
Still, I didn't worry about it and I didn't even believe the
person would actually shoot me if given the chance. Context is
everything. The fact that KUH was harassed offline makes a
difference, but the actual words of the threat matter. So does hard
evidence of law enforcement involvement.
It's clear that
online death threats, even if hoaxes, are illegal. Why no arrests?
Why does the person go free for so long? YKW2 would have you believe
that they've set up a sting operation, and anyone who says anything
bad about them is being monitored by the FBI and will soon be
arrested. I don't believe it. I want proof. |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
Carla0030 wrote:
Since so many seem big on quoting, here is
the one that I interpreted to mean 'wimp':
"My thinking is
that to get your skivvies in a knot simply because someone said
they're going to kill someone is simply assinine and
over-reaction. I also agree with Crank on the idea that a serious
whacko isn't going to warn you that they're coming after you.
They'd just do it."
A whole lot of things make us who we
are. Our judgments and assumptions are decided based on our own
personal history. Just because someone throws around terms like
'I'd like to kill so and so', doesn't mean the rest of us do as
well. What seems ludicrous and out of proportion to some, seem
very real to others and to make light of that or dismiss those
feelings is reprehensible.
I am the one that made that quote, therefore I
acknowledge your opinion that my opinion is reprehensible. Given
your past experience with real life situations, I can understand why
you would take death threats from disgruntled and angry people that
you meet during the course of your job seriously.
I still
stand by my opinion that if I were to take seriously death threats
made to me by some stranger on the internet, then I'd be acting in a
melodramatic and self-absorbed manner. (Thanks for the word,
rubbernecker. I was looking for a word that fit the situation and
that's it:D)
What makes me different from others is that I'm
not going to threaten to take you to court for "hating" me and
publishing "libelous and slanderous" remarks about my opinion, nor
am I going to try to rally my co-horts on this and other boards
stating that I have been deeply wounded and irreperably harmed by
your opinion that my opinion is reprehensible.
I am an
adult. The cost of my freedom to have an opinion that may seem
ill-bred or politically incorrect is that I might have to listen to
others telling me they think I'm wrong.
I am an adult. I can
handle it. If I couldn't, I wouldn't be out here in cyberspace.
**edited to thank Rubbernecker for a term**
[Edited by
Lunarlady] |
|
|
| judy |
quote:
phamton wrote:
If KUH was threatened (which I accept
after hearing from Kim), then it should be followed up by law
enforcement.
Bev Hamilton
SURE - take it seriously - as in tracking down
the PERSON who made the threat. Somebody said that has been done. If
it was a post on aother forum, it was typed and submitted by an
individual. not by a GROUP of "haters" or "vigilantees" or
"hactivist" or even "cyber-terrorists" (I love that one).
The
thing is that a whole group, or a number of groups, are all being
painted with the same brush. HOw does a death threat made by one
person justify the "damages report" where people are being asked to
search newsgroups for opinions and log them as crimes?
Let's
look at it this way:
I express an opinion.
Another person
reads my opinion, agrees with it, and decides to threaten someone.
*I* didn't commit any crime.
Unless my opinion was of the
nature of stating that someone needed to be killed, I can't be held
acountable for making or "inciting" a threat.
This is what is
being done - a whole group of people are being harassed, called
criminals, and others are told to find evidence of their crimes -
based on a threat that has been traced to someone else already!
I think we all know who the label "cyber -terrorist" applies
to. |
|
|
| phamton |
Judy said
quote:
Unless my opinion was of the nature of stating that someone needed
to be killed, I can't be held acountable for making or "inciting"
a threat. This is what is being done - a whole group of people are
being harassed, called criminals, and others are told to find
evidence of their crimes - based on a threat that has been traced
to someone else already!
Thanks, Judy, I totally agree.
Bev | |