AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Litmus test post, part deux
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: January 23, 2006 03:21AM
Earlier, in the predecessor to this thread, St. Styles admonished forum members to respect their fellow forum members:


You see, it isn't about the doodie you leave behind, it's about giving a @#$%& about the rest of the people in the pool.

Get the difference?



In response, farther down in the thread I posted a number of instances (with links) where Styles has made unprovoked attacks on other forum members, demonstrating once again that Styles talks out of his ass. Well, it would appear that I overlooked an entry that definitely should have been included on my list. I include it here now for the sole purpose of demonstrating just what a @#$%& Styles really is:


tears of joy everlasting wrote:
"Yeah, I love my little wifey and our marriage can be measure in decades. The children love her and so does the dog. As we enter the later years of our lives together, she is more lovely than the woman I first knew.

God bless her, and when the end comes.........we know we will meet on the other side."

Furious Flav wrote:
"Lunch counters wif' air conditionin' and Co'Cola out of a fountain spout. Wow, man, that's livin'. They make them there floats and sundaes, too?

Glad to know your dog Rover loves your missus, too. Keeps her real happy when you're not there, huh?"


You're a @#$%&, Styles, and you will NEVER receive the acceptance and respect you are desperate for because everybody here knows it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
N-OS speaks the truth
Posted by: Keef
Date: January 23, 2006 04:19AM
All funny graphics and jokes aside – what N-OS states is true: Fusty is a troll, a mean-spirited attacker of others, who has worked hard for many years to inspire the loathing he is now subject to. He's been banned everywhere for this behavior, and keeps creating new nicks, simply to continue to troll people in forums where he is not wanted. He's a first-class creep who delights in attacking others, then cries like a baby when those he attacks strike back. As this is a new forum, he's putting on the "who – me?" act again, pretending that the reason that so many people can't stand his odious presence is entirely unknown to him. He is also a wannabe vigilante who stalks other forum members, sending out their real names, email addresses and photographs to others. He sent me this info about Guitarman after I clearly told him I was NOT interested.

He's putting on the "what, me? I'm just a regular guy – why are they picking on me?" act to play to the new crowd, but rest assured: he WILL have a meltdown and start threatening, trolling and attacking people who are entirely innocent on this site. He has done so on DealMac and gotten banned from there, he has done so on the DealMac Hotline server and gotten banned there, he has done so on AppleSwitcher and gotten banned there, and he will do so on MacResource and get banned here.

Ask yourself why gun owners and gun haters, right wingers and left wingers, and forum members from all opposing viewpoints, religious backgrounds, ethnicities, genders and sexual orientations band together in their contempt for Fusty. Then behold the glaringly clear answer: Fusty has brought it all down on himself.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: N-OS speaks the truth
Posted by: Guitarman
Date: January 23, 2006 09:59AM
To tell the truth, FUZzy One_Nut has no standing to protest his pic being posted. First of all he posted the pics himself to a forum. Second of all, he's posted a morphed pic of ME on DM. So his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

There is no reason to allow a maniac who has in the past threatened other forum members, trolled them on multiple forums including craigslist, posted their pics, went on hunts to find people's phone numbers and addresses and workplace phone numbers and addresses and give them out to others on the web, to continue posting here because he hasn't done it here YET. Make no mistake, he will. Just as sure as he pulls his gun on un-armed people in the street.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2006 10:18AM by Guitarman.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Litmus test post, part deux
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 23, 2006 10:16AM
We all have a chance to start fresh here, so why don't you just let bygones be bygones. If someone trespasses on another's privacy here, by all means hang them from a yardarm, but why preemptively attack?

It's precisely this sort of venom that caused the owners of other forums to ban personal attacks, and I think it wise that OWC do the same. The level of hostility expressed here will surely drive off potential participants who fear they will be targeted in the same way should they express views or opinions divergent from others.

Peace be with you all, and remember this forum is for "Friendly Political Ranting." If we lose our temper and get angry at others ideas, attack them with logic and destroy the foundation of their belief, but don't attack someone's personal appearance or that of their wife. That's over the line.

If they've said something odious on this forum by all means call them to account, but not for what they've done elsewhere. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. This can be a fresh start for us all, but only if we are willing to let go of old grudges.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Mods, please take note:
Posted by: Keef
Date: January 23, 2006 05:37PM
Guitarman Wrote:
> To tell the truth, FUZzy One_Nut has no standing to protest his pic being posted. First of all he posted the pics himself to a forum.


1. What is Privacy?
Privacy is the expectation that confidential personal information disclosed in a private place will not be disclosed to third parties, when that disclosure would cause either embarrassment or emotional distress to a person of reasonable sensitivities. Information is interpreted broadly to include facts, images (e.g., photographs, videotapes), and disparaging opinions.

The right of privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place that a person would reasonably expect to be private (e.g., home, hotel room, telephone booth).
There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. People should be protected by privacy when they "believe that the conversation is private and can not be heard by others who are acting in an lawful manner."

Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § 209


Sorry, Fusty. If you don't like it you can complain to Dr. Laura:


Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 167
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020