<TedFaggard@TedFaggard.com> wrote in message
news:t4a2q3t36lapnffkuomlcs4h63fcojknv3@4ax.com...
Art Deco wrote:
Meat Plow wrote:
Kevie:
Turd:
TedFaggard@TedFaggard.com wrote:
The Bounty Hunter Butter Phat:
TedFaggard@TedFaggard.com wrote:
Kevie:
TedFaggard@TedFaggard.com wrote:
Kevie:
Turd:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
Turd:
You are forgetting that you can turn off your computer
AT ANY TIME.
You DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN USENET, and you DON'T
HAVE TO GET
INVOLVED IN FLAME WARS. That's all there is to it.
You're right. I can do all that, but if I choose not to
it does not
in
any way excuse abusive behavior on the part of anyone.
But other's behavior is really none of your business. You
are
responsible for yourself and yourself only.
On Noooooeeess...don't use the individuals are responsible
for their
actions argument!!!
And on UseNet abusive behavior is a two way street.
I can't be an abusive fuckhead *UNLESS* someone reads my
abusive
poasts.
Welcome to the Kevin A. Cannon Two-Way Street worksheet.
This
worksheet is designed to help you hone your skills of
rationalizing
your hypocrisy so you be just like Kevin A. Cannon.
Nifty....let watch the fallacious argument unfold.
Let's take a quick look at Kevie's hypocrisy. First, Kevie
invokes the
concept of individual responsibility -- "On
Nooooeeess...don't use the
individuals are responsible for their actions argument!!!"
We've all
heard Kevin say that before, many times. It's one of his
favorite
mantras. So why, then, does he have so much trouble applying
that
mantra to his own behavior?
Kevin "can't be an abusive fuckhead *UNLESS* someone reads
[his]
abusive poasts."
That is true...if nobody reads it then they can't be abused.
So what? The content (and intent) of a post is not affected by
whether
it's read. If you post a lie, it's still a lie whether anybody
reads
it. If you post abusive *****, it's still abusive ***** whether
anybody
reads it. Thus, you can be a lying piece of abusive *****
regardless of
whether somebody reads your posts, dumbarse.
It's not Kevin's fault that his abusive posts hurt his
readers. No,
it's their fault, for reading it! They should take personal
responsibility for their actions! They should know that a
post is
going to be abusive even before they read it, and then not
read it!
I see....So I am to be responsible for everyone who reads
anything I
put on Usenet....
You are responsible for what you write. You try to shirk that
responsibility by saying it's the reader's fault for reading
what you
wrote. What did you intend when you wrote it? That it would be
ignored? Just how fucking stupid are you anyway?
fu ck all are you a sad little un-intelligent boob.
That would be you, Kevie.
It's not the junior high school bully's fault that he beats
up the 85
pound weakling. The kid wouldn't get his ***** kicked if he
didn't show
up for school!
Oh...so now you are using false analogies.
If you think the two circumstances can be meaningfully
distinguished,
feel free to begin distinguishing them any time.
Tapping foot . . .
This Kevin A. Cannon "two-way street/their fault" principle
can be
generalized way beyond usenet. So find your funny Kevin A.
Cannon
hats, slip on your best skidmarked drawers and buckle up.
It's time to
pretend you are Kevin A. Cannon!
What would Kevin A. Cannon say?
1. Murder is a two-way street because . . .
2. Rape is a two-way street because . . .
3. Embezzling is a two-way street because . . .
4. Child-molesting is a two-way street because . . .
Obviously you got your sorri arse kicked by the debating
team.
These are all false and stupid analogies.
Then certainly somebody as bright as you could make some
effort to
demonstrate why these analogies don't work.
I don't expect you to be able to rationalize it out since
it's your
belief that everyone should be responsible for *the
individual* and
the individual isn't responsible at all.
How can you be so fucking stupid so as not to realize that you
are the
one making that argument? Why is usenet a two way street
Kevie? You
are responsible for what you post, and your responsibility for
it
isn't vitiated by saying that nobody has to read it. Grow the
***** up,
coward.
Funny how you use violent and criminal acts but have no logic
to your
rant.
Why is that funny? You are arguing with respect to usenet that
readers
who are abused -- victims -- are responsible for the abuse
merely
because they read it. If they are responsible merely because
they read
something put out for them to read, why isn't a rape victim
responsible for her rape because she dressed in suggestive
clothing?
Conscience choice is made...there are two alternative.
How is somebody supposed to know a post is abusive before he
or she
reads it, Kevie?
What a fuckhead.
You are a pathetic fucktard, Kevie.
By Ted's retarded logic someone can make a post that says, "GO
ROB A
BANK!" and then if anyone robs a bank it's magically not their
fault
because the Usenet post told them to do it.
Riiiiight...*nods*...
A post isn't abusive unless the person reading it wants to read
it in
that way, it is THEIR CHOICE to interpret the words as abuse.
Basically "not reading" the posts is a solution for RETARDS
like
yourself who don't have the cognitive capacity to see anything
BUT
abuse in Usenet posts (because you wanna play victim). If you
don't
have enough sense not to ABUSE YOURSELF from reading
posts...then you
shouldn't fuckin read em!
You remind me of this short scrawny kid I knew in high school
who got
picked on and beat up all the time...the solution for the kid
was
simply to stay home and that would prevent him from getting
beat
up...not because people went out of their way to beat up on the
kid,
but because the kid himself couldn't formulate enough sense NOT
to do
the kinds of ***** that would GET HIM beat up in the first
place. For
example he always thought it was funny to grab people's hats
off their
head and then run around like a fruit loop...which would then
make the
owner of the hat chase him down and pound him the ***** into the
wall.
Like you, that child WANTED to be abused, everything about his
behavior was specifically engineered to TRY and provoke people
into
hurting him and like you, the best solution WAS for him not to
attend
school, not because he was getting beat up, but because he was
the one
CAUSING himself to get beat up.
To put it another way...if you stick yer fuckin hand in a
hornets nest
and flail all about...yer gonna get stung, Sunshine...and it
sure the
***** ain't the fault of the hornets, it's a result of YOUR OWN
idiocy.
Be a man and start owning the ***** up to yer mistakes, Ted.
Tell yer
mommy it's time for you to potty train and that she needs to
stop
wipin yer ***** for you all the time so you can grow the ***** up
and
stop blaming all your inane problems on OTHER people.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
You're an odd little fellow.
An odd little fellow whose argument you can not refute that is.
I wish Matt would stop being logical and posting articles that
make
sense. It's soo at odds with how he usually is.
The TedFaggard sock...and the Netiquette sock have a writing style
that is familiar.
I hace killfiled them boths.
Atty miguel.
Bingo. It's another smoking crater of lurve from soc.shingles,
complete with tactical nukes flow in by Rhon-duh.
The overall quality of usenet would improve if you would Remove
Yourself from Usenet Altogether, Carl.
HTH
IAWTP !
Number One
.
