![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A Usenet bully is someone who targets other people with often
defamatory but always degrading posts and replies. The practice of on- line bullying is illegal in Canada and some states of the USA. It is therefore surprising to see a Canadian engaging in bullying, considering the likelihood of prosecution in her own country. The Queensland Education department also has guidelines published for dealing with bullies. It is equally surprising to find a Queensland teacher engaged in Usenet bullying too. I guess there is no end to how far a bully will go. Even to the point of using bisexual association news servers Usenet.com.au) to post baited messages to photo groups and engage in illegal activities trying to hack into their target's accounts in the hope of succeeding in their ultimate goal: Interference to or obliteration of a person's Usenet activities. I've written a short page about the tragic effort of three of the photo group's worse bullies. Bret Douglas Helen Silverberg Charles Stevens At : http://www.annika1980.com/bullying.htm Even if you don't care what they do, you should understand the nature of on-line bullies because if any of you ever say anything they take offence at; you may very well be their next target. Julian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ANNIKA1980.com wrote:
Even if you don't care what they do, you should understand the nature of on-line bullies because if any of you ever say anything they take offence at; you may very well be their next target. So, are you saying that anybody who criticizes something you say more than three times, you will try to hound off of Usenet by any means possible? Kinda sounds like that, from reading the web page you linked, and claim to have authored. Which sounds very much like bullying to me. If that's not what you mean, you'd probably better do some rewriting, or you'll find the few sane people who bother to read it lining up against you rather than with you. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
ANNIKA1980.com wrote: Even if you don't care what they do, you should understand the nature of on-line bullies because if any of you ever say anything they take offence at; you may very well be their next target. So, are you saying that anybody who criticizes something you say more than three times, you will try to hound off of Usenet by any means possible? Kinda sounds like that, from reading the web page you linked, and claim to have authored. Which sounds very much like bullying to me. If that's not what you mean, you'd probably better do some rewriting, or you'll find the few sane people who bother to read it lining up against you rather than with you. Here's another thought: Shut up! If you think you are assisting Douglas, you're quite mistaken, as you're simply adding fuel to the fire, which could go back to smoldering state if everyone would just stfu. -- john mcwilliams |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John McWilliams wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: ANNIKA1980.com wrote: Even if you don't care what they do, you should understand the nature of on-line bullies because if any of you ever say anything they take offence at; you may very well be their next target. So, are you saying that anybody who criticizes something you say more than three times, you will try to hound off of Usenet by any means possible? Kinda sounds like that, from reading the web page you linked, and claim to have authored. Which sounds very much like bullying to me. If that's not what you mean, you'd probably better do some rewriting, or you'll find the few sane people who bother to read it lining up against you rather than with you. Here's another thought: Shut up! If you think you are assisting Douglas, you're quite mistaken, as you're simply adding fuel to the fire, which could go back to smoldering state if everyone would just stfu. I'm not too interested in just sitting here while another bully publishes his manifesto and sets up shop. It's possible that the manifesto, as originally published, has given me a false impression, so I've posted suggesting the need for clarification if that's the case. Your response of "shut up" does not make me feel too good about that interpretation, though. I'm not sure what "Douglas" you're referring to, but I have no special fondness for anybody of that name in this group, and I'm not responding primarily to defend a friend. I'm responding just to what was in the manifesto and the post pointing at it -- I've been reading rather selectively, and mostly skipping the cat-fights, so I don't know who's done what to whom. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: David Dyer-Bennet wrote: ANNIKA1980.com wrote: Even if you don't care what they do, you should understand the nature of on-line bullies because if any of you ever say anything they take offence at; you may very well be their next target. So, are you saying that anybody who criticizes something you say more than three times, you will try to hound off of Usenet by any means possible? Kinda sounds like that, from reading the web page you linked, and claim to have authored. Which sounds very much like bullying to me. If that's not what you mean, you'd probably better do some rewriting, or you'll find the few sane people who bother to read it lining up against you rather than with you. Here's another thought: Shut up! If you think you are assisting Douglas, you're quite mistaken, as you're simply adding fuel to the fire, which could go back to smoldering state if everyone would just stfu. I'm not too interested in just sitting here while another bully publishes his manifesto and sets up shop. It's possible that the manifesto, as originally published, has given me a false impression, so I've posted suggesting the need for clarification if that's the case. Your response of "shut up" does not make me feel too good about that interpretation, though. I'm not sure what "Douglas" you're referring to, but I have no special fondness for anybody of that name in this group, and I'm not responding primarily to defend a friend. I'm responding just to what was in the manifesto and the post pointing at it -- I've been reading rather selectively, and mostly skipping the cat-fights, so I don't know who's done what to whom. OMG, David, my bad, and I am sorry. I can't believe I didn't reply off the first post, which not only was my intention, I couldn't believe I didn't notice that it looked like it could be a response to you. My entire comment was addressed to Julian, and I hadn't thought that it might be interpreted as a reply to your thoughts. I have far too much respect for you to speak that way even if I were in entire disagreement with what or how you said something. I don't recall coming close to disagreeing with you, much less vehemently. Please forgive this horrible oversight, and I hope you accept my apologies. John |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 24, 4:26 am, "ANNIKA1980.com"
wrote: A Usenet bully is someone who targets other people with often defamatory but always degrading posts and replies. The practice of on- line bullying is illegal in Canada and some states of the USA. It is therefore surprising to see a Canadian engaging in bullying, considering the likelihood of prosecution in her own country. The Queensland Education department also has guidelines published for dealing with bullies. It is equally surprising to find a Queensland teacher engaged in Usenet bullying too. I guess there is no end to how far a bully will go. Even to the point of using bisexual association news servers Usenet.com.au) to post baited messages to photo groups and engage in illegal activities trying to hack into their target's accounts in the hope of succeeding in their ultimate goal: Interference to or obliteration of a person's Usenet activities. I've written a short page about the tragic effort of three of the photo group's worse bullies. Helen Silverberg Haven't heard from that shrew for some time. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ignore them.
They are overgrown 4 year olds starving for attention. If they don't get attention they will go away. -- John johnf202 at hot mail dot com "ANNIKA1980.com" wrote in message ups.com... A Usenet bully is someone who targets other people with often defamatory but always degrading posts and replies. The practice of on- line bullying is illegal in Canada and some states of the USA. It is therefore surprising to see a Canadian engaging in bullying, considering the likelihood of prosecution in her own country. The Queensland Education department also has guidelines published for dealing with bullies. It is equally surprising to find a Queensland teacher engaged in Usenet bullying too. I guess there is no end to how far a bully will go. Even to the point of using bisexual association news servers Usenet.com.au) to post baited messages to photo groups and engage in illegal activities trying to hack into their target's accounts in the hope of succeeding in their ultimate goal: Interference to or obliteration of a person's Usenet activities. I've written a short page about the tragic effort of three of the photo group's worse bullies. Bret Douglas Helen Silverberg Charles Stevens At : http://www.annika1980.com/bullying.htm Even if you don't care what they do, you should understand the nature of on-line bullies because if any of you ever say anything they take offence at; you may very well be their next target. Julian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to spam for profit on usenet. | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | November 15th 06 12:33 AM |
Toss your fools, Usenet! | Q.G. de Bakker | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | July 7th 06 06:13 PM |
Public Usenet White is a go! | Lionel | Digital Photography | 0 | April 29th 05 07:15 AM |