Hear Ye! Since 1998.
Please note: This post is at least 3 years old. Links may be broken, information may be out of date, and the views expressed in the post may no longer be held.
6
Jul 99
Tue

Squibs of the Week

#1
Unfortunately my willpower isn’t strong enough to refrain from commenting on the Frustrated v Ramblings situation. I’m not sitting on the fence this time. From what I gathered, which may not be entirely accurate, Ramblings posted some parodical picture based on the Milk Industry adverts with Frustrated as the target. Frustrated hired a paralegal and threatened legal action (or something along the lines of calling in the law).

If I had a copy of that picture, I’d stick it up, and invite her to sue my ass off. Because I don’t think she’d get very far. Don’t get me wrong – that picture wasn’t particularly funny, and it certainly wasn’t very tasteful, but it’s not so much the picture but her reaction. Or, rather, over-reaction. The picture made reference to the pseudonym Frustrated. It had a picture “representing” her, though it was not her real picture. How personal is an attack at an alias? Is libel or slander (can’t remember which one is applicable in this case) even enforceable if it’s against an “Internet persona”?

What caused the reaction? Maybe because it was posted on a web page. Maybe because it was that offensive. Maybe because it was tasteless. Whatever the reason, the reaction was, at heart, as immature as the picture. We see parody every day. Politicians portrayed as slugs… celebs being bagged out ruthlessly by Letterman and Leno… even pictures of royalty in compromising positions and lack of clothing. Most of them take it in their stride. Some of them complain (and with reason), but only a few of them would be petty enough to turn to the law. And these are high powered people.

Turning to the law for something as petty as this is definitely immature. It may seem like a “mature” action – displaying that she knows she can call in the law (which is a rare move on the Net) – showing that she means business. But no – it’s much more like running to mummy when a child gets teased. I thought it would have been better to just ignore the whole matter. For someone who’s trying to distance herself from this community, she’s not doing a very good job at it. Seems like she’s having a hard time ignoring things. Sure, respond when the line is crossed, but the line was no where near being crossed in this case. Although I respect Frustrated’s opinions, views and what-have-you, I no longer respect her as much as a person. Of course, this shouldn’t mean anything to her.

Lord have mercy on the person who should throw a cream pie in Frustrated’s physical face. Bill Gates and Kim Beazley took it without pressing charges, but no doubt it would have Frustrated hopping up and down demanding life imprisonment for assault.

#2
A minor scuffle happened between Roosh and Solosier. I think it’s fairly clear that most things said/typed between yourself and another individual are said in confidence (it’s also clear when they aren’t). What’s typed on a web site, however, is open to being quoted (in context).

Another interesting thing I’ve noticed… stuff like what’s quoted below is always said in reply to attacks along the lines of “get off the net and get a real life”:

(Attack) you spend too much time online. try to get a real life and maybe youd see what are you doing is pathetic

(Defense to attack) dude, i spend maybe 1-2 hours online anymore. I go to clubs, pick up women, i hang out with friends, i run two businesses, i do have a life. i dont even want to know about you.

There was an even better one I read on some forum that went on for half a page. Quite sad, really.

  11:45pm (GMT +10.00)  •  E/N  •   •  Tweet This  •  Add a comment