Taking things too far...

[Double D]

From my local paper...
VINELAND -- An apparent workplace prank turned bad as one man ended up facing assault and weapons charges, police said Friday.

Two employees at Rental City in the 1200 block of West Landis Avenue were involved in the incident, which occurred Thursday afternoon.

Christopher Miller, 24, of East Landis Avenue apparently owns a bicycle that another employee took and hung on a pipe jutting from the building's exterior and out of Miller's reach, police said.

Officer Richard Earl, who responded to the disturbance, said Miller told him of the prankster, "They will learn not to mess with me. He was messing with me, so I messed with him."

During the prank, Miller became enraged and began to curse at his co-worker, according to police.

Miller then allegedly took a sledgehammer to the victim's 2004 Dodge pickup truck and caused $4,500 damage.

He smashed the front windshield of the truck and a headlight, and dented the hood, the passenger side door and a front quarter panel.

The victim told police Miller then took out a pocket knife and began chasing him.

The victim ran inside the building while other co-workers calmed Miller down, police said.

Miller was taken into custody without incident and charged with aggravated assault, criminal mischief, possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of a weapon.

He was held at Cumberland County Jail on $10,000 bail.

He also was served an unrelated warrant from Buena Municipal Court.

Miller's employment status was unclear. Phone calls made to Rental City were not answered Friday.

The moral? Don't mess with your co-worker's stuff.

[Velvet Cyberpunk]

Yeah, some people don't like being screwed with...it's a god way to get a beating, or worse.

[Double D]

Yeah, some people don't like being screwed with...it's a god way to get a beating, or worse.A sledgehammer for god's sake! Sledge-HAMMER.

*cue Peter Gabriel*

[Grebdron]

I hope it was a nice bike.

[Jason_R.]

From my local paper...
The moral? Don't mess with your co-worker's stuff.I thought you already knew this from my video thread.

[Double D]

I thought you already knew this from my video thread.You know, I could picture you doing this after that phone call you got from your father.

:D

[buddyleeoo]

"possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of a weapon."



Wha?

[Double D]

Wha?Double whammy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/dean.killed.bill/whammy2.jpg

[Rooby Roo]

Ha! Truth be told, I think the hammer-wielder was justified. I hate the frat boy prank mentality. Let them all fear for the condition of their prized vehicles and pranks would probably stop altogether. Last I checked, there was nothing in the bill of rights protecting one's right to pull pranks.

**** off, frat boy -- you're in the real world now.

[Double D]

Ha! Truth be told, I think the hammer-wielder was justified. I hate the frat boy prank mentality. Let them all fear for the condition of their prized vehicles and pranks would probably stop altogether. Last I checked, there was nothing in the bill of rights protecting one's right to pull pranks.

**** off, frat boy -- you're in the real world now.That's an interesting perspective. I would assume that for a 2004 vehicle, the owner (victim?) would be covered after a modest deductible.

I just wish I was at Rental City yesterday to see it unfold.

[Aubergine]

Yup. I was with Miller right up until the pocket knife. The sledgehammer to the car was inspired. But threatening violence to a person, with a weapon no less, that's entering psycho territory.

Btw, doesn't the prankster get punished by the law? I can imagine he's an overgrown high school bully who does this sort of thing a lot. There's a history there, it didn't just begin with the bike.

[~ sidewinder ~]

I think that I understand the concept of vengence moreso than practical jokes, which I feel have no purpose other than to create conflict.

But perhaps he should have just hung that truck from a crane, just out of reach, instead of smashing it?

[Double D]

Yup. I was with Miller right up until the pocket knife. The sledgehammer to the car was inspired. But threatening violence to a person, with a weapon no less, that's entering psycho territory. I could just imagine being there as this all went down. It must have been something to see.

Btw, doesn't the prankster get punished by the law? I can imagine he's an overgrown high school bully who does this sort of thing a lot. There's a history there, it didn't just begin with the bike.Indeed. To think that it all started with an innocent prank is absurd. Most likely, this was the final straw for Miller...and I believe the "victim" won't be messing around with anyone's stuff anymore.

I thought the funniest line was this:

Miller's employment status was unclear.

[Grebdron]

Wha?
They are two seperate offenses. One is just possessing the weapon. The other is intent to cause harm with it.

[DickHertz]

I'm sick of people acting like they never read The Godfather or watched the movie.

1. Don't make threats in public.
2. Always make sure there are no witnesses.

[Double D]

I'm sick of people acting like they never read The Godfather or watched the movie.

1. Don't make threats in public.
2. Always make sure there are no witnesses.Far too late for Mr. Miller.

[DickHertz]

Far too late for Mr. Miller.
I know.

Why the hell do we need people like Dr. Phil or Pat Croce giving us advice when we already have perfectly good role models like Vito Corleone or The Dude?

All I Needed To Know About Life I Learned At The Local Cineplex.

Coming soon to a B. Dalton near you.

[Double D]

I know.

Why the hell do we need people like Dr. Phil or Pat Croce giving us advice when we already have perfectly good role models like Vito Corleone or The Dude?

All I Needed To Know About Life I Learned At The Local Cineplex.

Coming soon to a B. Dalton near you.In Sicily, women are more dangerous than shotguns.

Do you spend time with your family? Good. Because a man that doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man.

I spent my whole life trying not to be careless. Women and children can be careless. But not men.

You talk about vengeance. Is vengeance going to bring your son back to you? Or my boy to me?

Leave the gun. Take the cannolis

[Infinitus Corsair]

You people are degenerates.

[Rooby Roo]

That's an interesting perspective. I would assume that for a 2004 vehicle, the owner (victim?) would be covered after a modest deductible.

I just wish I was at Rental City yesterday to see it unfold.He's suffiiciently traumatized, however. I doubt he'll ever make that mistake again.

I don't think causing thousands of dollars in damage to someone's vehicle is an appropriate reaction to a prank, not by any stretch of the imagination. But at the same time I don't understand how someone can make it all the way to adulthood and not have learned not to mess with people he hardly knows -- he essentially dared Miller to do something to him. Miller basically accepted the dare and went apeshlt.

[Rooby Roo]

You people are degenerates.You won't be messing with our bikes, however.

[Infinitus Corsair]

You won't be messing with our bikes, however.
I wouldn't have done that anyway, not being a degenerate who just walked out of a cave rubbing eyes beneath a prominent, knobby brow.

[El Grego]

http://www.steveniles.com/images/news/brian_shirt_sm.jpg

"Take my bike down, you jock!"

[Rooby Roo]

I wouldn't have done that anyway, not being a degenerate who just walked out of a cave rubbing eyes beneath a prominent, knobby brow.Well hooray for you!

Here's the thing: I don't sympathize with either of the parties involved, but I sympathize less with some fool who got his car smashed up. It could have happened in the blink of an eye at 35 mph on a road somewhere.

Nobody in this thread has taken a sledgehammer to anyone's car, I presume, so I don't understand where you get off calling us degenrates. I'm pretty sure you can safely call Mr. Miller up in prison and give him an earful, though.

[DickHertz]

...I don't understand where you get off calling us degenerates.
I will gladly take a verbal foot in the scrotum for all you guys.

Calling me a degenerate is like calling water wet.

[Rooby Roo]

I will gladly take a verbal foot in the scrotum for all you guys.

Calling me a degenerate is like calling water wet.No!

I want Infinitus to explain himself. :mad:

[T.I.G.A. 48]

A sledgehammer for god's sake! Sledge-HAMMER.

I bet he just had it around in case he had to take on a chimp...

[DickHertz]

No!

I want Infinitus to explain himself. :mad:
*Sigh*

I'll hold your coat dude.

But I won't yell out encouraging words.

[Double D]

I'm pretty sure you can safely call Mr. Miller up in prison and give him an earful, though.
P.O. Box 717
54 W. Broad Street
Bridgeton, NJ 08302


Phone:

(856) 453-4832 Fax:

(856) 453-9501 Contact:

Glenn Saunders, Warden
Lewis Walker, Assistant Warden
Capt. Kenneth Lamcken, Security & Operations
Lorraine Weber, Hopewell, Admin. Secretary
Betty Gambrell, R.N., Nursing Supervisor
Lt. Michael Palau, Internal Affairs

[Infinitus Corsair]

Well hooray for you!

Here's the thing: I don't sympathize with either of the parties involved, but I sympathize less with some fool who got his car smashed up. It could have happened in the blink of an eye at 35 mph on a road somewhere.
That would most likely be an accident, as opposed to deliberate demolition by a neanderthal. On second thought, I apologize. The two events are obviously completely comparable and the means are irrelevant, as ever.

Nobody in this thread has taken a sledgehammer to anyone's car, I presume, so I don't understand where you get off calling us degenrates. I'm pretty sure you can safely call Mr. Miller up in prison and give him an earful, though.
I'm less bothered by the news that there's an idiot in the world who reacts to a prank by causing thousands of dollars of damage to a car and chasing someone around with a weapon than I am that some or most of the people here are condoning his reaction.

Where the hell is the sense of proportionality? What kind of fool thinks the proper reaction to harmless idiocy is rapid, violent escalation? Miller will no doubt get his in the form of criminal punishment and tort liability. The system takes care of that, but sees any justification or dessert in his actions is someone I'm not happy about sharing a society with.

[Aubergine]

And the prankster? You got nothing to say about him?

[El Grego]

Speaking of taking things too far...did the conservative polisci professor at CU Boulder threatening a pacifist student (who rejected a self-defense argument for Iraq) with a pen knife to the throat ever make national news?

[Grebdron]

I get the feeling, though I can't be sure of course, that this is quite possibly not the first time the prnkster has targeted the whacko.

[Aubergine]

I get the feeling, though I can't be sure of course, that this is quite possibly not the first time the prnkster has targeted the whacko.
Yup.

[Rooby Roo]

That would most likely be an accident, as opposed to deliberate demolition by a neanderthal. On second thought, I apologize. The two events are obviously completely comparable and the means are irrelevant, as ever.The issue specific to this case, that I shouldn't have to spell out for you, is that fool #1 started it. It all could have been avoided if he had kept his hands off of someone else's property.

Did you not learn that growing up? WTF kinda gated community are you from?

I'm less bothered by the news that there's an idiot in the world who reacts to a prank by causing thousands of dollars of damage to a car and chasing someone around with a weapon than I am that some or most of the people here are condoning his reaction.

Where the hell is the sense of proportionality? What kind of fool thinks the proper reaction to harmless idiocy is rapid, violent escalation? Miller will no doubt get his in the form of criminal punishment and tort liability. The system takes care of that, but sees any justification or dessert in his actions is someone I'm not happy about sharing a society with.I don't condone threatening a man with a knife or demolishing his vehicle over a prank. I do condone "harmlessly" kicking his *** over the "harmless" prank or "harmlessly" busting one of his tail lights, both suitable responses of roughly equal proportion. If you are horrified by this, it's because you are the type who thinks it's harmless to hide someone's property from them as if you have the right to do so in the name of dumb fun.

Fool #1 started it, Fool #2 finished it. Fool #1 got punished by Fool #2, and Fool #2 got punished by the law. It all pretty much evens out. But that doesn't negate the fact that Fool #1 started the whole thing when he had no reason to. I ask again: how does someone make it to adulthood without learning that lesson?

[Dick Sahoy]

What a great day at work.

I would have been laughing my dong off.

[Infinitus Corsair]

And the prankster? You got nothing to say about him?
No one here is cheerleading the prankster. I do think it's funny that you managed to get a drawerful of panties in a bunch in Toby's thread because he was critical of the posting ability of others (which he expressed by ... posting), but you're "with" Mouth-Breathing Miller through $4500 dollars worth of damage to an automobile. You must be tons of fun.

The issue specific to this case, that I shouldn't have to spell out for you, is that fool #1 started it. It all could have been avoided if he had kept his hands off of someone else's property.

Did you not learn that growing up? WTF kinda gated community are you from?
If I walk up to the street and call Aubergine a tool (which would seem to be completely accurate, mind), and she killed me with a chainsaw, I would have started that too. "Starting it" is not carte blanche to throw 8000 years of civilization out the window.

I don't condone threatening a man with a knife or demolishing his vehicle over a prank. I do condone "harmlessly" kicking his *** over the "harmless" prank or "harmlessly" busting one of his tail lights, both suitable responses of roughly equal proportion. If you are horrified by this, it's because you are the type who thinks it's harmless to hide someone's property from them as if you have the right to do so in the name of dumb fun.
There are a myriad of better ways to address the problem than resorting to violence, which includes a harmless ***-kicking and property damage. If, say, his bike was damaged by the prank, the proper, civilized response is to demand restitution or seek it in court, not to cause your own damage to him. I think one of the better measures for the quality of a society is the extent to which it condones violence. There is absolutely no need to resort to it in this situation and it cannot possibly be beneficial, to anyone.

Fool #1 started it, Fool #2 finished it. Fool #1 got punished by Fool #2, and Fool #2 got punished by the law. It all pretty much evens out. But that doesn't negate the fact that Fool #1 started the whole thing when he had no reason to. I ask again: how does someone make it to adulthood without learning that lesson?
How does someone function in society with no concept of proportionality?

[Velvet Cyberpunk]

And the prankster? You got nothing to say about him?
He's a moron, and most likely a bully, as someone here has already said. People like him make me ill...



...Having said that, what if Mr. Miller had stabbed said bully, and he died? What of the bully's family? and his friends? When someone is killed there is more than one victim. I don't know enough about either party to make a judgment, but I think beating a man's vehicle to pieces, and then trying to physically asault him with a weapon is going too far. There are other tacts one can take to change the situation without resorting to that kind of behavior.

[chunkylover]

Maybe Mr. Miller was born without a sense of humor.

This sort of reminds me of an SNL sketch a couple years back. Christopher Walken plays a guy who "pranks" a co-worker, who always takes his parking spot, by beating him to death with a tire iron.

[Aubergine]

No one here is cheerleading the prankster. I do think it's funny that you managed to get a drawerful of panties in a bunch in Toby's thread because he was critical of the posting ability of others (which he expressed by ... posting), but you're "with" Mouth-Breathing Miller through $4500 dollars worth of damage to an automobile. You must be tons of fun.

It's only money. And I can understand Miller. Miller was provoked. Miller was subjected to a form of torture. A reaction was to be expected, though his was a bit over the top.

The prankster? Was being a prick for no reason.


Oh, and for someone to have their panties in a bunch, they'd have to actually have been somewhat upset at some point, no?




If I walk up to the street and call Aubergine a tool (which would seem to be completely accurate, mind), and she killed me with a chainsaw, I would have started that too. "Starting it" is not carte blanche to throw 8000 years of civilization out the window.

Charming. You've got civilisation coming out your ears, I see. I bet you were one of those guys who gave other guys wedgies in high school.

Excuse me while I fetch my chainsaw.


He's a moron, and most likely a bully, as someone here has already said. People like him make me ill...



...Having said that, what if Mr. Miller had stabbed said bully, and he died? What of the bully's family? and his friends? When someone is killed there is more than one victim. I don't know enough about either party to make a judgment, but I think beating a man's vehicle to pieces, and then trying to physically asault him with a weapon is going too far. There are other tacts one can take to change the situation without resorting to that kind of behavior.
Yes, well, I believe Mr. Miller saw red for a little while there. Not the best time to stop and scheme, though I agree with you, he should have.

Still, I can understand him going for the car. That's just metal, and as long as you're aware you'll probably end up having to pay for it, fine, go nuts. But threatening the guy with a knife is going way too far.

[Infinitus Corsair]

It's only money. Really? Give me $4500. It's only money.

And I can understand Miller. Miller was provoked. Miller was subjected to a form of torture. Do you work for PETA's PR department?

A reaction was to be expected, though his was a bit over the top. Gee, you think?

The prankster? Was being a prick for no reason.
No one's condoning the prankster, genius.

Oh, and for someone to have their panties in a bunch, they'd have to actually have been somewhat upset at some point, no? I don't care if you were actually upset, you spent an inordinate amount objecting to something not a fraction as despicable as Miller's actions.

Charming. You've got civilisation coming out your ears, I see. Thinking that you're bad at this posting thing and probably not worth talking to much isn't uncivilized, it's only rational.

Still, I can understand him going for the car. That's just metal, and as long as you're aware you'll probably end up having to pay for it, fine, go nuts. Do you realize how stupid this is? If I have a few thousand dollars lying around (it's only money, after all), I can just waltz up to anyone's car and demolish for my own amusement, and hand them the money to fix it. Maybe they liked the ****ing car.

Provoking someone is stupid, especially if you can't be confident in how they will react. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to react in kind. And for a third party observor, such as ourselves, that's the absolute worst we should expect of people. There's no excuse for violent escalation.

[Aubergine]

You just... don't get anything, do you? I can't figure out if you honestly misunderstand things, or if you do it on purpose to give yourself something to argue.

I don't think I care one way or the other, though. You're worse than dumb. You're a dumb mean guy who thinks he's smart. Don't talk to me.

[Rooby Roo]

If I walk up to the street and call Aubergine a tool (which would seem to be completely accurate, mind), and she killed me with a chainsaw, I would have started that too. "Starting it" is not carte blanche to throw 8000 years of civilization out the window.Oh, stop with the hyperbole.

There are a myriad of better ways to address the problem than resorting to violence, which includes a harmless ***-kicking and property damage. If, say, his bike was damaged by the prank, the proper, civilized response is to demand restitution or seek it in court, not to cause your own damage to him. I think one of the better measures for the quality of a society is the extent to which it condones violence. There is absolutely no need to resort to it in this situation and it cannot possibly be beneficial, to anyone.It's not about benefit. There are unlisted factors to consider in this case, and the one I believe is pretty likely is that the prankster knew he was going to get a reaction out of Miller. He could have known Miller was a walking time bomb and made the mistake of piling on the final straw.

As "perfect" as our legal system is, it doesn't really address the scenario in that context, does it? The whole thing is simply viewed as one man pulling a prank on another and the other flying into a psychotic rampage. Nowhere in the article (or any article on a related subject) will you read details about a history between the two.

Two details that kinda strike me are that the taunter owns a 2004 Dodge truck and the tauntee owns a frickin' bike. I'll leave it at that.

You are a passionate supporter of the legal system and all that entails... such as, providing protection for the wealthy, weak and stupid (the taunter) against the poor, physically-capable and insane (the tauntee). Just because the system works that way doesn't mean it should always be that way in every case. You fear a world where people take matters into their own hands, and with good reason, but to paraphrase Chris Rock's famous musing about O.J.: 'I'm not excusing what he did to Nicole. Let's just say I understand.'

How does someone function in society with no concept of proportionality?They hire a lawyer.

[chylde owlet]

It could have been worse. He could have tampered with the brakes.

Weeeeee!

[Rooby Roo]

This message has been deleted by Infinitus Corsair (member.php?u=29989).Why?

[Infinitus Corsair]

You just... don't get anything, do you? I can't figure out if you honestly misunderstand things, or if you do it on purpose to give yourself something to argue.

I don't think I care one way or the other, though. You're worse than dumb. You're a dumb mean guy who thinks he's smart. Don't talk to me.
What are you trying to do? Are you under the impression that you actually have credibility to fritter away?

Oh, stop with the hyperbole.
It illustrates the point.

It's not about benefit. There are unlisted factors to consider in this case, and the one I believe is pretty likely is that the prankster knew he was going to get a reaction out of Miller. He could have known Miller was a walking time bomb and made the mistake of piling on the final straw.
None of this information is present in the story given and without it, the positive reactions to Miller's behavior strike me as reprehensible.

As "perfect" as our legal system is, it doesn't really address the scenario in that context, does it? The whole thing is simply viewed as one man pulling a prank on another and the other flying into a psychotic rampage. Nowhere in the article (or any article on a related subject) will you read details about a history between the two.
Without those details, Miller strikes me as a savage. And I'm at a loss to fathom why he doesn't anyone else.

Two details that kinda strike me are that the taunter owns a 2004 Dodge truck and the tauntee owns a frickin' bike. I'll leave it at that.
As impressive as your powers of deduction are, it doesn't excuse the behavior in question, or even begin to do so. This isn't an "up with Australopithicus man" situation; that has not a thing to do with what was wrong about these actions.

You are a passionate supporter of the legal system and all that entails... such as, providing protection for the wealthy, weak and stupid (the taunter) against the poor, physically-capable and insane (the tauntee). Just because the system works that way doesn't mean it should always be that way in every case. You fear a world where people take matters into their own hands, and with good reason, but to paraphrase Chris Rock's famous musing about O.J.: 'I'm not excusing what he did to Nicole. Let's just say I understand.'
No, it should always be that way. One of the civilizing goals of law is to filter violence out of society. It has no place among beings of intelligence; it is an animalistic instinct. Without like provocation, it is inexcusable. That is a central tenet of any society worth its salt.

They hire a lawyer.
We wouldn't those sorts of lawyers if people like Miller didn't shred social mores at the slightest provocation. If he could moderate himself and comport to perfectly reasonable standards, he wouldn't have to hire anyone.

[Aubergine]

What are you trying to do? Are you under the impression that you actually have credibility to fritter away?
Dude. I just come here to chat. I'm not trying to impress people with every post or to climb the RT career ladder. That's your thing, and by all means, knock yourself out, but don't bring me into it. I'm not gonna respond to you point by point, trying to make you look stupid - those who can recognise your stupidity beneath the fancy talk don't need my help to do it.

[Infinitus Corsair]

Dude. I just come here to chat. I'm not trying to impress people with every post or to climb the RT career ladder. That's your thing, and by all means, knock yourself out, but don't bring me into it. I'm not gonna respond to you point by point, trying to make you look stupid - those who can recognise your stupidity beneath the fancy talk don't need my help to do it.
Those are neither my "things," nor am I trying to bring you into them. "Just coming here to chat" isn't a get out of jail free card for posting poorly.

[_ThePurpleMuffin_]

Eh, oh well.




Morally I think the guy that took his bike deserves everything he got, but then again....it might have been overkill.


Well w/e, glad it wasn't me.

My fathers Scion TC SunRoof window (1200 window) was broken in the night.

We never found out who did, my father never reported it to insurance because it would have doubled his insurance for the rest of his life.


I hate California.

I cant wait till Arnoooold is gone so we can simmer down on the overly power HOA's.

[Esoteric_Allusion]

Infinitus is right in this thread. You should be gracious for the oppurtunity to sit at his feet and have such wisdom bestowed upon you. Perhaps he'll let you touch the hem of his garments.

http://www.danburymintsports.com/images/uploads/38733000.jpg

[Aubergine]

Those are neither my "things," nor am I trying to bring you into them. "Just coming here to chat" isn't a get out of jail free card for posting poorly.
I don't need a get out of jail free card. Because you. Are not. The boss of me. You may be forum royalty, but there's really not much you can do when somebody doesn't fall trembling at your *** and start licking. I can post poorly all I want, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Now for chrissake, go pawn your computer and buy yourself some sex. It might help you get your head out of your ***.

[chunkylover]

Who falls trembling at someone's ***?

[Esoteric_Allusion]

Now for chrissake, go pawn your computer and buy yourself some sex.
Oooh. The Osman gambit. Will it pay off?

*eats handful of popcorn*

[Aubergine]

Oooh. The Osman gambit. Will it pay off?

*eats handful of popcorn*
*sigh*

It's not any kind of gambit.

He called me a tool for no reason, it's the only thing I'm reacting to. Notice I haven't tried to argue a single point? It's because I don't care. It's a stupid issue to argue about. Who's a bigger wanker, Miller or the prankster? Why is it important? Why would anyone try to claim something either way when we don't have all the necessary information to judge? This is a "look at this idiot" thread. You're not supposed to analyse it to death. There isn't an absolute truth to hammer into everyone who will listen. God, are even frivolous threads not safe anymore? I don't want a friggin debate. I don't want my every casual comment to be attacked and picked apart (and misinterpreted to boot!) by some guy who's got nothing better to do than to pick fights online.

IC, get the hell away from the computer for a while, because holy crap.

[Aubergine]

Who falls trembling at someone's ***?
You don't understand what I meant to say? Or do you just think the phrase was inellegantly put together? Would you like to search for typos while you're at it? If you're really lucky, you might find a grammatical error you can mock me for. Whoohoo.

[Double D]

Rooby Roo, where are you?

[chunkylover]

Originally Posted by Aubergine
You don't understand what I meant to say? Or do you just think the phrase was inellegantly put together? Would you like to search for typos while you're at it? If you're really lucky, you might find a grammatical error you can mock me for. Whoohoo.
Well people just usually fall trembling at someone's feet. To fall trembling at someone's *** would take effort and I'm not quite sure what it would look like.

[Infinitus Corsair]

I don't need a get out of jail free card. Because you. Are not. The boss of me. You may be forum royalty, but there's really not much you can do when somebody doesn't fall trembling at your *** and start licking. I can post poorly all I want, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
I may not be the boss of you, but I can point out when you're making a fool of yourself and/or when you're dead wrong (you seem able to combine the two with aplomb regularly). You're right though, you can post poorly all you want. And I can dissect the lack of quality all I want. Which is all I ask, really, even if you're too oblivious to realize what's happening.

*sigh*

It's not any kind of gambit.
No, it's the Osman Gambit. And it's long been prima facie evidence of abject defeat.

He called me a tool for no reason,
Oh, come on. Your posts are the reason. You know this.

Notice I haven't tried to argue a single point? It's because I don't care. It's a stupid issue to argue about. Who's a bigger wanker, Miller or the prankster? Why is it important?
I dunno, I've retained just enough civility to be galled when I see someone gleefully clapping like syphilitic seal at the behavior of an anti-social barbarian. It suggests acceptance of unacceptable behavior. This is something of a problem. This thread, and you specifically, are just a small manifestation of it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, you're too stupid to even begin to know why.

Why would anyone try to claim something either way when we don't have all the necessary information to judge?
Like any good hypothetical, you can treat the story as the entire universe of relevant facts for purposes of this discussion.

This is a "look at this idiot" thread. You're not supposed to analyse it to death.
I think I'm supposed to declare that you aren't the boss of me here. Or something. I found an important issue in the thread. You happen to be too stupid to comprehend that your frivolous, carefree remarks might represent dangerous, anti-social attitudes.

There isn't an absolute truth to hammer into everyone who will listen. God, are even frivolous threads not safe anymore? I don't want a friggin debate. I don't want my every casual comment to be attacked and picked apart (and misinterpreted to boot!) by some guy who's got nothing better to do than to pick fights online.
Then don't say foolish things without appreciating their ramifications.

IC, get the hell away from the computer for a while, because holy crap.
That's a very good reason, I'll grant you that. What I find amusing about your responses - and I'm telling you this because I'm sure it hasn't occurred to you - is that you can't seem to comprehend why I'm "picking apart" your comments, and yet you have no interest in actually discussing the points I raised. Because you refuse to even engage that discussion, you're left to assume that I'm attacking you because I'm bored. If you bothered to read what I'm saying, you might begin to fathom that I'm making an actual argument. That you think everything within this thread is frivolous and unworthy of significant comment is a demonstration of your intellectual limitations, not my obsession.

Besides, I'm right. E_A said so.

[Rooby Roo]

No, it should always be that way. One of the civilizing goals of law is to filter violence out of society. It has no place among beings of intelligence; it is an animalistic instinct. Without like provocation, it is inexcusable. That is a central tenet of any society worth its salt.


We wouldn't those sorts of lawyers if people like Miller didn't shred social mores at the slightest provocation. If he could moderate himself and comport to perfectly reasonable standards, he wouldn't have to hire anyone.What you deem "the slightest provocation" is as dependent upon the lack of info provided in this story as is the support Miller is getting.

Would you be less horrified with his actions if it turned out the prankster had malicious intent? How do you feel about something like that?

Is it a lesser offense simply because he didn't do damage to Miller's bike?

[colliric]

I may not be the boss of you, but I can point out when you're making a fool of yourself and/or when you're dead wrong (you seem able to combine the two with aplomb regularly). You're right though, you can post poorly all you want. And I can dissect the lack of quality all I want. Which is all I ask, really, even if you're too oblivious to realize what's happening.


No, it's the Osman Gambit. And it's long been prima facie evidence of abject defeat.


Oh, come on. Your posts are the reason. You know this.


I dunno, I've retained just enough civility to be galled when I see someone gleefully clapping like syphilitic seal at the behavior of an anti-social barbarian. It suggests acceptance of unacceptable behavior. This is something of a problem. This thread, and you specifically, are just a small manifestation of it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, you're too stupid to even begin to know why.


Like any good hypothetical, you can treat the story as the entire universe of relevant facts for purposes of this discussion.


I think I'm supposed to declare that you aren't the boss of me here. Or something. I found an important issue in the thread. You happen to be too stupid to comprehend that your frivolous, carefree remarks might represent dangerous, anti-social attitudes.


Then don't say foolish things without appreciating their ramifications.


That's a very good reason, I'll grant you that. What I find amusing about your responses - and I'm telling you this because I'm sure it hasn't occurred to you - is that you can't seem to comprehend why I'm "picking apart" your comments, and yet you have no interest in actually discussing the points I raised. Because you refuse to even engage that discussion, you're left to assume that I'm attacking you because I'm bored. If you bothered to read what I'm saying, you might begin to fathom that I'm making an actual argument. That you think everything within this thread is frivolous and unworthy of significant comment is a demonstration of your intellectual limitations, not my obsession.

Besides, I'm right. E_A said so.
Where's me dough?

[Aubergine]

Well people just usually fall trembling at someone's feet. To fall trembling at someone's *** would take effort and I'm not quite sure what it would look like.
I know the saying. I got creative with it to combine it with ***-kissing. All clear now?

This reminds me of the time I used the wrong pronoun in fifth grade (that was a genuine mistake, I didn't know the language too well) and I kept hearing about it until graduation four years later. Bullies really don't need much, do they?


I may not be the boss of you, but I can point out when you're making a fool of yourself and/or when you're dead wrong (you seem able to combine the two with aplomb regularly). You're right though, you can post poorly all you want. And I can dissect the lack of quality all I want. Which is all I ask, really, even if you're too oblivious to realize what's happening.


No, it's the Osman Gambit. And it's long been prima facie evidence of abject defeat.


Oh, come on. Your posts are the reason. You know this.


I dunno, I've retained just enough civility to be galled when I see someone gleefully clapping like syphilitic seal at the behavior of an anti-social barbarian. It suggests acceptance of unacceptable behavior. This is something of a problem. This thread, and you specifically, are just a small manifestation of it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, you're too stupid to even begin to know why.


Like any good hypothetical, you can treat the story as the entire universe of relevant facts for purposes of this discussion.


I think I'm supposed to declare that you aren't the boss of me here. Or something. I found an important issue in the thread. You happen to be too stupid to comprehend that your frivolous, carefree remarks might represent dangerous, anti-social attitudes.


Then don't say foolish things without appreciating their ramifications.


That's a very good reason, I'll grant you that. What I find amusing about your responses - and I'm telling you this because I'm sure it hasn't occurred to you - is that you can't seem to comprehend why I'm "picking apart" your comments, and yet you have no interest in actually discussing the points I raised. Because you refuse to even engage that discussion, you're left to assume that I'm attacking you because I'm bored. If you bothered to read what I'm saying, you might begin to fathom that I'm making an actual argument. That you think everything within this thread is frivolous and unworthy of significant comment is a demonstration of your intellectual limitations, not my obsession.

Besides, I'm right. E_A said so.
Well! Then it must be so.

You're like a dog with a bone. Just won't let it go, won't stop insulting me, even when I don't want to be part of your little game. Enjoying the easy win in front of your little friends? I'm glad I didn't go to high school with you, I'll tell you that.

I'm not going to defend my intelligence. I don't feel I need to. But just how the hell do you know how smart or stupid I am? I don't pour all my potential into RT. I have school for that. RT is where I want to just cruise without thinking too hard, but no, can't do that. Because leave one comment remotely vulnerable, and there's IC to pick on it, and his army of sycophants to cheer him on.

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. By all means, go ahead and think I'm stupid. I don't care. What I care about is being treated with the common decency all people should be treated with, regardless of IQ. So when you start insulting me and calling me names, what is that? What kind of behaviour is that? Look at your very first post in this thread - everybody comes in with a comment, whatever it may be, on the Miller situation, and then you come in and insult everybody. And you like to think of yourself as civil.

As for the issue itself, it's not like I can't see your point. It's not like Miller did the right thing. He reacted violently, on emotion, without stopping to think, and he caused damage and broke the law - of course that's not a good thing. That's pretty damn obvious to everybody, I would say.

But that doesn't mean that I can't understand his behaviour on an emotional level, and that I can't like the thought of that bully having his car destroyed, because I'm of the opinion that he probably had that coming for a long time, and maybe now he'll think twice before deciding to amuse himself at some poor schmuck's expense.

It strikes me as ironic that you've been screaming yourself hoarse about what's civilised and acceptable behaviour, and you're a friggin bully.

[chunkylover]

Originally Posted by Aubergine
This reminds me of the time I used the wrong pronoun in fifth grade (that was a genuine mistake, I didn't know the language too well) and I kept hearing about it until graduation four years later. Bullies really don't need much, do they?
You had a graduation for the 9th grade?

[Aubergine]

You had a graduation for the 9th grade?
Yes. I'm swedish, different system.

[AlmasyCR]

Here is the victim, Christopher Miller, in an undated photograph....











http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9811/13/review.waterboy/waterboy.jpg



"STOP MAKING FUN OF ME!"

[Infinitus Corsair]

What you deem "the slightest provocation" is as dependent upon the lack of info provided in this story as is the support Miller is getting.
The other information that could make this provocation anything but slight is fairly limited, in my opinion.

Would you be less horrified with his actions if it turned out the prankster had malicious intent? How do you feel about something like that?
I already agree that the prankster is a cretin - I don't think his intent matters. Nothing the prankster did can possibly excuse a sustained assault on the vehicle. I'm stressing that violence, as a reaction, should be unacceptable in our society, unless provoked with violence. The prankster did no violence that could reasonably be resisted by attacking his truck, much less his person.

Is it a lesser offense simply because he didn't do damage to Miller's bike?
Doing no damage is a lesser offense, by definition I think, than damaging the bike. Regardless, neither rises to the level of instigating violence.

[Infinitus Corsair]

Well! Then it must be so.

You're like a dog with a bone. Just won't let it go, won't stop insulting me, even when I don't want to be part of your little game.
It takes two to tango, baby.

Enjoying the easy win in front of your little friends? I'm glad I didn't go to high school with you, I'll tell you that.
I don't blame you. My high school had sub-par facilities and a strict code of conduct.

I'm not going to defend my intelligence. I don't feel I need to. But just how the hell do you know how smart or stupid I am?
I don't, I just know how smart you post. Incidentally, you've called me "dumb" repeatedly, so I don't know how much mileage you can get out of this particular tack.

I don't pour all my potential into RT. I have school for that. RT is where I want to just cruise without thinking too hard,
Me too, except work instead of school. I guess my downtime potential is that much more impressive than yours. Based on the posting, you know.

but no, can't do that. Because leave one comment remotely vulnerable, and there's IC to pick on it, and his army of sycophants to cheer him on.
I have an army of sychophants? I wish they'd sychopant more demonstratively, or at least tangibly. Damn it, all this time.

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. By all means, go ahead and think I'm stupid. I don't care. What I care about is being treated with the common decency all people should be treated with, regardless of IQ. So when you start insulting me and calling me names, what is that? What kind of behaviour is that? Look at your very first post in this thread - everybody comes in with a comment, whatever it may be, on the Miller situation, and then you come in and insult everybody. And you like to think of yourself as civil.
That was as civil as I cared to be. I found the opinions expressed appalling. I'm entitled to that, remember?

As for the issue itself, it's not like I can't see your point. It's not like Miller did the right thing. He reacted violently, on emotion, without stopping to think, and he caused damage and broke the law - of course that's not a good thing. That's pretty damn obvious to everybody, I would say.
So obvious that you were saying something incompatible with those conclusions, about which more later.

But that doesn't mean that I can't understand his behaviour on an emotional level, and that I can't like the thought of that bully having his car destroyed, because I'm of the opinion that he probably had that coming for a long time, and maybe now he'll think twice before deciding to amuse himself at some poor schmuck's expense.
I never said anyone was a degenerate for being able to understand his behavior. Every human can do that. I myself can tap into my R-complex and savor the savage satisfaction of violent revenge. But I also have many higher planes of thought, and recognize that those are impulses out of a murky genetic past that are not becoming of a civilized being. We've all felt like lashing out violently, but we know better than to act on the impulse. Rather than sympathizing with someone who does act on it because we've felt the same, however, we should condemn such a person for failing to moderate their destructive side. Society should have no tolerance for a failure of such moderation.

It strikes me as ironic that you've been screaming yourself hoarse about what's civilised and acceptable behaviour, and you're a friggin bully.
How have I bullied anyone? I'm talking to two people in this thread. Rooby and I are posting with typical decorum, I think. We've each taken some swipes at the other's position, but I'm certainly not going all Rabid D. on him. I've taken more liberties with you, but then Rooby wasn't in another thread whining about how mean it was to criticize someone's posting. I found the contrast irresistable and you in a poor light for it.

[Big Daddy Beast]

When did IC get an army?

Do they wear berets?

Are they raspberry?

Did they find them in a second-hand store?

[Rooby Roo]

The other information that could make this provocation anything but slight is fairly limited, in my opinion.We're using the same point to make different cases.

I already agree that the prankster is a cretin - I don't think his intent matters.This is where you and I differ the most. I think intent matters a great deal. If one person is executing a prank with the intent of tormenting someone he already knows has issues about being "messed with" or whatever, he's asking for trouble. If it's done in the spirit of harmless (yet dumb) fun, then I think it makes a huge difference.

It's one thing to pull a prank, and another to look for an excuse to make someone extremely upset or possibly flip out. If that was the case, the schmuck got more than he bargained for, but if the guy he pulled the prank on had a nervous breakdown and collapsed into a fetal position on the floor for twelve hours with who-knows-what kind of damage done to his ability to function for however long, is it just "a shame"? I think details like that make an incredible amount of difference, but there is no neat and tidy solution under such circumstances.

The reason those kinds of details are left out of news stories is because the purpose of a news story is to stick to the events they report, not interpersonal histories. It doesn't automatically mean that those histories aren't there.

Now I'm not saying that a prankster is to be blamed for psychological abnormalities. I'm saying that a history between the two, testified by an expert witness in a court of law reviewing the whole story would probably not come to as tidy a conclusion as you want to do in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Nothing the prankster did can possibly excuse a sustained assault on the vehicle.Temporary insanity. The defendant was provoked.

[Infinitus Corsair]

This is where you and I differ the most. I think intent matters a great deal. If one person is executing a prank with the intent of tormenting someone he already knows has issues about being "messed with" or whatever, he's asking for trouble. If it's done in the spirit of harmless (yet dumb) fun, then I think it makes a huge difference.

It's one thing to pull a prank, and another to look for an excuse to make someone extremely upset or possibly flip out. If that was the case, the schmuck got more than he bargained for, but if the guy he pulled the prank on had a nervous breakdown and collapsed into a fetal position on the floor for twelve hours with who-knows-what kind of damage done to his ability to function for however long, is it just "a shame"? I think details like that make an incredible amount of difference, but there is no neat and tidy solution under such circumstances.

The reason those kinds of details are left out of news stories is because the purpose of a news story is to stick to the events they report, not interpersonal histories. It doesn't automatically mean that those histories aren't there.

Now I'm not saying that a prankster is to be blamed for psychological abnormalities. I'm saying that a history between the two, testified by an expert witness in a court of law reviewing the whole story would probably not come to as tidy a conclusion as you want to do in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
It probably would not, but while those details may carry all the meaning in the world for the participants, I don't believe that they could possibly have justified this reaction. I've suggested that violence that is not justifiable unless provoked by violence. The prankster did not do this and no unreported facts could transform what he did into violence, so the neanderthal's reaction is therefore unjustifiable.

Temporary insanity. The defendant was provoked.
A bull**** defense since the day it was first made.

[Big Daddy Beast]

And I'm totally going to bash your ****ing truck in for it!It would be only fitting and deserved if you did.

Now, IC needs to go purchase a truck.

[Rooby Roo]

It probably would not, but while those details may carry all the meaning in the world for the participants, I don't believe that they could possibly have justified this reaction. I've suggested that violence that is not justifiable unless provoked by violence. The prankster did not do this and no unreported facts could transform what he did into violence, so the neanderthal's reaction is therefore unjustifiable.Fair enough.

A bull**** defense since the day it was first made.And I knew you had an opinion about that. Thanks for sharing.

[Rooby Roo]

That's totally unfair and uncalled for.Uncalled for, yes, but not unfair.

[Infinitus Corsair]

Uncalled for, yes, but not unfair.
Besides, if people had to wait for things to get called for, no one would ever get to say anything.

[Aubergine]

It takes two to tango, baby.


I don't blame you. My high school had sub-par facilities and a strict code of conduct.


I don't, I just know how smart you post. Incidentally, you've called me "dumb" repeatedly, so I don't know how much mileage you can get out of this particular tack.


Me too, except work instead of school. I guess my downtime potential is that much more impressive than yours. Based on the posting, you know.


I have an army of sychophants? I wish they'd sychopant more demonstratively, or at least tangibly. Damn it, all this time.


That was as civil as I cared to be. I found the opinions expressed appalling. I'm entitled to that, remember?


So obvious that you were saying something incompatible with those conclusions, about which more later.


I never said anyone was a degenerate for being able to understand his behavior. Every human can do that. I myself can tap into my R-complex and savor the savage satisfaction of violent revenge. But I also have many higher planes of thought, and recognize that those are impulses out of a murky genetic past that are not becoming of a civilized being. We've all felt like lashing out violently, but we know better than to act on the impulse. Rather than sympathizing with someone who does act on it because we've felt the same, however, we should condemn such a person for failing to moderate their destructive side. Society should have no tolerance for a failure of such moderation.


How have I bullied anyone? I'm talking to two people in this thread. Rooby and I are posting with typical decorum, I think. We've each taken some swipes at the other's position, but I'm certainly not going all Rabid D. on him. I've taken more liberties with you, but then Rooby wasn't in another thread whining about how mean it was to criticize someone's posting. I found the contrast irresistable and you in a poor light for it.

Odd. I've first now got an e-mail about this thread being active again.

And, to get to the matter at hand, I suppose I could break your whole post into separate sentences, or hell, even break off sentences at commas and reply to every two words individually, not really caring about what I'm trying to say so much as how wittily and cuttingly I can say it, but... a new uni term's just started, and I'm having way too much fun in the real world to point out little things like, oh, criticising someone's posting isn't quite the same as viciously ripping into every aspect of a poster's life and character just for sport... but y'know... I don't much feel like it. So... you go ahead and tango on without me.

Toodles! :)