On 26/11/2012 2:41 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 10:06 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> A woman from Vaughn On. (near Toronto) is upset about being cyber
>> bullied because of comments made in response to a course of actions
>> that she had suggested in regard to peanut allergies. She thinks that
>> people should be able to make suggestions without fear of public
>> ridicule.
>
> This is the latest victimization ploy by the lunatic fringe: ridicule =
> bullying.
> No, it doesn't. Your crackpot notion simply got the reception it
> deserved. In the marketplace of ideas, it failed.


Yep. Cyber bullying..... being picked on in a medium which is one of the
easiest to filter. Go out and get yourself an silly agenda and make a
public spectacle of yourself and then sit back and wait for the
accolades. But what happens when the issue is something as stupid as the
acorn allergy?

I am sure we are all familiar with people on usenet who live to make
spectacles of themselves. Some of them obviously enjoy the negative
feedback. They are such attention whores that they would rather have
people poking fun at them than not getting any attention at all. Some of
them even change their user names to get past filters, and there can't
be anything more pathetic than that. Imagine the frustration of having
to nymshift because you know that the people who want to annoy have you
filtered. Imagine how pathetic you have to be to think that you are
clever to know to do that to be heard.

There was a recent case of a girl who was being cyber bullied and ended
up killing herself, but not before she made a video about how she was
being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped going
online, stopped making a public spectacle of herself, stop reacting to
the "bullies" . There are so many of them on the net that as soon as one
stops being a willing victim another will take her place.



>> Last week she contacted the town council to ask them to move some oak
>> trees from a street near the school. He concern was that children with
>> but allergies might come in contact with the acorns and suffer a
>> reaction.
>
> Sounds like the crazy lady from hereabouts who had a son drown in a
> nearby pond. She wanted to pass laws requiring that all bodies of water
> be fenced off, and she also wanted to outlaw backyard ponds.

There is a growing controversy around here about roadside memorials. It
seems that whenever there is a traffic fatality the friends and family
want to to build shrines in their memory. There is one on a nearby road
to three victims of a horrific crash in which a car with four youths
from another area missed a curve, rammed into a car full of local people
and burst into flames.

One of the victims had just buried his younger brother that morning and
he had gone to the casino to celebrate <?> The last text he sent said
how drunk they were. It didn't say anything to support the gossip I
heard from one of their neighbours about the brother's death being a
drug overdose and who he got the drugs from. So we are supposed to
feel sorry for the family of those two Darwin award honorary mentions.
Now the friends and many relatives of the four local people injured by
those idiots have to drive by the little shrine.

Curiously, in every case I know of where there are roadside shrines they
were cases of self destruction. They are not to the innocent victims who
were stuck by someone else's stupidity. They were speeding / drunk/
texting/ on the cell phone.