On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 07:18:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >I knew someone in HS who was a very nice person, but seems so "into"
> >herself, commenting on her physical features (which were very nice,
> >but you don't want that person to constantly point them out to you as
> >if you can't see). She invited me to visit and then I found out where
> >she got it from. Her mother was constantly saying those things to
> >her. IOW her mother taught her that her self-worth was her looks.
>
> So, basically a second-generation skank.
>

How does putting your self worth into your looks make you a skank?
Why would you say that? She was a very nice person (not sleazy at
all), as was her mother. Unfortunately, her mother (who had a
gorgeous daughter with waist length, naturally blond, hair) was stuck
back in the "pretty woman bags her man" type thinking and not on the
cutting edge of woman's lib; which is where the country was at the
time.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf > wrote:

>How does putting your self worth into your looks make you a skank?
>Why would you say that? She was a very nice person (not sleazy at
>all), as was her mother.

Most skanks are quite nice persons. Perhaps your friend is
not a skank, but I won't hold that against her.


Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> sf > wrote:
>
>>How does putting your self worth into your looks make you a skank?
>>Why would you say that? She was a very nice person (not sleazy at
>>all), as was her mother.
>
> Most skanks are quite nice persons. Perhaps your friend is
> not a skank, but I won't hold that against her.

I can think of one who was *not* a nice person at all. Argh. I just
pictured her in my mind and didn't like it one bit. I don't think I ever
saw that woman smile. She just sneered. She really thought she was better
than anyone else. And how she got men, I'll never know. But she did. Her
mom even came in where we worked once and her mom called her a bitch! Heh!
And that she was. Thankfully she didn't work there for very long. She was
fired for attitude problems.

But most of the other women I know that would be called skanks (not that I
know a lot of them mind you) were *very* nice. And that I suppose is part
of why they would be called skanks. I suppose it also depends on what you
consider the word "skank" to mean. To me it is a woman who not only is very
loose sexually and rather obvious about it but also dresses in sort of a
cheap fashion.

I one found a website of a woman who made clothing. I was looking for
something very specific at the time. She didn't have it but she did have
some interesting things for sale. She had put up a picture of some pants
she had made and then apologized for the skanky picture. And then it made
me wonder what the word "skanky" meant to her. Ha!

On 26/11/2012 11:28 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

>> Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
>> question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
>> Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
>> Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
>> she wouldn't see them?
>
> How would any of that have removed her tits from cyberspace? That was
> the real problem, she flashed a guy and he posted it all over the place.
>
>
>


And what is the big deal about her tits being in cyberspace, considering
the millions, possibly billions already there? It is only when she
lingers and makes big deal of it that people connect her with them.
She could have just kept her mouth shut and kept a low profile or start
blocking people. But no, like the Bovine and a few others, you have to
keep sticking yourself in the way of all those slings and arrows.

On 11/26/2012 9:53 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 26/11/2012 8:40 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 11/26/2012 5:22 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>>>>> , but not before she made a video about how she was
>>>>> >>being bullied. Heaven forbid that she could have simply stopped
>>>>> going
>>>>> >>online,
>>
>> The fact of the matter is, online, Facebook or not, teens have been
>> bullied or made to feel left out throughout history. There's no reason
>> to kill yourself over it.
>>
>> I went to high school with a guy whose girlfriend broke up with him. He
>> was 16. He took his father's gun, loaded it, went to the school and
>> blew his brains out on the steps that led down to the cafeteria. That
>> was his grand contribution to life.
>>
>
> Thank goodness he opted to kill himself and not shoot the girl who had
> broken up with him. Teens have issues. You will likely find that even
> those that do the bullying often have self image problems and they
> probably see themselves as the bullies.
>
We were all shocked to hear he'd killed himself. But no, he wasn't the
type (thankfully) to take it out on the girl. Him I remember; her, not
sure I ever knew her name.

> It is surprising to hear what is being classified as bullying. When I
> was a kid the bullies were the bigger kids who picked on the smaller
> kids, and bullying was always something that involved actual violence.

That's true, but I never really experienced any of that. That was more
of a guy thing; fist fights and the like. Kids didn't carry weapons
back then. Nowadays, I wouldn't bet on it.

> There was always lots of different kinds of social pressure, like being
> accepted into a group, people not bothering with others or not talking
> to them, shunning and ostracism. Now is seems that anything short of a
> pat on the back or a warm hug is seen as bullying. Nuts to that.

I agree. We were always moving when I was a kid so there wasn't much
time to worry about where I "fit". Until I got to high school. By then
Dad had retired so there were all those cliques to deal with. I figured
out early on I didn't have to fit in with any of them. If they didn't
like me it was their problem, not mine. As a result, I got along with
everyone and turned out to be rather well liked

> When some teenager commits suicide because of "bullying" you will
> probably find that the person was a little messed up and had some issues
> they were having trouble dealing with.

That's very true. We all thought this guy had some problems at home,
not that he'd ever talked about them. Maybe if he had... but hindsight
is 20/20.

Jill

zxcvbob wrote:

> BTW, "whinging" is a great word. It should be used more often,
> especially for silly people complaining about stupid things.

You can immerse yourself in "whinging" and other bits of UK slang by
.... uh ... by living in the UK. duh.

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>
>>"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 11/26/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in
>>>>> Berkeley.
>>>>> There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
>>>>> blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
>>>>> of trees from a master list kept by the city. The problem being
>>>>> litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.
>>>>
>>>> That's crazy, but I like it. I'm going to go read up about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it's crazy, it's Berkeley!
>>
>>I remember the tie dyed sidewalks there.
>
> They just set out a notice telling you precisely how you are
> supposed to arrange your garbage, recycling and composting
> containers on the street in front of your house on garbage day...
> an extremely detailed description. We tried to adhere to it
> but I noticed none of our neighbors did; I think people are
> just overloaded by directives from the city and they can't
> absorb any more.
>
> And yes, Berkeley does periodically, without warning, go through your
> garbage to try to catch you at putting recyclable or compostable
> items in there.
>
> In short, everything you have heard about Berkeley is true.
>
>



I think I'll head up to Berkeley when I am bored, and play the old
switcheroo game with people's trash/recycling locations. Maybe toss a few
recyclable items in people's trash, too. Just for kicks.

On 11/27/2012 1:42 AM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:53:21 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> They are likely narcissistic
>> and instead of accepting that not everyone is going to automatically
>> like and accept them. They have to be the centre of everyone's
>> attention. Inevitably, the people who expect that are goign to be
>> sorely disappointed.
>>
>
> I knew someone in HS who was a very nice person, but seems so "into"
> herself, commenting on her physical features (which were very nice,
> but you don't want that person to constantly point them out to you as
> if you can't see). She invited me to visit and then I found out where
> she got it from. Her mother was constantly saying those things to
> her. IOW her mother taught her that her self-worth was her looks.
>
>
Agreed. I knew someone like that when I was 12. And she *wasn't* a
nice person. She got the attitude from her mother. Her mother was
extremely self-centered and she raised her daughter to be the same way.
This girl thought the world should revolve around her. Pointing out
how great and pretty [she thought] she was made her feel important.

Jill

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:42:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >How does putting your self worth into your looks make you a skank?
> >Why would you say that? She was a very nice person (not sleazy at
> >all), as was her mother.
>
> Most skanks are quite nice persons. Perhaps your friend is
> not a skank, but I won't hold that against her.
>

The word "skank" wasn't in use when I was in high school. AFAIC:
"skanks" were the girls from the nearby Cat-lick HS who rolled up
their plaid skirts so far they barely covered their butts and hung out
on the corner smoking cigarettes, trying to look cool and attract
"men".

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:31:18 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 11/27/2012 1:42 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:53:21 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> They are likely narcissistic
> >> and instead of accepting that not everyone is going to automatically
> >> like and accept them. They have to be the centre of everyone's
> >> attention. Inevitably, the people who expect that are goign to be
> >> sorely disappointed.
> >>
> >
> > I knew someone in HS who was a very nice person, but seems so "into"
> > herself, commenting on her physical features (which were very nice,
> > but you don't want that person to constantly point them out to you as
> > if you can't see). She invited me to visit and then I found out where
> > she got it from. Her mother was constantly saying those things to
> > her. IOW her mother taught her that her self-worth was her looks.
> >
> >
> Agreed. I knew someone like that when I was 12. And she *wasn't* a
> nice person. She got the attitude from her mother. Her mother was
> extremely self-centered and she raised her daughter to be the same way.
> This girl thought the world should revolve around her. Pointing out
> how great and pretty [she thought] she was made her feel important.
>

1. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree
2. It runs in the family
3. Pete and rePete

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:06:29 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>
> That's very true. We all thought this guy had some problems at home,
> not that he'd ever talked about them. Maybe if he had... but hindsight
> is 20/20.
>
Key and Peele made a video that touches on the psychological reasons
behind bullying in a humorous way
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-c...e-school-bully

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 11/27/2012 9:46 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:42:15 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>> How does putting your self worth into your looks make you a skank?
>>> Why would you say that? She was a very nice person (not sleazy at
>>> all), as was her mother.
>>
>> Most skanks are quite nice persons. Perhaps your friend is
>> not a skank, but I won't hold that against her.
>>
>
> The word "skank" wasn't in use when I was in high school. AFAIC:
> "skanks" were the girls from the nearby Cat-lick HS who rolled up
> their plaid skirts so far they barely covered their butts and hung out
> on the corner smoking cigarettes, trying to look cool and attract
> "men".
>
No need to get defensive. We've all known "girls" like that. Also no
need for name calling, Steve. Labelling and name calling. This is
where bullying comes into play. JMHO.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

> > The word "skank" wasn't in use when I was in high school.

> No need to get defensive. We've all known "girls" like that.

What are you saying? They're not girls, only "girls"? What's the
difference?

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...

> And yes, Berkeley does periodically, without warning, go through your
> garbage to try to catch you at putting recyclable or compostable
> items in there.
>
> In short, everything you have heard about Berkeley is true.
>
>
> Steve


I used to spend quite a bit of time in Berkeley back when the school for
the deaf was still there, before it moved to Fremont many years ago, and it
was crazy even then.

Cheri

"sf" > wrote in message
...

> The word "skank" wasn't in use when I was in high school. AFAIC:
> "skanks" were the girls from the nearby Cat-lick HS who rolled up
> their plaid skirts so far they barely covered their butts and hung out
> on the corner smoking cigarettes, trying to look cool and attract
> "men".

Me either, back then it was "skagg" where I was, sometimes "scuzzbucket" or
"crowbait."

Cheri

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> It is surprising to hear what is being classified as bullying. When I
> was a kid the bullies were the bigger kids who picked on the smaller
> kids, and bullying was always something that involved actual violence.
> There was always lots of different kinds of social pressure, like being
> accepted into a group, people not bothering with others or not talking
> to them, shunning and ostracism. Now is seems that anything short of a
> pat on the back or a warm hug is seen as bullying. Nuts to that. We are
> all individuals with our strange little quirks. We don't have to put up
> with the idiocy of others when it gets out of hand.

Words that hurt actually do hurt. Verbal abuse is actual abuse. As
with violence there is a spectrum of intensity and some people react
less than others.

I rather like the fact that society is recognizing that abuse should be
stopped, that bullying is abuse, that verbal abuse is abuse. In our PC
world there's going to be an overshoot before it settles in correctly
done but progress is a good thing.

> When some teenager commits suicide because of "bullying" you will
> probably find that the person was a little messed up and had some issues
> they were having trouble dealing with. When it is a kid who gets picked
> on everywhere he or she goes it is probably because they have a hard
> time figuring out how to deal with people. They are likely narcissistic
> and instead of accepting that not everyone is going to automatically
> like and accept them. They have to be the centre of everyone's
> attention. Inevitably, the people who expect that are goign to be
> sorely disappointed.

That or the kid is just different. Taller, shorter, smarter, dumber,
lighter, darker, lower pitched voice, higher pitched voice. Kids will
use any similarity as a basis for their clicks and any difference for
their torments.

Society currently disapproves of any form of punishment. As a result
children are not being punished for bad behavior. Human children are
animals that need to be socialized and that takes training. Positive
reenforcement works better than negative reenforcement but both in some
balance works better than only one or the other. The balance needs to
favor positive reenforcement by far but all children need some amount of
punishment. Some little, some a lot. Bullies need their own medicine
returned to them. Be that physical or verbal.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:53:45 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The word "skank" wasn't in use when I was in high school. AFAIC:
> > "skanks" were the girls from the nearby Cat-lick HS who rolled up
> > their plaid skirts so far they barely covered their butts and hung out
> > on the corner smoking cigarettes, trying to look cool and attract
> > "men".
>
> Me either, back then it was "skagg" where I was, sometimes "scuzzbucket" or
> "crowbait."
>

Skagg and especially scuzzbucket ring a bell. Crowbait, no.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Agreed. I knew someone like that when I was 12. And she *wasn't* a
> nice person. She got the attitude from her mother. Her mother was
> extremely self-centered and she raised her daughter to be the same way.
> This girl thought the world should revolve around her. Pointing out
> how great and pretty [she thought] she was made her feel important.

"Heathers"

On 11/27/2012 8:29 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 26/11/2012 11:28 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> How would any of that have removed her tits from cyberspace? That was
>> the real problem, she flashed a guy and he posted it all over the place.
>>
>
> And what is the big deal about her tits being in cyberspace, considering
> the millions, possibly billions already there? It is only when she
> lingers and makes big deal of it that people connect her with them. She
> could have just kept her mouth shut and kept a low profile or start
> blocking people. But no, like the Bovine and a few others, you have to
> keep sticking yourself in the way of all those slings and arrows.
>
Who actually cared about a photo of her tits? Everyone has them. Some
men I know have more boobs than they'd like photographed. <G> But what
was the big deal? Was someone going to be able to identify her boobs in
a lineup? Give me a break.

A right to privacy I can understand. But if I email a photo of my
breasts to an alleged "boyfriend", hell, these days I'd expect them to
be all over cyberspace. Maybe even included in a Christmas card LOL

Jill

On 27/11/2012 5:09 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 8:29 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 26/11/2012 11:28 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How would any of that have removed her tits from cyberspace? That was
>>> the real problem, she flashed a guy and he posted it all over the place.
>>>
>>
>> And what is the big deal about her tits being in cyberspace, considering
>> the millions, possibly billions already there? It is only when she
>> lingers and makes big deal of it that people connect her with them. She
>> could have just kept her mouth shut and kept a low profile or start
>> blocking people. But no, like the Bovine and a few others, you have to
>> keep sticking yourself in the way of all those slings and arrows.
>>
> Who actually cared about a photo of her tits? Everyone has them. Some
> men I know have more boobs than they'd like photographed. <G> But what
> was the big deal? Was someone going to be able to identify her boobs in
> a lineup? Give me a break.
>
> A right to privacy I can understand. But if I email a photo of my
> breasts to an alleged "boyfriend", hell, these days I'd expect them to
> be all over cyberspace. Maybe even included in a Christmas card LOL
>


Hell, You have my email address if you want to test that theory

LOL

On 27/11/2012 9:46 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:42:15 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>> How does putting your self worth into your looks make you a skank?
>>> Why would you say that? She was a very nice person (not sleazy at
>>> all), as was her mother.
>>
>> Most skanks are quite nice persons. Perhaps your friend is
>> not a skank, but I won't hold that against her.
>>
>
> The word "skank" wasn't in use when I was in high school. AFAIC:
> "skanks" were the girls from the nearby Cat-lick HS who rolled up
> their plaid skirts so far they barely covered their butts and hung out
> on the corner smoking cigarettes, trying to look cool and attract
> "men".
>


I was at a Christmas party at my brother's place a couple years ago and
one of the young ladies was wearing rolled up blue jeans with high
heels. The neighbour's daughter told her she was looking pretty skanky,
and the said "Thanks"
I thought it was a Whoosh moment.

On 11/27/2012 5:16 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 27/11/2012 9:46 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:42:15 +0000 (UTC),
>> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>>> sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> How does putting your self worth into your looks make you a skank?
>>>> Why would you say that? She was a very nice person (not sleazy at
>>>> all), as was her mother.
>>>
>>> Most skanks are quite nice persons. Perhaps your friend is
>>> not a skank, but I won't hold that against her.
>>>
>>
>> The word "skank" wasn't in use when I was in high school. AFAIC:
>> "skanks" were the girls from the nearby Cat-lick HS who rolled up
>> their plaid skirts so far they barely covered their butts and hung out
>> on the corner smoking cigarettes, trying to look cool and attract
>> "men".
>>
>
>
> I was at a Christmas party at my brother's place a couple years ago and
> one of the young ladies was wearing rolled up blue jeans with high
> heels. The neighbour's daughter told her she was looking pretty skanky,
> and the said "Thanks"
> I thought it was a Whoosh moment.

LOLOL! Skank is in the eye of the beholder. In the 1980's I worked for
a software development company. On casual day I wore skinny jeans with
moderate (2-1/2 inch, not F* me pumps) heels and trust me, the look
wasn't skanky. (I didn't wear revealing, tight or low cut blouses.)
There was something about the look of heels with blue jeans that had
those programmers falling all over themselves. Women have always known
even a slight heel on a shoe makes your butt look better

Jill

On 11/27/2012 5:12 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 27/11/2012 5:09 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>> Who actually cared about a photo of her tits? Everyone has them. Some
>> men I know have more boobs than they'd like photographed. <G> But what
>> was the big deal? Was someone going to be able to identify her boobs in
>> a lineup? Give me a break.
>>
>> A right to privacy I can understand. But if I email a photo of my
>> breasts to an alleged "boyfriend", hell, these days I'd expect them to
>> be all over cyberspace. Maybe even included in a Christmas card LOL
>>
>
>
> Hell, You have my email address if you want to test that theory
>
> LOL
>
>
You show me yours, I'll show you mine. LOL

Jill

On 11/26/2012 5:11 PM, Julie Bove wrote:

> People who do not have nut allergies do not understand. At my daughter's
> dance studio, they often sell candy grams backstage. Because there were
> several nut allergic students one year, they advertised that the candy grams
> would have no nuts in them.

What is a candy gram?

On 11/26/2012 7:31 PM, Cheri wrote:

> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> But the thing with the health food store is that they sell essential
>> oils, scented candles and some of the smelliest creams and other
>> cosmetics I have ever run across. So how can they tell people not to
>> wear scent into their store?
>
> Probably because the owner doesn't like the "smell." There are some
> perfumes that I really hate, and don't like to smell them on people, not
> allergic or anything, but just don't like the smell. If you own the
> store, you can tell them anything you want.

True but I'm sure it's just as effective as stores and other businesses
with signs that say "no cell phones", and that doesn't stop people either.

On 28/11/2012 8:46 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 5:11 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> People who do not have nut allergies do not understand. At my daughter's
>> dance studio, they often sell candy grams backstage. Because there were
>> several nut allergic students one year, they advertised that the candy
>> grams
>> would have no nuts in them.
>
> What is a candy gram?


One of the Bovine's fantasies.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 26/11/2012 5:03 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I still don't understand that one. It was Facebook, a site where you
>> can do a lot to protect yourself.
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictures.html
>>
>>
>> Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
>> question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
>> Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
>> Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
>> she wouldn't see them?
>
> Well, that's petty much the problem the way I see it. They could go
> into private chat but that is not why they are there. They crave
> attention and social media give them the opportunity to makes fools of
> themselves in ever grander scales. It would seem that this girl opted
> instead to log into large chat venues and then set herself up for abuse.
>
> Coincidentally, I read that some sort of FB pages were set up in her
> memory and they quickly filled with abusive remarks and "cyber bullying"
> I guess the deal is that if you posted something on the site that would
> be good, but if you posted something to the effect that she was an
> attention whore who should have simply stayed out of social media or
> block her detractors that would constitute cyber bullying.
>
>
What a terrible thing! She wasn't very smart, but she sure didn't
deserve what happened.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:37:23 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 26/11/2012 5:03 PM, sf wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> I still don't understand that one. It was Facebook, a site where you
> >> can do a lot to protect yourself.
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictures.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
> >> question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
> >> Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
> >> Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
> >> she wouldn't see them?
> >
> > Well, that's petty much the problem the way I see it. They could go
> > into private chat but that is not why they are there. They crave
> > attention and social media give them the opportunity to makes fools of
> > themselves in ever grander scales. It would seem that this girl opted
> > instead to log into large chat venues and then set herself up for abuse.
> >
> > Coincidentally, I read that some sort of FB pages were set up in her
> > memory and they quickly filled with abusive remarks and "cyber bullying"
> > I guess the deal is that if you posted something on the site that would
> > be good, but if you posted something to the effect that she was an
> > attention whore who should have simply stayed out of social media or
> > block her detractors that would constitute cyber bullying.
> >
> >
> What a terrible thing! She wasn't very smart, but she sure didn't
> deserve what happened.

I am not saying she "deserved" anything and she certainly didn't
deserve to die, but I'm wondering why somebody didn't step in (I know
she was being counseled, but I mean to cut off Facebook for starters).
There's a lot that could have been done. Not saying it would have
made a difference because I remember how much insignificant things
mattered to me at that age... and they mattered enough to some of my
friends for them to take their lives (3 in two years). I don't even
know why they killed themselves, that's how insignificant their
problems were. One of them was the President of my senior class...
"they" said it was because his GF broke up with him, but there had to
be more to it than that.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:37:23 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2012 5:03 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> I still don't understand that one. It was Facebook, a site where you
>>>> can do a lot to protect yourself.
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pictures.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
>>>> question? Where her posts Public? Change the setting (no Friends of
>>>> Friends either). Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
>>>> Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
>>>> she wouldn't see them?
>>> Well, that's petty much the problem the way I see it. They could go
>>> into private chat but that is not why they are there. They crave
>>> attention and social media give them the opportunity to makes fools of
>>> themselves in ever grander scales. It would seem that this girl opted
>>> instead to log into large chat venues and then set herself up for abuse.
>>>
>>> Coincidentally, I read that some sort of FB pages were set up in her
>>> memory and they quickly filled with abusive remarks and "cyber bullying"
>>> I guess the deal is that if you posted something on the site that would
>>> be good, but if you posted something to the effect that she was an
>>> attention whore who should have simply stayed out of social media or
>>> block her detractors that would constitute cyber bullying.
>>>
>>>
>> What a terrible thing! She wasn't very smart, but she sure didn't
>> deserve what happened.
>
> I am not saying she "deserved" anything and she certainly didn't
> deserve to die, but I'm wondering why somebody didn't step in (I know
> she was being counseled, but I mean to cut off Facebook for starters).
> There's a lot that could have been done. Not saying it would have
> made a difference because I remember how much insignificant things
> mattered to me at that age... and they mattered enough to some of my
> friends for them to take their lives (3 in two years). I don't even
> know why they killed themselves, that's how insignificant their
> problems were. One of them was the President of my senior class...
> "they" said it was because his GF broke up with him, but there had to
> be more to it than that.
>
Yes, the age is an important factor. Kids are just so vulnerable
at that point in life, which is one reason why I find this story
so sad. You are right about how those small things matter so much
at that point in life. Given that, what happened to this girl
must have looked totally unsurmountable.

We don't know whether there was any suggestion that she stay off
facebook. I am thinking that even if her parents forbade her to
go onto facebook, she could have done it anyway. Maybe she was
addicted to interacting via facebook (that from a person who has
never had a desire to have a facebook account).

On 28/11/2012 10:37 PM, Jean B. wrote:

>> Coincidentally, I read that some sort of FB pages were set up in her
>> memory and they quickly filled with abusive remarks and "cyber
>> bullying" I guess the deal is that if you posted something on the
>> site that would be good, but if you posted something to the effect
>> that she was an attention whore who should have simply stayed out of
>> social media or block her detractors that would constitute cyber
>> bullying.
>>
>>
> What a terrible thing! She wasn't very smart, but she sure didn't
> deserve what happened.
>


The girl was a mess. I think that the negative behaviour toward her was
more a result of her actions than her troubles being a result of the
"bullying" As I pointed out before, some people are messed up and are
gluttons for punishment. They will say and do just about anything to put
themselves in the spot light. They just have to have the centre of
attention. I suppose they are under the impression that if they put
themselves out there everyone has to love and respect them. Then them
make fools of themselves and make themselves objects of ridicule.

On 29/11/2012 12:20 AM, sf wrote:
e what happened.
>
> I am not saying she "deserved" anything and she certainly didn't
> deserve to die, but I'm wondering why somebody didn't step in (I know
> she was being counseled, but I mean to cut off Facebook for starters).
> There's a lot that could have been done. Not saying it would have
> made a difference because I remember how much insignificant things
> mattered to me at that age... and they mattered enough to some of my
> friends for them to take their lives (3 in two years). I don't even
> know why they killed themselves, that's how insignificant their
> problems were. One of them was the President of my senior class...
> "they" said it was because his GF broke up with him, but there had to
> be more to it than that.
>


A guy killing himself because his girlfriend breaking up with him is
usually a pretty good indication that he was messed up and that she had
reason to break up with him.

On Nov 28, 5:46*pm, Cheryl > wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 5:11 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > People who do not have nut allergies do not understand. *At my daughter's
> > dance studio, they often sell candy grams backstage. *Because there were
> > several nut allergic students one year, they advertised that the candy grams
> > would have no nuts in them.
>
> What is a candy gram?

Peter Lawford knows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyGDvG-Zo9U

Cultural referent from the supposed Golden Age of SNL:

http://www.spike.com/video-clips/gytf2i/land-shark

On Nov 27, 6:46*am, sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:42:15 +0000 (UTC),
>
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
> > sf > wrote:
>
> > >How does putting your self worth into your looks make you a skank?
> > >Why would you say that? *She was a very nice person (not sleazy at
> > >all), as was her mother.
>
> > Most skanks are quite nice persons. *Perhaps your friend is
> > not a skank, but I won't hold that against her.
>
> The word "skank" wasn't in use when I was in high school. *AFAIC:
> "skanks" were the girls from the nearby Cat-lick HS who rolled up
> their plaid skirts so far they barely covered their butts and hung out
> on the corner smoking cigarettes, trying to look cool and attract
> "men".

Barring the lung cancer, smoking on the street corner is a pretty safe
way for teen girls to take their new sexual attractiveness out for a
test drive.

On Nov 26, 11:22*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 26/11/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> >> Now the woman is whinging that in a a free, civilized society we should
> >> be able to voice our opinions and make our requests to elected officials
> >> without fear of reprisal, ridicule, or regret. While I agree with the
> >> general idea of that, it does not protect you in cases were your
> >> requests are ridiculous and unwarranted. We reserve the right not to
> >> take people seriously when they are being ridiculous. *There was
> >> absolutely no reason for her to even be concerned about oak trees and
> >> acorns, but that didn't stop her little brain from looking for some
> >> cheap celebrity.
>
> > We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley..
> > There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
> > blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
> > of trees from a master list kept by the city. *The problem being
> > litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.
>
> That was the problem here. There is no problem with oak trees. Sure,
> there are lots of people with various allergy issues that cause sneezing
> and nasal congestion, maybe even asthma, but those people tend to be
> allergic to lots of pollens and molds.
>
> This woman had already campaigned to make her son's school nut free.
> Having been given some public recognition for that battle she went
> looking for another related issue and decided that the oak trees had to
> be removed, not just because of her misunderstanding about the risk of
> anaphelactic reactions, but because some nut allergic child would be
> intimidated by presence of oak trees and it would cause them stress.
>
> So... she got her 15 minutes of fame, but she resents the ridicule to
> which she was rejected and is whining about cyber bullying..... negative
> comments posted on news media sites. *I guess she doesn't realize that
> when you launch a public campaign based on something idiotic you risk
> making yourself look ridiculous.

When did the "true north strong and free" become so wimpy? Sgt.
Preston wouldn't have complained about oak trees; nor would have had
his dog, Yukon King.

On Nov 26, 2:11*pm, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> >>Now the woman is whinging that in a a free, civilized society we should
> >>be able to voice our opinions and make our requests to elected officials
> >>without fear of reprisal, ridicule, or regret. While I agree with the
> >>general idea of that, it does not protect you in cases were your
> >>requests are ridiculous and unwarranted. We reserve the right not to
> >>take people seriously when they are being ridiculous. *There was
> >>absolutely no reason for her to even be concerned about oak trees and
> >>acorns, but that didn't stop her little brain from looking for some
> >>cheap celebrity.
>
> > We have a few allergic-tree-moving requests in process here in Berkeley..
> > There's merit to it in that many allergies are caused by stuff that
> > blows off plants... in Berkeley you can only plant approved species
> > of trees from a master list kept by the city. *The problem being
> > litigated is whether certain trees on that list are still a problem.
>
> Stuff like this drives me nuts! *You could never make a school truly nut
> free. *Even if people don't bring in obvious sources of nuts, something like
> a piece of bread or a cupcake from a bakery is likely to be cross
> contaminated by nuts. *And IMO, something like this is more of a danger to a
> nut allergic person than the out right nuts themselves! *Because if they see
> the nuts they are going to stay away.
>
> People who do not have nut allergies do not understand. *At my daughter's
> dance studio, they often sell candy grams backstage. *Because there were
> several nut allergic students one year, they advertised that the candy grams
> would have no nuts in them. *And then as my daughter was eating hers, she
> freaked when she bit into an M & M which clearly has a peanut warning on the
> package. *Luckily it didn't case a problem for her. *She is not allergic but
> intolerant. *She gets sick and gets weird watery seeping nosebleeds from
> peanuts. *So it is best for her to avoid them but they won't kill her.
> But... *Those candies could have killed someone else. *We bought assumed
> they were Skittles which are safe for those with a nut allergy. *She has
> also been forced to touch M & Ms in math because they were using them to
> teach some point.
>
> So you see how difficult it would be to keep a school truly nut free and
> people who do not have to avoid nuts are just not going to read every single
> package or think about each food that they buy to decide whether or not it
> might be cross contaminated.
>

I don't think people allergic to tree nuts are necessarily allergic to
peanuts, and vice versa, because I had a classmate allergic to tree
nuts only.

On Nov 26, 8:30*pm, "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:11:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > I still don't understand that one. *It was Facebook, a site where you
> > can do a lot to protect yourself.
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Todd-Anonymous...
>
> > Why didn't she use FB's private chat function on the night in
> > question? *Where her posts Public? *Change the setting (no Friends of
> > Friends either). *Why didn't she create lists of "Friends" and use the
> > Block ability so that cyberbullies wouldn't see her and best of all,
> > she wouldn't see them?
>
> How would any of that have removed her tits from cyberspace? *That was
> the real problem, she flashed a guy and he posted it all over the place.

When she was 12 years old.

In my day if a 12 year old flashed her boobs, it was only in front of
other 12 and 13 year olds. Not grown men who she didn't know.

I see she had parents, but they did not live together. Maybe people
with kids should stick to dialup.

On 2012-11-29 16:52:28 +0000, spamtrap1888 said:

> Peter Lawford knows:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyGDvG-Zo9U

He looks like he's wearing a dark-colored shower cap.

On Nov 29, 6:42*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 28/11/2012 10:37 PM, Jean B. wrote:
>
> >> Coincidentally, I read that some sort of FB pages were set up in her
> >> memory and they quickly filled with abusive remarks and "cyber
> >> bullying" *I guess the deal is that if you posted something on the
> >> site that would be good, but if you posted something to the effect
> >> that she was an attention whore who should have simply stayed out of
> >> social media or block her detractors that would constitute cyber
> >> bullying.
>
> > What a terrible thing! *She wasn't very smart, but she sure didn't
> > deserve what happened.
>
> The girl was a mess.

Like many adolescent girls. The hormones make them crazy.

> I think that the negative behaviour toward her was
> more a result of her actions than her troubles being a result of the
> "bullying"

Adolescents are going to mess up on occasion. Usually their actions
are quickly forgotten. (Even when the police call you to come over and
pick up your stepson.)

>*As I pointed out before, some people are messed up and are
> gluttons for punishment. They will say and do just about anything to put
> themselves in the spot light. They just have to have the centre of
> attention. *I suppose they are under the impression that if they put
> themselves out there everyone has to love and respect them. Then them
> make fools of themselves and make themselves objects of ridicule.

Immature people act immaturely. What a surprise.

I think a contributing factor is the freedom to divorce. When you know
mom and dad will be there no matter what, I don't think you need to
bid for attention so much.

On 29/11/2012 11:58 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

>> So... she got her 15 minutes of fame, but she resents the ridicule to
>> which she was rejected and is whining about cyber bullying..... negative
>> comments posted on news media sites. I guess she doesn't realize that
>> when you launch a public campaign based on something idiotic you risk
>> making yourself look ridiculous.
>
> When did the "true north strong and free" become so wimpy? Sgt.
> Preston wouldn't have complained about oak trees; nor would have had
> his dog, Yukon King.
>


Maybe that is why they lived in the Yukon. I don't think there are oak
trees up there.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 28/11/2012 10:37 PM, Jean B. wrote:
>
>>> Coincidentally, I read that some sort of FB pages were set up in her
>>> memory and they quickly filled with abusive remarks and "cyber
>>> bullying" I guess the deal is that if you posted something on the
>>> site that would be good, but if you posted something to the effect
>>> that she was an attention whore who should have simply stayed out of
>>> social media or block her detractors that would constitute cyber
>>> bullying.
>>>
>>>
>> What a terrible thing! She wasn't very smart, but she sure didn't
>> deserve what happened.
>>
>
>
> The girl was a mess. I think that the negative behaviour toward her was
> more a result of her actions than her troubles being a result of the
> "bullying" As I pointed out before, some people are messed up and are
> gluttons for punishment. They will say and do just about anything to put
> themselves in the spot light. They just have to have the centre of
> attention. I suppose they are under the impression that if they put
> themselves out there everyone has to love and respect them. Then them
> make fools of themselves and make themselves objects of ridicule.
>
>
Very sad.