Lars S. Mulford said:"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:since that just reveals them to be idiots. Having the perpetrator
publicly revealed would be good thing in general principle, however.Howdy Tom and others:
My experiences echo the others. When I checked the snipped link, it
directed me to a foul picture. The other links directed to the picture that
was obviously what you intended for all to see.I'm curious though, as to your wanting this individual to be revealed. Is
it because they attacked you personally? It seems a bit of the pot calling
the kettle black here. By that I mean, when an individual whose identity
you DO know wrote on here making fun of the developmentally disabled, I
found that to be beyond the pale. The identity of THAT person, I think,
should have been revealed so that they could back up their cowardly and
ill-informed (as well as completely NOT FUNNY) comments with something other
than pseudonyms...This person attributing nastiness to you was definitely uncalled for, but is
it really any worse than what this other individual has done in insulting
groups of people, some who are not in a position to advocate for themselves?
As for Johnny NoCom, I know the identity to the preponderance of the
evidence standards, but not beyond a reasonable doubt standard. For that
reason alone, I would not post it here.
Thinking the picture of the cat was cute; I emailed the link to someone
living in a foreign country. Fortunately it opened for this person to
the correct picture, since opening the "goatse" picture could not only
have resulted in loss of employment for that person, but possible
criminal penalties for viewing obscenities. Needless to say, I was not
amused at all by this possibility. If the person who hacked the link
finds still finds this amusing, then he/she is morally bankrupt.
--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island