(no subject)
My original reply to a comment comparing Calebs behaviour with the Edgeware Road incident.
HAHAHAHAA!! you're so funny
um
What the hell are you on?
seriously
have you been trying to walk through a closed door for 12 years or were you just born that stupid?
HOW THE HELL DOES THIS SITUATION HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TRADGEDY?????
YOU ARE THE ONE DRAWING ON OTHER PEOPLES GRIEF TO PROVE SOME RETARDED POINT....
I happened to witness the events at that party and think you have stepped far outside the mark. Looking at an unwanted image on a screen for 5 seconds is by no means comparable to 2 people losing their lives to someone (who appears to be about as stupid as you) deciding it's a good idea to run people over with a car.
Shame on you
Shame shame shame
You are a worthless human being with NO SENSE OF CONTEXT.
Initial reply recieved from Becky:
Sophie,
You asked me questions but Caleb has cowardly banned me from answering them in his journal, in public.
The problem is not with you or I looking at goatse for a few seconds.
The problem is with people losing their jobs because they inadvertently cache goatse in their work computers. The problem is with people going to prison because they inadvertently cache goatse in their computers. The problem is with putting vulnerable women in danger because they inadvertently cache goatse in their computers. The problem is with 10-year-old girls seeing goatse and having nightmares. The problem is that what Caleb has done is both illegal and immoral.
Can you explain to me why you think that is funny?
Becky
My reply to this:
Becky,
I by no means think that your wild assumptions of the results of Caleb's stunts are funny, but come on, give me one real example of any of these things happening in real life as a result of this prank.
You are implying in your comments that Caleb's prank is on par to a man intentionally careening into a mass of partygoers, resulting in two teenage girls losing their lives..
How is this on par to an image (which is common on the Internet anyway, and whether or not you appreciate it, so familiar and so notorious an image that it has become a part of pop culture in its own right) being displayed to many people (albeit in a non-consensual manner).
I was a witness to some of the events to the tragedy on Edgeware Road on the 5th of May as I live close to the scene of the accident. I find it hugely insulting and disrespectful to the families and friends of the deceased and injured, this in addition to your slanderous implications of Caleb's behaviours, with your decision to use this tragedy as an analogy to a stupid Internet prank - it really makes me feel nauseous.
Perhaps if you had actually read my comment you would've seen the sarcasm in my reply to your insensitive, unthinking and hurtful comment, or are you too obtuse to look past your own high 'morals' and realise that you are being, in fact, more malicious with your own implications - implications which effectively make you look like an asinine tubthumper, someone who - as you have described Caleb - enjoys getting off on the misery of others. This is a terrible, self-defeating way to make a point. You have gained nothing from this
Grow up and get another hobby, or do you simply have nothing better to do with your time than demonise people who you don't know, don't care about and who - if you are lucky - you will never encounter. You have done more to make yourself loathed in your continuous, judgmental and outright false suppositions and comments than I think you realise. But hey, it's just the Internet, right?
Her response:
Sophie, of course I'm familiar with goatse, as well as with tubgirl and headless-kitten and various other images that have been floating around the internet since you were a wee babe. I've been working in computers and network security since Tymshare days, well before the internet.
I do not know, yet, of what may have happened to the 60,000 people who were affected by this "stunt".
I do know that people have been hurt by similar things. For example, 25 people were recently fired at the St. Louis headquarters of international brokerage firm A. G. Edwards for having pornographic and/or offensive images in the caches of their work computers. (I know this because I got a call from a recruiter on Friday trying to get me to interview for a position there, as they're desperate to replace the people they fired. Apparently the company conducts random checks and found a porn image on one man's computer. His co-workers in his department tried to pull an "I am Spartacus" thing, saying that they all had images like that on their computers, you can't access the internet without encountering them. Network security checked all their computers, and every single person who had a pornographic and/or offensive image in their cache was summarily fired for cause. "Summarily fired for cause" means they were given no warning, no time to find another job, no severance pay. Security guards were sent to escort them out of the building, and clerks from Human Resources packed up their personal items from their cubicles and left the boxes in the parking lot for them.)
I do know that a substitute teacher at an American public school is facing a 40-year prison sentence because of pornographic images in pop-ups on the computer in her class. She says she did not intentionally go to porn sites, and she did not know how to stop the porn images from popping up. Technical experts support her. But the judge held her responsible for having porn on a computer where kids (ages 12 to 14) might see it. She is due to be sentenced this week.
I have worked as a volunteer in the state prison system for years. I have counseled people whose probation and parole conditions include strict controls over what they can view on the internet. I have seen people end up back in prison because their parole officer found only one objectionable image on their computer.
Is America stuck-up and hard-ass about this? Yeah, maybe so. But that's real life. And deceiving people into viewing goatse is a felony in America.
Under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, item 2252C, Misleading Words or Digital Images on the Internet:
"(a) IN GENERAL.-Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.
(b) MINORS.-Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years."
Worse than the intentional deception is the smug self-congratulatory tone of Caleb and friends. He seems to think that he has been of great service, that he has taught people a valuable lesson. His attitude is that if someone does something so stupid and reckless and trusting as to link to an off-site meme, well then! They deserve whatever consequences befall!
I pointed out that people do stupid and reckless and trusting things all the time. They link to off-site memes, they post personal information, they accept rides home from people they met just a few hours earlier, they drink too much and stand in the street. They trust that they will not encounter an anti-social person who will decide to "teach them a valuable lesson". They trust that they will not be taken advantage of. They may have made themselves vulnerable to being the victim of a crime. But they don't think that a young man who thinks more about himself than others will actually commit that crime.
They don't think someone will lose his temper and deliberately run them over. They don't think someone will think putting them in danger of losing their jobs or their liberty is "heeeee-larious".
I do think that the situations are comparable. Believe me, Caleb disgusts me just as much as does the man who deliberately drove into a crowd of drunken teens. They have a horrid "me first" attitude, a shocking disregard of the consequences of their actions.
You are not the first person to tell me I will be lucky not to encounter Caleb in real life. I have received emails from people who have told me how cruel and violent he can be. Typically abusers seem charming pranksters until you get to know them better. I am not surprised you are not disgusted by him yet. I only hope you will not have the misfortune of getting to know him better.
Becky
I don't believe I should need to comment on why I choose not to have any dialog with this woman but instead of arguing with her on her livejournal about this I want to post it here.
I choose not to continue, or start up any dialog with this person because she has shown me that she is incapable of reading what is written and replying to what is asked in what I believe is a pretty clear manner.
She calls her responses 'dialog' I call them "ranting at a captive audience"
(edit) I recieved these emails to an address that is NOT listed on my livejournal, nor, to my knowledge, anywhere on the internet.