- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
A Death Threat From A Puppy Linux Supporter
It’s one thing for a distribution to be well liked and inspire loyalty. It is something very different indeed to threaten the life of someone who disagrees. The point of my post which so outraged this person was that I couldn’t review Puppy Linux because the distro won’t run on my laptops. If you’re curious about the threat see post #90 on DistroWatch Weekly’s comments. I have not responded there and I will not. I also won’t back down or be intimidated and I stand behind my previous post. This is a public appeal to Barry Kauler and the Puppy Linux user community to speak up against anyone who would resort to threats of violence to defend their distro. Indeed, I’d like to see some of that community speak up against the personal attacks on me in general. Do you believe there should be “hell to pay” (quoting post #90 again) if someone has a bad experience with Puppy Linux and reports on it? |
|
|
Comments (56)
Whoah! Waaaiiiiiiiiitttttttt a minute.........
22 earlier comments in the full thread.
Thomas, I can only agree with you in part of that comment. If I am playing a game, then yes, role playing becomes a part of the immersion into that virtual setting. However, conversing on forums, IRC, jabber, ect takes on a different level. As the internet has become the preferred method of communication when face to face conversation is not possible or feasible allowing such distinctions becomes non sensible.
One should keep in mind (IMHO) that the difference between an e-mail or forum posting and snail mail is basically only the cost of postage. I don't believe that allowing the "virtual" distinction in a setting that is not subject to suspension of disbelief is appropriate. In many cases I can see where allowing that distinction would cloud issues and create more confusion.
You and I have conversed separately from LXer and I have listened to your webcast (I hate the term podcast), I have respect for your honesty and your positions. However in allowing for the "virtual" distinction one would then be forced to ask the question. "Is this person who appears to have integrity and knowledge of this subject, actually just blowing smoke?" "He seems to be on a rant, why should I bother to believe a thing he says ... its just virtual fluff after all anyway."
I know that personally, you, like I, subscribe to the theory of you own your words. You can perhaps see though where I have problems in allowing for the "virtual" distinction.
Again, this is only my opinion, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
Jim C.
One should keep in mind (IMHO) that the difference between an e-mail or forum posting and snail mail is basically only the cost of postage. I don't believe that allowing the "virtual" distinction in a setting that is not subject to suspension of disbelief is appropriate. In many cases I can see where allowing that distinction would cloud issues and create more confusion.
You and I have conversed separately from LXer and I have listened to your webcast (I hate the term podcast), I have respect for your honesty and your positions. However in allowing for the "virtual" distinction one would then be forced to ask the question. "Is this person who appears to have integrity and knowledge of this subject, actually just blowing smoke?" "He seems to be on a rant, why should I bother to believe a thing he says ... its just virtual fluff after all anyway."
I know that personally, you, like I, subscribe to the theory of you own your words. You can perhaps see though where I have problems in allowing for the "virtual" distinction.
Again, this is only my opinion, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
Jim C.
Quoting:When the Internet is treated as if it were real life...
Is a telephone conversation real life? After all, it's just electricity moving through wires. Nothing more, nothing less.
My point it this. Human interaction is real life. It doesn't matter if the tool used to achieve that interaction is the Internet or a bull-horn. It's still real life.
Telephoning another is closer to the real world per se as it involves two people speaking to each other rather than type. However, the difference between a phone call is that one can listen to the tone of voice on the other end to deduce the type of emotion. On the net however, it is different. Sure, there are emoticons, but not everyone uses them.
My point is this: If one feels physically threatened by someone who is not even in the same country and they are likely a good distance away from them (say hundreds to thousands of miles), then it may be time for the author in question to step away from the computer and go outside for a while. The post did no harm in my view, except say for a few egos.
For those who are curious, no, I don't subscribe to the post-9/11-be-very-afraid-syndrome, especially when it's just a forum post. Now, just one more question. Has this person in question done any other posts in that DW thread that are similar? If not, then I believe it's safe to say they simply were fed up, and communicated poorly.
My point is this: If one feels physically threatened by someone who is not even in the same country and they are likely a good distance away from them (say hundreds to thousands of miles), then it may be time for the author in question to step away from the computer and go outside for a while. The post did no harm in my view, except say for a few egos.
For those who are curious, no, I don't subscribe to the post-9/11-be-very-afraid-syndrome, especially when it's just a forum post. Now, just one more question. Has this person in question done any other posts in that DW thread that are similar? If not, then I believe it's safe to say they simply were fed up, and communicated poorly.
Whoops. Forgot one more thing. If the person in question is from Canada like that post says they are, then it's useless to call the FBI..... Assuming they actually are from Canada, there isn't a thing that Federal law enforcement here can do really.
> Assuming they actually are from Canada, there isn't a thing that Federal law enforcement here can do really.
Sure they can. They can forward the results of their investigation to Canadian officials and request that they investigate. They can also determine that a crime has been committed under US law and ask for extradition. Canada doesn't have to do either, of course, but they probably would.
Sure they can. They can forward the results of their investigation to Canadian officials and request that they investigate. They can also determine that a crime has been committed under US law and ask for extradition. Canada doesn't have to do either, of course, but they probably would.
Reason why I said it was useless: Another individual by the name of Jeff called several people in Somerset County, Pennsylvania concerning the crash of Flight 93, and a photo of said crash that the person thought was fake. He recorded the conversation. Authorities were called, but.... as long as he doesn't enter the U.S., there's nothing that can be done, as Canada decided not to do anything in that instance.
>Reason why I said it was useless:
Might be different in this case. There is an extradition treaty between the United States and Canada. Some things are not extraditable and some things are. Some things grant discretion and some things don't. I'm a guessin' death threats come under the some things are category.
Again -- the problem is not that the writer is seriously making a death threat. The problem is that there is no clear bright line way to distinguish between somebody who is seriously making a death threat online and somebody who is play acting.
Might be different in this case. There is an extradition treaty between the United States and Canada. Some things are not extraditable and some things are. Some things grant discretion and some things don't. I'm a guessin' death threats come under the some things are category.
Again -- the problem is not that the writer is seriously making a death threat. The problem is that there is no clear bright line way to distinguish between somebody who is seriously making a death threat online and somebody who is play acting.
No clear cut way? Possibly. However, there is a way of deducing the likelihood of seriousness, and from what I have seen, it is very, very low, if not non-existent altogether. How do we know that when the person said DEAD right, they weren't referring to a label on the "right wing" in politics in the U.S. in general (it's sort of a play on the words "dead center" from my understanding of it)?
nixed -
Why are you making such a determined effort not to downplay the seriousness of this issue? We all agree that it's not very likely to be a serious threat. But we don't know. And - oh, wrap your logic around this -- if it's so freakin' clear cut, how come the rest of us don't seem able to get it. Are we all really just that stupid.
Again, I strongly suggest that you go back and read letters from people like the Zodiac killer, Son of Sam, etc. and tell me you can't see a resemblance in tone.
BTW - I noticed that, even as you try so hard to defend your position, you typed "dead center", not "DEAD center". Telling oversight?
Why are you making such a determined effort not to downplay the seriousness of this issue? We all agree that it's not very likely to be a serious threat. But we don't know. And - oh, wrap your logic around this -- if it's so freakin' clear cut, how come the rest of us don't seem able to get it. Are we all really just that stupid.
Again, I strongly suggest that you go back and read letters from people like the Zodiac killer, Son of Sam, etc. and tell me you can't see a resemblance in tone.
BTW - I noticed that, even as you try so hard to defend your position, you typed "dead center", not "DEAD center". Telling oversight?
Dino,
Sorry. I don't subscribe to being paranoid.
"if it's so freakin' clear cut"
Did I say that it was? Where did I say it was so? If you'll recall, my last post said something like this:
"No clear cut way? Possibly."
The whole point was about probability, and I feel the probability of said message being a threat to be minimal. Poor choice of wording? Absolutely. Death threat? I'm thinking no.
"BTW - I noticed that, even as you try so hard to defend your position, you typed "dead center", not "DEAD center". Telling oversight?"
No, just another red herring being thrown into this debate by you I'm afraid.
Sorry. I don't subscribe to being paranoid.
"if it's so freakin' clear cut"
Did I say that it was? Where did I say it was so? If you'll recall, my last post said something like this:
"No clear cut way? Possibly."
The whole point was about probability, and I feel the probability of said message being a threat to be minimal. Poor choice of wording? Absolutely. Death threat? I'm thinking no.
"BTW - I noticed that, even as you try so hard to defend your position, you typed "dead center", not "DEAD center". Telling oversight?"
No, just another red herring being thrown into this debate by you I'm afraid.
>The whole point was about probability, and I feel the probability of said message being a threat to be minimal.
Sigh. Why do you have such a blind spot here? You are avoiding the plain and rational truth with every fiber of your being.
The chances are actually pretty low that you'll kill somebody any time you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking.
The chances are pretty low that you'll get hit by a train if you make a quick dash at the crossing.
The chances are pretty low that you'll overdose on heroin/cocaine/meth/whathaveyou any time you take it.
The chances are pretty low that your kid will blow himself away if you leave an unlocked gun in the house.
The chances are pretty low that you'll get into a fatal accident.
And yet, various places have enacted laws against drunk driving, crossing in front of a train, using dangerous drugs, leaving guns unlocked in a house with children, and not using seat belts. We invest a lot of energy into preventing things that aren't actually very likely in any single instance.
But they happen.
You can run away from reality all you want. After all, it's not your life. it's somebody else's. That makes it all ok, I guess.
Sigh. Why do you have such a blind spot here? You are avoiding the plain and rational truth with every fiber of your being.
The chances are actually pretty low that you'll kill somebody any time you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking.
The chances are pretty low that you'll get hit by a train if you make a quick dash at the crossing.
The chances are pretty low that you'll overdose on heroin/cocaine/meth/whathaveyou any time you take it.
The chances are pretty low that your kid will blow himself away if you leave an unlocked gun in the house.
The chances are pretty low that you'll get into a fatal accident.
And yet, various places have enacted laws against drunk driving, crossing in front of a train, using dangerous drugs, leaving guns unlocked in a house with children, and not using seat belts. We invest a lot of energy into preventing things that aren't actually very likely in any single instance.
But they happen.
You can run away from reality all you want. After all, it's not your life. it's somebody else's. That makes it all ok, I guess.
A couple of quotes from commenters here sum up my feelings exactly:
"Whether the person intended it as a threat or not is unknowable. There is no doubt that it can be taken as a threat. In such a case, the only prudent thing to do is notify law enforcement."
"My take ... online or off, you own your words. They reflect upon you as a person, and if one's rantings online would garner the interest of law enforcement if you said them offline, then that is the effect that one should expect."
"No. The internet, in this case, is merely the medium. The message came from some unbalanced human being sitting at a keyboard. We can be certain that the person is unbalanced from the message. What we can not know is the nature and extent of the imbalance. The person may be completely harmless."
I do believe the person who wrote the semi-coherent ramblings which ended in the death threat is probably harmless. The problem I have is that I can't know that for sure, can I? The person who e-mailed me to inform me of what was happening on DWW saw it as a real threat. Since I can't be sure it is only prudent to treat it that way.
Someone suggested that I have nothing to worry about since this individual is in Canada. It is way too easy to travel between the U.S. and Canada for me to assume he's too far away to harm me. I've driven across the border many times. I show some ID, state why I'm visiting Canada, and the border officer a nice visit. Entering the U.S. is about the same.
In any case, the whole idea that someone would issue a death threat because I reported a problem with a distro is pretty much insane from my perspective. I make no assumptions about what an insane person might or might not do.
"Whether the person intended it as a threat or not is unknowable. There is no doubt that it can be taken as a threat. In such a case, the only prudent thing to do is notify law enforcement."
"My take ... online or off, you own your words. They reflect upon you as a person, and if one's rantings online would garner the interest of law enforcement if you said them offline, then that is the effect that one should expect."
"No. The internet, in this case, is merely the medium. The message came from some unbalanced human being sitting at a keyboard. We can be certain that the person is unbalanced from the message. What we can not know is the nature and extent of the imbalance. The person may be completely harmless."
I do believe the person who wrote the semi-coherent ramblings which ended in the death threat is probably harmless. The problem I have is that I can't know that for sure, can I? The person who e-mailed me to inform me of what was happening on DWW saw it as a real threat. Since I can't be sure it is only prudent to treat it that way.
Someone suggested that I have nothing to worry about since this individual is in Canada. It is way too easy to travel between the U.S. and Canada for me to assume he's too far away to harm me. I've driven across the border many times. I show some ID, state why I'm visiting Canada, and the border officer a nice visit. Entering the U.S. is about the same.
In any case, the whole idea that someone would issue a death threat because I reported a problem with a distro is pretty much insane from my perspective. I make no assumptions about what an insane person might or might not do.
I'm going to respond to Thomas since, while I disagree with all he has said, he certainly has been civil in his disgreement and I do respect him for that:
"For those who are curious, no, I don't subscribe to the post-9/11-be-very-afraid-syndrome, especially when it's just a forum post."
As some people know I am an Israeli-American. I do subscribe to what Thomas describes as a "syndrome" because I have seen threats carried out. I know there are people in this world who want to kill me just because of my ethnicity, religion, and nationality.
"Now, just one more question. Has this person in question done any other posts in that DW thread that are similar? If not, then I believe it's safe to say they simply were fed up, and communicated poorly."
You are probably right. The operative word, though, is probably. As I said in the comments section of my post on the O'Reilly Linux Dev Center blog my first reaction was to not take this seriously. A close friend read the post on DWW and told me that I had better take it seriously just in case. She suggested I call the FBI. I decided she was right. I also decided to shine a light on what I see as a cancer in the Linux community and not just the Puppy Linux community. Fanaticism and zealotry only hurt Linux adoption and make us all look bad.
"Whoops. Forgot one more thing. If the person in question is from Canada like that post says they are, then it's useless to call the FBI..... Assuming they actually are from Canada, there isn't a thing that Federal law enforcement here can do really."
Not so. The FBI works hand in hand with similar national law enforcement agencies around the world including in Canada. If the person who wrote the threat does get a visit it will undoubtedly by by Canadian authorities, possibly with an FBI agent present.
"For those who are curious, no, I don't subscribe to the post-9/11-be-very-afraid-syndrome, especially when it's just a forum post."
As some people know I am an Israeli-American. I do subscribe to what Thomas describes as a "syndrome" because I have seen threats carried out. I know there are people in this world who want to kill me just because of my ethnicity, religion, and nationality.
"Now, just one more question. Has this person in question done any other posts in that DW thread that are similar? If not, then I believe it's safe to say they simply were fed up, and communicated poorly."
You are probably right. The operative word, though, is probably. As I said in the comments section of my post on the O'Reilly Linux Dev Center blog my first reaction was to not take this seriously. A close friend read the post on DWW and told me that I had better take it seriously just in case. She suggested I call the FBI. I decided she was right. I also decided to shine a light on what I see as a cancer in the Linux community and not just the Puppy Linux community. Fanaticism and zealotry only hurt Linux adoption and make us all look bad.
"Whoops. Forgot one more thing. If the person in question is from Canada like that post says they are, then it's useless to call the FBI..... Assuming they actually are from Canada, there isn't a thing that Federal law enforcement here can do really."
Not so. The FBI works hand in hand with similar national law enforcement agencies around the world including in Canada. If the person who wrote the threat does get a visit it will undoubtedly by by Canadian authorities, possibly with an FBI agent present.
"Not so. The FBI works hand in hand with similar national law enforcement agencies around the world including in Canada."
On an isolated incident such as this? I'm thinking possibly not. If it were repeated, I could see it. Again, I'm citing that argument based on another case in which an individual from Canada was calling people (and recording the conversation) in the Somerset County area of Pennsylvania concerning Flight 93 and the Val McClatchey photo (of the smoke plume). When I asked them about it, they informed me that as long as they did not enter the U.S., they would be fine (law enforcement was contacted btw). Also, I heard about the requirement of a passport when traveling from this country to Canada (or to Mexico and somewhere else... I forget) via USA Radio News, which is syndicated on several radio networks, thus in my mind, the probability of the threat being diminished.
On an isolated incident such as this? I'm thinking possibly not. If it were repeated, I could see it. Again, I'm citing that argument based on another case in which an individual from Canada was calling people (and recording the conversation) in the Somerset County area of Pennsylvania concerning Flight 93 and the Val McClatchey photo (of the smoke plume). When I asked them about it, they informed me that as long as they did not enter the U.S., they would be fine (law enforcement was contacted btw). Also, I heard about the requirement of a passport when traveling from this country to Canada (or to Mexico and somewhere else... I forget) via USA Radio News, which is syndicated on several radio networks, thus in my mind, the probability of the threat being diminished.
Wake up people! The threat from Puppy Linux is real.
Consider the evidence: 1.) It's fans are rabid. 2.) It comes from a nation that distributes a mind-altering chemical worldwide (Fosters). 3.) It loads itself into memory like a virus.
The other day, my neighbor's chihuahua, foaming at the mouth, lunged at me. Safe in my apartment, I began to wonder, perhaps there is something to these charges against Puppy Linux after all, so I did an investigation of its creator, Barry Kauler. What did I find?
That this linux is in fact the first step towards Aussie world domination. Look at the picture at the top of this page: http://puppylinux.org/wikka/AboutPuppy/
What do you see over the BLOOD-RED word "PUPPY" (sounds innocent doesn't it?)? A chihuhua with a poppy flower in its mouth. This raises some questions:
A.) What is an outbacker doing with Mexican dogs in the first place? answer 1: He is training an army of attack dogs in a remote desert region, they have to come from a similar locale, the desert, to survive. answer 2: He can easily have this army of Mexican dogs "emigrate" into the U.S. under the nose of immigration officials unnoticed. Clever, eh?
B.) Why is the dog wearing a military hat? answer: It is a diabolical downunder deed, a plot to take over North America, starting with promoting Linux, an operating system known to confuse and intimidate the unsuspecting, innocent Windows users who were minding their own business when this upstart creates mayhem.
C.) Why does the dog have a poppy flower in it's mouth? answer: It is well known that Tasmania is one of the world's leading producers of Opium poppies. Kauler is obviously drugging him to make him take ANY orders on command, no matter how viscious.
I have received word from others who are watching the Puppy Linux trend that Kauler is also the master-mind of the Roo Virus. It hops from computer to computer and unleashes a pouch-full of evil outback code. We have only one message to Barry Kauler: just drink your bloody stubbies, watch footie, and leave the rest of us alone!
Linux Unleashed, indeed!
Consider the evidence: 1.) It's fans are rabid. 2.) It comes from a nation that distributes a mind-altering chemical worldwide (Fosters). 3.) It loads itself into memory like a virus.
The other day, my neighbor's chihuahua, foaming at the mouth, lunged at me. Safe in my apartment, I began to wonder, perhaps there is something to these charges against Puppy Linux after all, so I did an investigation of its creator, Barry Kauler. What did I find?
That this linux is in fact the first step towards Aussie world domination. Look at the picture at the top of this page: http://puppylinux.org/wikka/AboutPuppy/
What do you see over the BLOOD-RED word "PUPPY" (sounds innocent doesn't it?)? A chihuhua with a poppy flower in its mouth. This raises some questions:
A.) What is an outbacker doing with Mexican dogs in the first place? answer 1: He is training an army of attack dogs in a remote desert region, they have to come from a similar locale, the desert, to survive. answer 2: He can easily have this army of Mexican dogs "emigrate" into the U.S. under the nose of immigration officials unnoticed. Clever, eh?
B.) Why is the dog wearing a military hat? answer: It is a diabolical downunder deed, a plot to take over North America, starting with promoting Linux, an operating system known to confuse and intimidate the unsuspecting, innocent Windows users who were minding their own business when this upstart creates mayhem.
C.) Why does the dog have a poppy flower in it's mouth? answer: It is well known that Tasmania is one of the world's leading producers of Opium poppies. Kauler is obviously drugging him to make him take ANY orders on command, no matter how viscious.
I have received word from others who are watching the Puppy Linux trend that Kauler is also the master-mind of the Roo Virus. It hops from computer to computer and unleashes a pouch-full of evil outback code. We have only one message to Barry Kauler: just drink your bloody stubbies, watch footie, and leave the rest of us alone!
Linux Unleashed, indeed!
Resurrecting one thread from the boneyard was plenty, thanks.
I agree, your post was funny but copying and pasting it to multiple threads cheapens it.
How does copying and pasting to multiple threads cheapen a story?
samben
samben
He had a funny post and everyone who was interested in the story the thread is attached to saw it, there ws no need to copy it to another thread attached to the same story.
idiots
It seems to me that as the linux community is growing, the amount of idiots in it is also growing.
There isn't much we can do about it. The best way is to totally ignore the assholes, but.........it's rather difficult, as we all like to defend whatever we love.
There isn't much we can do about it. The best way is to totally ignore the assholes, but.........it's rather difficult, as we all like to defend whatever we love.
The problem is the individual in question stated that they weren't a regular Puppy Linux user. Go to the Distrowatch Weekly thread, and look at comment #90 again.... the beginning part.
>The problem is the individual in question
The problem is that the individual in question is a moron who posted something on the internet that could be read as a death threat, whether intended that way or not.
The problem is that the individual in question is a moron who posted something on the internet that could be read as a death threat, whether intended that way or not.
I agree what they did was not wise. What I am arguing is that there is the implication, or appearance, that it was a supporter of Puppy Linux that said those words when they stated that they were not a regular user of Puppy Linux and only used a CD for troubleshooting issues they were having with their own equipment. The point they appeared to be attempting to make was this: instead of complaining about the problem, they decided to do some troubleshooting of said problem.
>What I am arguing is that there is the implication, or appearance, that it was a supporter of Puppy Linux
Who cares?
In this case, that matters about as much as the poster's preference for eggs sunnyside up or over easy.
I seriously doubt that anybody blamed the Beatles for the Manson family murders, even though Charles Manson claimed to receive code messages in their music. Helter Skelter, man.
Who cares?
In this case, that matters about as much as the poster's preference for eggs sunnyside up or over easy.
I seriously doubt that anybody blamed the Beatles for the Manson family murders, even though Charles Manson claimed to receive code messages in their music. Helter Skelter, man.
Yes, it's rather like Enderle, Darl, and the other SCO idiots accusing FOSS supporters of issuing death threats and DDoS attacks. I don't have any linkies handy, but I do recall many credible articles debunking the DDoS guff, and ole Darl only had that bodyguard around long enough for photo ops.
Who cares? I do. If in the title it says that a supporter gave out a death threat, then I expect the one who allegedly did so was actually a supporter of that distro, but.... they weren't even a regular user (and stated as such, rather poorly I might add, in their post).
As for tuxchick, right on. The problem here is that when someone says something, I expect their information to be accurate and not spun to make things look like what they aren't. It's the same as when I post an article here, and I expect people to scrutinize it and tell me when I've been an idiot, etc...
As for tuxchick, right on. The problem here is that when someone says something, I expect their information to be accurate and not spun to make things look like what they aren't. It's the same as when I post an article here, and I expect people to scrutinize it and tell me when I've been an idiot, etc...
Linux people are supposed to be weird.
Weird is fine, but we can do without the "death to the infidels" demographic.
Wake up people! The threat from Puppy Linux is real.
Consider the evidence: 1.) It's fans are rabid. 2.) It comes from a nation that distributes a mind-altering chemical worldwide (Fosters). 3.) It loads itself into memory like a virus.
The other day, my neighbor's chihuahua, foaming at the mouth, lunged at me. Safe in my apartment, I began to wonder, perhaps there is something to these charges against Puppy Linux after all, so I did an investigation of its creator, Barry Kauler. What did I find?
That this linux is in fact the first step towards Aussie world domination. Look at the picture at the top of this page: http://puppylinux.org/wikka/AboutPuppy/
What do you see over the BLOOD-RED word "PUPPY" (sounds innocent doesn't it?)? A chihuhua with a poppy flower in its mouth. This raises some questions:
A.) What is an outbacker doing with Mexican dogs in the first place? answer 1: He is training an army of attack dogs in a remote desert region, they have to come from a similar locale, the desert, to survive. answer 2: He can easily have this army of Mexican dogs "emigrate" into the U.S. under the nose of immigration officials unnoticed. Clever, eh?
B.) Why is the dog wearing a military hat? answer: It is a diabolical downunder deed, a plot to take over North America, starting with promoting Linux, an operating system known to confuse and intimidate the unsuspecting, innocent Windows users who were minding their own business when this upstart creates mayhem.
C.) Why does the dog have a poppy flower in it's mouth? answer: It is well known that Tasmania is one of the world's leading producers of Opium poppies. Kauler is obviously drugging him to make him take ANY orders on command, no matter how viscious.
I have received word from others who are watching the Puppy Linux trend that Kauler is also the master-mind of the Roo Virus. It hops from computer to computer and unleashes a pouch-full of evil outback code. We have only one message to Barry Kauler: just drink your bloody stubbies, watch footie, and leave the rest of us alone!
Linux Unleashed, indeed!
Consider the evidence: 1.) It's fans are rabid. 2.) It comes from a nation that distributes a mind-altering chemical worldwide (Fosters). 3.) It loads itself into memory like a virus.
The other day, my neighbor's chihuahua, foaming at the mouth, lunged at me. Safe in my apartment, I began to wonder, perhaps there is something to these charges against Puppy Linux after all, so I did an investigation of its creator, Barry Kauler. What did I find?
That this linux is in fact the first step towards Aussie world domination. Look at the picture at the top of this page: http://puppylinux.org/wikka/AboutPuppy/
What do you see over the BLOOD-RED word "PUPPY" (sounds innocent doesn't it?)? A chihuhua with a poppy flower in its mouth. This raises some questions:
A.) What is an outbacker doing with Mexican dogs in the first place? answer 1: He is training an army of attack dogs in a remote desert region, they have to come from a similar locale, the desert, to survive. answer 2: He can easily have this army of Mexican dogs "emigrate" into the U.S. under the nose of immigration officials unnoticed. Clever, eh?
B.) Why is the dog wearing a military hat? answer: It is a diabolical downunder deed, a plot to take over North America, starting with promoting Linux, an operating system known to confuse and intimidate the unsuspecting, innocent Windows users who were minding their own business when this upstart creates mayhem.
C.) Why does the dog have a poppy flower in it's mouth? answer: It is well known that Tasmania is one of the world's leading producers of Opium poppies. Kauler is obviously drugging him to make him take ANY orders on command, no matter how viscious.
I have received word from others who are watching the Puppy Linux trend that Kauler is also the master-mind of the Roo Virus. It hops from computer to computer and unleashes a pouch-full of evil outback code. We have only one message to Barry Kauler: just drink your bloody stubbies, watch footie, and leave the rest of us alone!
Linux Unleashed, indeed!
The_Joker, You need a chin strap for that tin-foil helmet, it seems to be slipping.
But I believe everything you said.
But I believe everything you said.
Joker, your hilarious and I am with you all the way!
Darn dogs with their outlaw Linux OS!!
LOL!!
Darn dogs with their outlaw Linux OS!!
LOL!!
Gee. My conspiracy theories are just too _dull_. No beer.
Bob, Hey I believe yours also, all of them. Even the true ones.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
No. The internet, in this case, is merely the medium. The message came from some unbalanced human being sitting at a keyboard. We can be certain that the person is unbalanced from the message. What we can not know is the nature and extent of the imbalance. The person may be completely harmless. The person may also be the next Robert John Bardo, Ted Kaczynski, Marc David Chapman, John Hinckley, jr.
I don't know the answer to that and neither do you.