RJK890
Lone Wolf
So... Not to criticize David here, but he is (at least part of,) the problem that plagues our society... I am sure that is not offensive to him at all.
Watch out Dan, that may have been a hate crime.
-
Responding to email notices you receive.
**************************************************
In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.
-
IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed
=====================
Posted 08/15/2025
=====================
Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.
Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."
Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....
=====================
Addendum: 01/10/2026
=====================
Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....
What constitutes a hate crime?
- Thread starter The BoidSmith
- Start date
So... Not to criticize David here, but he is (at least part of,) the problem that plagues our society... I am sure that is not offensive to him at all.
Watch out Dan, that may have been a hate crime.
SPJ
Well-known member
Everyone has the right to offend anyone.
That is what the email was. It was offensive.
If, there was a threat made in the offensive email against the person getting it, maybe it could be prosecuted. If there was an actual altercation and the offensive words were used during it, then it could be prosecuted as a hate crime. For now it is just an offensive email IMO. You are allowed to offend people in this country whether you like it or not.
That is what the email was. It was offensive.
If, there was a threat made in the offensive email against the person getting it, maybe it could be prosecuted. If there was an actual altercation and the offensive words were used during it, then it could be prosecuted as a hate crime. For now it is just an offensive email IMO. You are allowed to offend people in this country whether you like it or not.
deborahbroadus
HARD CANDY
I happen to agree with Dan. Too many people let this kind of behavior continue. Our nation is going to hell in a handbasket because too many of us are afraid to take a stand for anything. I don't surround myself or even have any friends that would talk to anyone like this.
I would not think it was funny if one of my friends sent an email like this, and I certainly would not be attempting to minimize the importance of showing that it's not acceptable behavior; and I would not claim that person again as a friend who did such a thing, but that's my right..that's my decision. See, I honestly do believe that we are judged by the company we keep.
Look around you...look at your friends, look at their friend list..how many on that friend list are acknowledged BGs? Go join them. Dan is trying to do the right thing by TAKING A STAND THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT ACCEPTED AMONG REASONABLE PEOPLE. I applaude his efforts.
I mean, why would anyone try and defend this email? What joy/jusification does anyone possibly get from denying that it is a CRIME?
I may not try and persecute it, because the damage was minimal, and the exposure of the act was just recompense.
All a lot of you have done is expose your ignorance, and add yourselves to lists of those that don't tolerate these kinds of behaviors and show it by actions.
I would not think it was funny if one of my friends sent an email like this, and I certainly would not be attempting to minimize the importance of showing that it's not acceptable behavior; and I would not claim that person again as a friend who did such a thing, but that's my right..that's my decision. See, I honestly do believe that we are judged by the company we keep.
Look around you...look at your friends, look at their friend list..how many on that friend list are acknowledged BGs? Go join them. Dan is trying to do the right thing by TAKING A STAND THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT ACCEPTED AMONG REASONABLE PEOPLE. I applaude his efforts.
I mean, why would anyone try and defend this email? What joy/jusification does anyone possibly get from denying that it is a CRIME?
I may not try and persecute it, because the damage was minimal, and the exposure of the act was just recompense.All a lot of you have done is expose your ignorance, and add yourselves to lists of those that don't tolerate these kinds of behaviors and show it by actions.
SPJ
Well-known member
It's not acceptable but it's also NOT a hate crime. 
What’s really surprising of this thread is not that there are people that dismiss this. What’s really astounding is that all those self-proclaimed good guys do not voice their opinions on this topic. Talking is cheap but you have to show what your are made of silence is golden. At least we now are beginning to know who is who.
RJK890
Lone Wolf
Could it be that there are Good Guys / Gals that have a different opinion then you do ?
Or would having a different opinion then yours make them Bad Guys / Gals ?
Having the opinion that offending someone is not a crime, and certainly not a "hate crime," is not the same thing as supporting a Bad Guy or condoning the offensive message that was left on Debs FB wall.
Get over it.
Of course Bob, that's exactly why the question was asked. Are they good people or just people who never had a business problem? Let us show everyone what everyone is made of. There's a difference between hatred, racism or ethnocentrism and insults. Do people know the difference?
RJK890
Lone Wolf
Is that a threat of violence ?
OMG, It's a hate crime !!!
(Just kidding Deb, I am sure you are talking about y'alls DNBFOST list, and the "actions" that you are referring to, are actually the "inactions" of not dealing with us.
Not because we are racists, and called you the " N " word, or because we made fun of a physical handicap like being hearing impaired, but simply because we do not feel like someone posting such an offensive message on your FB wall constitutes a federal case or a hate crime.)
Dan, My name is Rob not Bob.
Sorry, Rob; it was not intentional. After all you were the only one on this site that stood for his convictions, at least you entertained the possibility. For me, it's over. I'm really disillusioned with people to the point that I don't care anymore. There seems to be a confusion between good guys (those that don't have bad business transactions) and good people. In the words of a politician about the dictatorship in Egypt: "President Mubarak needs to be treated as he's deserved over the years, he has been a good friend, not only to the United States but a lot of other folks that we do business with". From there down anything goes...
Maybe it's because you never really defined what it is you expect people to do in order to earn your label of being "good people". Perhaps to some people your quest seems far too "Don Quixote" like in nature.
In my own case, it appears that this thread resulted from your irritation that I was not inclined to ban people or persons who have made racist and derogatory comments on one or more other sites about one or more members here on this site. So your interpretation of people concluding that although they don't condone such actions done by others and it is really not within their responsibility nor authority to actually DO anything about it, either legally or ethically, is enough for you to condemn THEM as being not "good people".
Randall Turner
Well-known member
I have a question, where does hateful words turn into hate crimes? Is a heated argument that goes to mud slinging not just a heated discussion? Or is the immediate use of disgusting words or offensive words considered a hate crime? Just about anyone who has been in a heated argument with someone they knew well can attest to things that are hurtful and mean are said. Does that mean hate crimes are going on in every neighborhood around the nation? Or are people putting the cart before the horse here. Now if the reason for the verbal (or worse) attack are because of someones race/religion/disability/gender/sexual orientation/etc etc then a discussion as to the validity of it being a hate crime can be had.
If we want to go with blanket coverage then a large swath of the people who frequent chat have been the perpetrators of hate crimes (Deb and myself included, if for no other reason then the insulting and demeaning things we have both said about/to a particular chat goer.)
If we want to go with blanket coverage then a large swath of the people who frequent chat have been the perpetrators of hate crimes (Deb and myself included, if for no other reason then the insulting and demeaning things we have both said about/to a particular chat goer.)
deborahbroadus
HARD CANDY
When someone attacks me first, they are fair game. As long as they are responding in kind, I have no issue with defending myself and airing out my responses to behaviors directed at me. Opinions aired between acquaintances are not crimes.I suggest people do their own research on what constitutes a hate crime. My research showed E-mails as being listed as a crime (when combined with other actions such as frequency, etc...)
There are good and thoughtful people here, and they do not tolerate the kind of behavior that is in issue. You are not recognizing that.
Dennis Hultman
New member
deborahbroadus
HARD CANDY
Oh, ok. I was reading it as "Sending emails does not constitute as a crime" A general blanket statement. Thanks for clearing that up.
Mister Internet
New member
Something can't be a "hate crime" all by itself... "hate crime" is an aggravating factor applied to an ACTUAL CRIME. So, in order for a hate crime to occur, by definition an actual crime has to have occurred, aggravated by an impossible-to-quantify "hate factor".
In the instance in question, no actual crime was committed, therefore a "hate crime" cannot have been committed. "Hate crime" is not a moralistic or metaphysical term we can just arbitrarily use to describe bigoted or racial behavior... it means ACTUAL CRIME.
Now, if such messages were sent with regularity, consistently using the epithets in question, with the intent to harm, hurt, or harass, then a criminal complaint could be made. Then, and ONLY THEN, does a potential aggravating factor constituting a "hate crime" come into play.
If I walk by a black person on the street and call them a "n-word", I have not committed a hate crime. If I accost a black person on the street physically and call them a "n-word" in the process, I may have committed a "hate crime", but only because I committed an ACTUAL CRIME (assault/battery).
I personally think the terms and laws surrounding "hate crime" are stupid in the extreme... it borders on thought police/nanny state mentality, and I'm not sure we want our society going that direction if we want to retain our freedom of the press and of speech. I think a crime is a crime, and whether or not you hate the color of my skin is rather irrelevant to the harm you caused me.
But the fact remains, an ACTUAL CRIME has to have been committed in order for a "hate crime" to have been committed.
In the instance in question, no actual crime was committed, therefore a "hate crime" cannot have been committed. "Hate crime" is not a moralistic or metaphysical term we can just arbitrarily use to describe bigoted or racial behavior... it means ACTUAL CRIME.
Now, if such messages were sent with regularity, consistently using the epithets in question, with the intent to harm, hurt, or harass, then a criminal complaint could be made. Then, and ONLY THEN, does a potential aggravating factor constituting a "hate crime" come into play.
If I walk by a black person on the street and call them a "n-word", I have not committed a hate crime. If I accost a black person on the street physically and call them a "n-word" in the process, I may have committed a "hate crime", but only because I committed an ACTUAL CRIME (assault/battery).
I personally think the terms and laws surrounding "hate crime" are stupid in the extreme... it borders on thought police/nanny state mentality, and I'm not sure we want our society going that direction if we want to retain our freedom of the press and of speech. I think a crime is a crime, and whether or not you hate the color of my skin is rather irrelevant to the harm you caused me.
But the fact remains, an ACTUAL CRIME has to have been committed in order for a "hate crime" to have been committed.
That's all well and good, but who is it that is tasked with ENFORCING such a law and punishing the perpetrators? From what I have been gathering from Dan's posts, he expects everyone to form some sort of internet vigilante task force to deal with this issue. To do what? Banishment? Stoning? Hanging? Firing squad? And apparently he is upset that no one appears inclined to do so.
If someone has actually broken such a law outside of this site, then it needs to be taken to the proper authorities responsible for it's enforcement, which is no one here that I am aware of. No one on this site has any authority nor responsibility to do anything concerning what someone does anywhere else in the world.
deborahbroadus
HARD CANDY
Bear with me as I try to explain where I am going with this:
When you and Kevin were posting information about the airport scanning machines and (I got the feeling) in an uproar because the "sheeple" were not taking action against the Airports, I understood what you were trying to say. Since there's no way to have an "organized" effort, and no one seemed to want to take the lead, it boiled down to individual decisions.
My personal decision, as a result of the information gleaned from the airport scanners thread was not to support that system. I don't fly, I don't pay for tickets, I use alternative means of transportation (so far), and I encourage my family to do the same. It comes back to rights, people have the right to decide how they will act in absence of any concerted effort to act as a organized group?
I think and believe that perhaps Dan was pointing out that the power to reduce such behavior relies on our individual decisions on how to act towards people that are exposed as behaving in the nature revealed by Jas and Joe and hoping that people would voice their decisions?
Lucille: I didn't see the thread as a means of "guilting" anyone. How can a whole race be responsible for the actions of a few? It is reduced to individual right to decide how one will respond to the exposed behavior. My decision is not to buy from such people, and not to buy from those that support him. That is my right and that is how I will show displeasure in the behavior exposed here.
When you and Kevin were posting information about the airport scanning machines and (I got the feeling) in an uproar because the "sheeple" were not taking action against the Airports, I understood what you were trying to say. Since there's no way to have an "organized" effort, and no one seemed to want to take the lead, it boiled down to individual decisions.
My personal decision, as a result of the information gleaned from the airport scanners thread was not to support that system. I don't fly, I don't pay for tickets, I use alternative means of transportation (so far), and I encourage my family to do the same. It comes back to rights, people have the right to decide how they will act in absence of any concerted effort to act as a organized group?
I think and believe that perhaps Dan was pointing out that the power to reduce such behavior relies on our individual decisions on how to act towards people that are exposed as behaving in the nature revealed by Jas and Joe and hoping that people would voice their decisions?
Lucille: I didn't see the thread as a means of "guilting" anyone. How can a whole race be responsible for the actions of a few? It is reduced to individual right to decide how one will respond to the exposed behavior. My decision is not to buy from such people, and not to buy from those that support him. That is my right and that is how I will show displeasure in the behavior exposed here.
I ABSOLUTELY agree, and I also would not in any way financially support such behavior. It is incomprehensible to me how someone could see such behavior and then make a purchase from such a person.
Yes. If you don't like the policies in place at the airports, then simply don't frequent the airports. Hence my recommendation that people just not frequent such places on the web where they will be exposed to that kind of talk with no apparent policies against it. If you choose to walk down a dark alley where you know there are no police on duty and it is quite likely you will get mugged, and you do so anyway because you WANT to, then whose fault is that if you DO get mugged? The internet is filled with more places to go at the click of a button than anyone has ever had available in the history of the human race. It just does not make sense to go someplace where you will be exposed to other peoples' actions that you would prefer not to have to endure.
Perhaps. I would have to read that thread on the BOI again that this all stemmed from. But my impression was that Dan was quite perturbed that I did not ban Joe from this site because of his and/or John's postings on Facebook. That appears to me to go a bit beyond what you indicate Dan's intentions are.