That article was more of a summery of what happened.

Here is a more detailed story. I can't decide if it was jsutified or not.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/113404291329270.xml&coll=2

LET THERE BE NO CONFUSION=="nukedlou" IS NOT NUCLEARLOU. The intent to confuse is quite obvious and should not be overlooked.

Then perhaps you can explain this to us Nuclearlou:

http://www.rrg-wny.org/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20021123023418733& title=Radon%2C+etc..&pid=113

Radon, etc..

Authored by: NukeLou on Tuesday, November 26 2002 @ 05:20 PM EST

Hey there Nuke Food:
You really make us laugh. Have you EVER offered one piece of
help or offered advice. You have NOT posted anything of your own.
You have only taken pot shots at people who post here.
So far, you have not been courageous enough to even sign
your actual name(again.)
Your information is off and it is rather not nice of you to be
spreading misinformation.
If we didn't know better, we'd think you are a plant from the people
who used these
radioactive materials around OUR neighborhoods.
As for "proof," it is right under your nose.
This person may not have it--but I do.
There are two documents from
government sources that say that you are wrong.
Want to know what those two documents are..?
Yeah, sure you do. Sign your name and I'll tell you
where to look to correct your errors about Niagara County.
First it was me you attacked, then it was Dr. Rosalie Bertell,
now this person...
Apparently, you want us to believe that you are omnipotent
(that means Godlike).
So, you're the only one around these parts that
understands physics? Not likely.
You really should read ahead more than one chapter,
if you want to stay
ahead of the classroom curve by more than a day.
Cheers and sleep tight.
Drop us another note when you work your courage up enough
to let us
know that you're not a Bag Boy at Tops.
Louis Ricciuti
NiagaraNet@aol.com

Oh, btw-Who are you and what rank do you hold?
Cuz, there's not a resident around this county, or any other, that
would leave
messages like yours ;*)~
It only stands to reason that you work for an entity that
likes radiation.
For being military, there seems to be a real lack of fortitude--Dude!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Radon, etc..

Authored by: NukeLou on Wednesday, November 27 2002 @ 08:01 AM EST

"Reality"? O.K., here's reality...
>"conservative 4 pCi/L level set by the EPA than many other
>counties surrounding it. And Thoron (Rn-220) gas does not
>share the same half life (much shorter) as Radon (Rn-222)
>and therefore cannot be compared in the same light."
"Conservative", by who's standards?
Hmm-lets see--Thoron has a shorter half life than Radon.
This means that the material with the shorter half life is
MORE radioactive in this series. Thoron over Radon.
AND, since its half life comes AFTER the decay of Radon
(which we are told remains in the undertground cavity for
three days roughly.) Since the Thoron is produced AFTER the
RADON, wouldn't this mean that after the Radon leaves the
basement container in the 3.something days that the USACE claims
it takes for the Radon to be released into the surrounding atmosphere,
it seems that
Thoron would be released directly into the environment.
THEN, we need to be concerned about radioactive decay daughter
products.
These decay products are found in excess around this area, and,
they have contaminated all soil, air and water that they have come into
contact with.
Would you like to talk about what's in our food chain?
Livestock and gardens around LOOW and Niagara County?
You can say what you want about background. I have found the
truth about this in a government document..
Care to respond Nukeablefood?

Lou Ricciuti
NiagaraNet@aol.com
NukeLou

Recently I was asked to write an article on trolls for a group of board moderators on another website. I was very surprised that several of the people had little to no knowledge about trolls. It was suggested that I should make this information public in the hopes of helping others identify this threat.

I would first like to note that in my experiences on the Web, and as a site host, I have learned that a majority of the people who surf the Internet, post on message boards and chat rooms, and generally befriend each other, are real, legitimate, true, and honest people. Because of the dangers out there, some people may be more reluctant to share information and therefore can appear suspicious, but they are certainly not deceitful or out to intentionally hurt others.

There is a small group that are dishonest and deliberately target and attack others. The anonymous nature of internet life has allowed them to take advantage and downright hurt people. I am a true believer that the main defense against these individuals is education. I will also note that I don't claim to be an authority on this subject. As a site owner, I have done extensive research on this issue and therefore have had a lot of "hands on" experience dealing with trolls, giving me a significant amount of real life reference. I hope our readers will find this information helpful.

I thought a troll was something from a Lord of the Rings book?

The term troll comes from the word "trolling", not from the mythical green character; it means to drag a hook along a waterbed and hope you catch something. This is what these particular individuals do. They cast their bait--their stories, their drama, etc.--in the hopes someone will bite. They cause trouble on message boards, chat rooms, email groups, or other gathering places on the Web.

How can I tell someone is a troll?

You really can't, and that is usually the biggest problem. However, with time, you can learn certain indicators that can help identify a possible troll. I should note that one or two "odd" things does not mean someone is a troll. Truth is, some people have led unusual lives and sometimes life can be crazier than fiction. It is usually after an extended period, and after a significant number of "red flags", when you can truly suspect a troll.

There are several types of trolls. Different people have different names for them, but you'll find their tactics are basically the same:

Fake trolls -- These are people who are outright liars. They make up stories and fabricate a history so they can slip into a group and join them. They tend to surf the 'Net beforehand and gather pieces of real life stories of others, adding them to their own so they sound legitimate. They will do research on medical conditions so they can sound knowledgeable. You can usually see a pattern in these people. Their stories are often overly dramatic. They seem quick to share deeply personal information with strangers. When they talk about medical issues, it's almost textbook, like they are copying off a medical information sheet, or on the flip-side it is purely anecdotal with no references or proof to back it up.

The "real" troll. -- This is a real person who is probably completely honest about who they are and their family status. However, they are very needy people and tend to dominate conversations. They embellish their lives, exaggerating real stories to get sympathy and to make people like or love them. They seem to one-up everyone, always having had a better/worse/scarier/happier experience.

Real trolls may also be "mostly" true. Meaning, they may share their real name, email or home address, and other personal information as a way of authenticating themselves. But, they are a truly a combination of real and fake, in the sense they make up all the details of their lives (family status, medical condition, etc.) to slip into various groups.

A sub-set of the real troll is what I call the "vague troll." They are real people, but just so happen to be troublemakers. They usually are the type who in high school were in cliques, talked about other people, and liked to cause trouble for the "ha ha" factor. While it is arguable that they are not true trolls, these people can hurt a group since they cause trouble and alienate certain members of a community.

Destroyers -- The last type of troll really needs a totally different category. While their numbers represent a small fraction of the people on the Internet, this group is the most dangerous. They have one purpose, to break-up a site, group, etc. They start debates on controversial subjects for no other reason than to stir up trouble. They post hateful anonymous comments to cause confusion and upset between board members. They will flame a person (i.e. make a deliberate and personal attacking statement), or make generalized derogatory statements about a group, belief, practice, or other ideology. Don't be fooled, these people are not doing it because they have a need to express a belief or feeling; they use these deeply emotional issues to start arguments, "flame-wars", because they love to watch the chaos it causes. These people are troubled and have a need to hurt and destroy.

A sub-set of the Destroyers is the "Hard Luck Case." Another very dangerous group, they are outright con-artists. They know that people are good natured and want to help each other. They will join a group and endear themselves to the members. At first, they vaguely mention their problems, but things inevitably get worse. Whatever the story is, ultimately the person ends up with a need and asking for help. Sometimes it's the single mother who can't afford her rent; she may not ask outright, but she is quick to take the offers of money. Or it could be a need for baby stuff. One woman on an internet group was supposedly too poor to buy her baby necessities. She didn't want money--she just needed a diaper pail, car seat, etc. She got them, lots of them, and was found turning around and selling them on eBay. Of course, the typical cons are out there too--investments and get-rich schemes. These individuals belong in the destroyer group because they only worry about their gain. They don't care if they destroy a board with their lies, as long as they can make a profit. And ultimately, these people can destroy a board, since people get gun-shy after these types of incidents and are less willing to trust anyone again.

Regardless of what kind of troll you encounter, remember, they are dangerous. Even a person who is overly needy and constantly craves attention can be detrimental to a group if people start refraining from posting because they don't want to "start in" with that person.

What are some of the "red flags" you talked about?

Red flags are merely behavior that draws suspicion. Once again, I would advise that a member first be given the benefit of the doubt. As mentioned before, the truth is that we live in a hard world and there are people who have suffered and had very difficult lives. There are actual people who, through the power of prayer or positive thought, have obtained healings of medical conditions or had phenomenal things happen to help them in their lives. Some people have more of a need to share and talk about their problems as a way of dealing with them, while others may need to stay secretive about the details of their life to feel comfortable.

Keeping that in mind, here are some common tactics trolls use:

Confusion: One of the main ways to do this is to post anonymously. The troll will say something, not revealing who they are, and will cause suspicion and fear among a group. People will begin to wonder if one of their trusted members could be the anonymous poster, and it can seed great doubt. Many times these people are lurkers (individuals who visit a board and never post, thus not making their presence known), and thus they are invisible until they attack, making it difficult to safeguard against them. Another way trolls accomplish confusion is to post using a name similar to an existing member of a group. For example: Christine is a respected member, but suddenly a Christne appears (notice one letter off). When the troll posts, people may not immediately realize it is not the trusted member and derogatory comments can be erroneously attributed to the real person.

those marshalls used a lot of restraint , they were doing what they were trained to do , hard to second guess when you are not there but it looked very justified to me .     

This incident can be traced back to a theory I had some time ago. Here are some incidents which illustrate the point:

A man acting erractically and claiming to have a bomb in his backpack refuses to cooperate with airline police and gets shot dead.

A man who is cut off in traffic decides to ram the other car and then a few minutes later, willfully drives off an overpass, killing two other drivers and himself.

Despite multiple TRO's, a college co-ed is shot 4 times by her ex-boyfriend in her dorm room, before he turns the gun on himself and commits suicide.

A 19-year-old woman hits and kills a 13-year-old getting off the school bus. She doesn't stop to help, but instead drives away on the advice of her two male passengers.

What do all these needless tradgedies have in common? All the people involved were  dependant on pharmaceuticals for "bi-polar disorder." Personally, I think it's a load of s--t. Now my theory does not include people who take maintenance drugs, such as heart medication or antibiotics. Those are medically necessary. I'm talking about the people who are bi-polar, chronically depressed, chemically imbalanced, seeing elephants, or whatever imaginary mental disorder you have. If you need to take a pill to be "OK,"  you go to the island. We're done dealing with you.

Now, 'the island' is simply a segregated community where all the mentally deficient people go to bother each other. Us regular folks are tired of living in fear. The last thing I want to die from is being strangled by the other guy in the elevator because he can't handle the number seven. The people who cannot control themselves are causing more havoc than people with real mental diseases. I've worked and schooled with people like this and they are simply starved for attention. If you're depressed, I DON"T CARE. Go outside, get some sun. Stop making me pay more for Medicare. If you have a chemical imbalance, drink some gatorade. Don't take a swing at me for wearing the wrong color shirt or something. Crap like Prozac is taking up too much R&D. We should have a cure for cancer by now. Instead we have Ritilin, the Cure For Childhood Fun (or parental responsibility, depending on your point of view). We don't need a cure for anorexia. Here's the cure, eat a sammich, or die. You choose, I'm sick of hearing about it.

By the way, the woman who killed the 13-year-old? She got 3 months in jail. Her passengers each got 4 months. All because she couldn't handle reality. Still think I'm insensitive?

Yeah mindcrime, lets not stop there, lets take cripples and old people and put them on islands too. And lets not forget Fags, druggies, people with Aids and other diseases too. We can put them in 1000 islands this way as you figure out who else you want to F@$@ with you can give them an island. Or lets just give Arse hole idiots like you an island.

Anonymous wrote:

---

Yeah mindcrime, lets not stop there, lets take cripples and old people and put them on islands too. And lets not forget Fags, druggies, people with Aids and other diseases too. We can put them in 1000 islands this way as you figure out who else you want to F@$@ with you can give them an island. Or lets just give Arse hole idiots like you an island.

---

Take your prozac and calm down.

I distinguish between people with legitimate health issues and people who want to solve their personal inadequacies with a drug. I worked for 2 years with someone who had a host of things wrong with her, none of them with a medical/scientific basis, but she had a rotisserie of medications for them all. When something didn't go her way, she popped a pill. If her computer crashed, she had to 'go for a walk,' and have a smoke and a cappuccino to calm down. Just to walk out the door every morning she had to take 5 different pills!

Old people have real problems because their bodies are physically wearing out. There's nothing wrong with 'homosexuals." Cripples don't take medication to re-grow legs or restore motor-functions. Even AIDS is medically identifiable, and in theory, treatable. i.e. it's a real disease. When's the last time someone died from being depressed?

I'm talking about people with behavioral, mental-based problems, which for the most part are mentally unstable people making excuses for their behavior. I also distinguish between people with documented (treatable) psychological conditions, such as schizophrenia or amnesia. And the ones we seem to have the most trouble with are the ones who forget to take their meds and they become walking timebombs. 

Also, I don't blame people exclusively, I blame drug companies as well. It is more profitable to sell you anti-diarrheal medication at $4 a pill rather than suggest changing your diet to include more cheese or oatmeal. Every year we come up with a new, supposedly debilitating ailment or condition and it always happens to be when it's cure starts to be marketed. These drugs are so questionable and arbitrary, they require one magazine page to hint at what they do, and 2 pages of impossibly fine type and legalese warning you about what will or won't happen.

MBrophy wrote:

---

...Your riding on the belief that these people who you define as having B.S. mental illnesses are all incapable of living in our society. Further, you base this assumption on like 4 examples while discounting the many other people on these medications who are able to go about their daily lives w/out pillaging and murdering the rest of us. Not at all. I used those examples because they are timely and they illustrate that some people are not capable of existing in society and following the basic rules we've all agreed upon. I never discounted the people who find ways to cope. In fact, I pointed out that there are many of these people who get along fine as long as they remember to take their meds.

But I'm glad that you have come up w/ such a great solution for handling this drain on society as you so obviously have done scientific research on the brain and have the education and credentials to determine what constitutes a legitimate illness. (That was sarcasm, NYCO, in case you didn't get it). What I find offensive is that your solution lies in giving up on and getting rid of people who obviously need help (though the solution probably shouldn't always be a pill, of course). It's really not MY idea, I borrowed the concept from John Carpenters' "Escape from New York." And it really is brilliant in its simplicity. It would cost far less to implement and maintain and it solves the problem... What more do you want? And as a matter of fact, I have studied brain chemistry and psychology to a degree, enough to understand that some ailments are not real. No more than NASCAR is an Olympic sport or Michael Bolton is a musical genius.

---

For someone who likes to point out sarcasm, I thought the tongue-in-cheek tone would have been clear...

You must admit, despite it's defeatist attitude. Maybe it's time we gave up on them so they would have to take some responsibility for themselves. Sometimes you just have to take drastic steps to solve a problem. I mean, suppose our country was attacked without warning by an outside foe. We would have to resort to drastic measures, such as relinquishing our civil liberties and investing TONS of money to maintain our freedom... oh, wait...

MC, your wrong. For a Mike Moore lovin' Lefty your take on this is pretty backwards. Anonymous is right. Those people he named have just as much potential of killing as mentally handicap people. And let me add that you say that Bush kills the innocent when he kills terrorists. How is this any different?...I know you don't want to kill the mentals you just want to strip them of their rights. Sorry That's different. (that's sarcasm!)

NYCOWIFE wrote:

---

 I am not making reference to any stigmas associated with anyone who has a true mental health issue...just noting that there are tons of people who do these types of acts that seem to "come up" with a mental issue after the crime is committed!         

---

MC referenced 4 examples of individuals who were on prescription drugs for bi-polar disorder while they committed crimes. This is not about excuses for a crime invented post facto; the criminal in every example he cited was ALREADY taking prescription drugs for mental disorders. I'll agree w/ your argument that it's ridiculous that people misrepresent themselves and/or their mental state w/ an insanity plea to get away w/ a crime, but that's not really the issue here so thanks for being irrelevant.

MC:

"some people are not capable of existing in society and following the basic rules we've all agreed upon."  And not all of them are on anti-depressants so what's your point. Of course I recognize the tongue-in-cheek nature of such a proposal but this Tom Cruise-esque attack on people on these medications is not rational...as JS points out, I don't see where they're more likely to commit crimes than any other "group." Further, claiming that "some ailments are not real" is where your posts stop being satirical and borderline on irresponsible; who are you to make that determination? So, you've dabbled in studying brain chemistry and psychology -- congratulations but that doesn't make you any more equipped to make that assessment than an undergraduate who has completed their gen.ed. requirements. 

To address the original post: I think the marshalls acted in the best interests of the safety of the passengers.

-- Edited by MBrophy at 01:29, 2005-12-12

Someone should point out that "Nukedlou" & "Nukelou" are two different user ids spelled differently. You would think that would be obvious, but apparently for some that is not so.

Anyways, I agree with MC on this. Just not to the island extreme. I’ve heard people talking about this & I don’t like the way the media handled it. People seem to have this idea that the Air Marshal should of known the guy was off his rocker because his wife said so & therefore shouldn’t have shot him.

I try to remind them that when the man with the boom-stick points it at you & says, “stop”. You stop.  It’s too bad this man had to die, but there was no way for anyone to know what this guy was doing or if he was serious or not & his lack of compliance left the air marshal no choice.

He could have been reaching for a detonator or a cough drop. There really wasn’t much time for decision making & I think the Air Marshal did his job & did it correctly.