Hate-Crimes Bill Would Give Gays Special Righs
J Young
In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004181.cfm
The House is considering a measure that would make opposition to
homosexuality a crime.
A bill with bipartisan support in Congress would give the Justice Department
power to investigate and prosecute "bias-motivated violence."
Homosexual advocates who support the bill say violence against homosexuals
is on the rise. They contend 14 percent of the 1,000 hate crimes reported in
2005 were due to sexual orientation.
"They claim that this is an epidemic, [but] one third of the 'hate crime's
statistics' are for 'name-calling,' " Andrea Lafferty, executive director of
the Traditional Values Coalition, told Family News in Focus. "This is not a
reason to bring in the federal government. The ultimate objective is to use
the [prosecution] of hate speech against people of faith."
Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America said the bill would favor one
class of crime victims over another.
"It elevates a certain people group based on their chosen sexual
behaviors-homosexuals and so-called transgenders-to a higher level of status
in our society," Barber said, "so that they are considered a more valuable
victim."
The Senate is expected to introduce a bipartisan companion bill next month.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
iBen, you *are* a hate crime.
Anlatt the Builder
> In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004181.cfm
>
> The House is considering a measure that would make opposition to
> homosexuality a crime.
>
> A bill with bipartisan support in Congress would give the Justice Department
> power to investigate and prosecute "bias-motivated violence."
>
> Homosexual advocates who support the bill say violence against homosexuals
> is on the rise. They contend 14 percent of the 1,000 hate crimes reported in
> 2005 were due to sexual orientation.
>
> "They claim that this is an epidemic, [but] one third of the 'hate crime's
> statistics' are for 'name-calling,' " Andrea Lafferty, executive director of
> the Traditional Values Coalition, told Family News in Focus. "This is not a
> reason to bring in the federal government. The ultimate objective is to use
> the [prosecution] of hate speech against people of faith."
>
> Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America said the bill would favor one
> class of crime victims over another.
>
> "It elevates a certain people group based on their chosen sexual
> behaviors-homosexuals and so-called transgenders-to a higher level of status
> in our society," Barber said, "so that they are considered a more valuable
> victim."
>
> The Senate is expected to introduce a bipartisan companion bill next month.
You are spreading misconceptions. Hate crime laws enhance the
sentencing and record-keeping for crimes based on prejudice, in this
case, prejudice based on sexual orientation, or perceived sexual
orientation. This includes:
- straight people attacking gay people due to prejudice against gays.
- gay people attacking straight people due to prejudice against
straights
- a gay man attacking a lesbian due to prejudice against lesbians
- a straight man attacking another straight man due to the perception
that the victim was gay
- and so on
It does NOT include:
- a straight man attacking a gay man for reasons that have nothing to
do with sexual orientation
- a lesbian attacking a straight woman for reasons that have nothing
to do with sexual orientation
- and so on
As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
these laws.
Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into play
when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays. This is
not because the laws give gays special rights, but because hate-based
attacks by straights against gays are far, far more common than hate-
based attacks by gays against straights. There are two ways to fix
this:
- straights should cut back on beating up gays for being gay
- gays should start beating up striaghts for being straight more
often
Take your pick.
By the way, hate-crime laws already exist for crimes based on race,
creed, color, and a number of other criteria. Do these give Catholics,
or Jews, "special rights"? Do these give blacks "special rights"? Are
you opposed to ALL such laws, or do you just want to single out
attacks on gays as "a-okay"?
John D.Wentzky
Anlatt the Builder <tir...@aol.com> typed:
Untrue, misconception presenter.
> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
a lazy tax-leech government.
> crimes based on prejudice, in this
> case, prejudice based on sexual orientation, or perceived sexual
> orientation.
Which means that they are prejudice laws which discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation.
> This includes:
>
> - straight people attacking gay people due to prejudice against gays.
A mask used to disguies the crimes committed by the gays who were attacked
as a matter of self-protection of straights.
> - gay people attacking straight people due to prejudice against
> straights
A crime.
> - a gay man attacking a lesbian due to prejudice against lesbians
> - a straight man attacking another straight man due to the perception
> that the victim was gay
> - and so on
None of which are valid reasons to discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation.
> It does NOT include:
> - a straight man attacking a gay man for reasons that have nothing to
> do with sexual orientation
which would show that a straight man attacking a gay HIV infected male who
attempts to infect or did infect others is exercising self-defense and
protection of the people.
> - a lesbian attacking a straight woman for reasons that have nothing
> to do with sexual orientation
A crime.
> - and so on
> As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
> Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
> these laws.
These laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
> Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into play
> when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays.
The prejudice is against threats to the lives and bodies of persons who are
not gay.
> This is not because the laws give gays special rights,
Wrong. They are designed to shiled gay criminals from prosecution.
pba...@worldonline.nl
> In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004181.cfm
>
> The House is considering a measure that would make opposition to
> homosexuality a crime.
>
> A bill with bipartisan support in Congress would give the Justice Department
> power to investigate and prosecute "bias-motivated violence."
I see the word violence here.
>
> Homosexual advocates who support the bill say violence against homosexuals
> is on the rise. They contend 14 percent of the 1,000 hate crimes reported in
> 2005 were due to sexual orientation.
>
> "They claim that this is an epidemic, [but] one third of the 'hate crime's
> statistics' are for 'name-calling,' " Andrea Lafferty, executive director of
> the Traditional Values Coalition, told Family News in Focus. "This is not a
> reason to bring in the federal government. The ultimate objective is to use
> the [prosecution] of hate speech against people of faith."
Hate speech is not itself violence.
> Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America said the bill would favor one
> class of crime victims over another.
No, it is not the victims that would be different it is the criminals.
The victim might be anyone,
but the criminal must have some bias against him.
One could even be biassed against someone who does not clearly belong
or not-belong to any group. So Matt Barber seems to be wrong.
(unless you gave me wrong or incomplete information)
>
> "It elevates a certain people group based on their chosen sexual
> behaviors-homosexuals and so-called transgenders-to a higher level of status
> in our society," Barber said, "so that they are considered a more valuable
> victim."
Why? One can just as well perform violance based on bias against any
other group.
Or are you implying biassed violence against the people mentioned is
the only biassed violence in the nation?
> The Senate is expected to introduce a bipartisan companion bill next month.
As far as I know most people in the USA have a bias against
politicians,
so I would suspect the senate to be in favor of the bill:)
Peter van Velzen
March 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
pba...@worldonline.nl
wrote:
> Innews:1174846303.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
> Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> typed:
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
It seems you cannnot read very well.
But it is clear you would oppose the law, because you are very
biassed,
and you would have something in common with the criminals
this law would be federally persecuting.
Gay-bashing is never self-protection.
which is obvious from the fact, that the attackers always make sure,
they are at least two against one.
(and even then the one must be a smaller guy also)
If I may beleive my information about gay-bashers ,
they wouldn't even dare attack a HIV-carrier
lest they would spill his blood.
Without bias
Ray Fischer
>
>In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
That means that it must be supported.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
No One
> In news:1174846303.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
> Anlatt the Builder <tir...@aol.com> typed:
>
> > As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
> > Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
> > these laws.
>
> These laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>
> > Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into play
> > when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays.
>
> The prejudice is against threats to the lives and bodies of persons who are
> not gay.
>
> > This is not because the laws give gays special rights,
>
> Wrong. They are designed to shiled gay criminals from prosecution.
This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect everyone,
and enhanced punishments for hate crmes is warranted because the
culprits are harder to catch (the hardest crimes to solve are ones in
which there is little to no physical evidence, no witnesses, and no
relation between the criminal and the victim).
Douglas Berry
D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
alt.atheism
>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>
>a lazy tax-leech government.
ROTFLMAO! So, how many government checks do you collect each month
again, leech?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
bramble
wrote:
> On 25 mrt, 19:43, "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
> >http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004181.cfm
>
> > The House is considering a measure that would make opposition to
> > homosexuality a crime.
>
> > A bill with bipartisan support in Congress would give the Justice Department
> > power to investigate and prosecute "bias-motivated violence."
>
> I see the word violence here.
>
>
>
> > Homosexual advocates who support the bill say violence against homosexuals
> > is on the rise. They contend 14 percent of the 1,000 hate crimes reported in
> > 2005 were due to sexual orientation.
>
> > "They claim that this is an epidemic, [but] one third of the 'hate crime's
> > statistics' are for 'name-calling,' " Andrea Lafferty, executive director of
> > the Traditional Values Coalition, told Family News in Focus. "This is not a
> > reason to bring in the federal government. The ultimate objective is to use
> > the [prosecution] of hate speech against people of faith."
>
> Hate speech is not itself violence.
You said, "Hate speech is not itself violence." It looks to me verbal
violence, or could be also "induction to violence". Hate speech has
to be liable of prosecution when it comes from a public figure like a
priest, an iman, a rabbi or a politician.
Bramble
duke
>J Young <youngo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
>That means that it must be supported.
Queers already have equal rights.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
toor
> In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
>
>
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004181.cfm
>
>
>
> The House is considering a measure that would make opposition to
> homosexuality a crime.
>
Though I am generally opposed to the whole concept of recognizing 'hate
crimes', I would be in favor of this bill just because it would be so
wonderfully offensive to the Religious Reich.
--
MarkA
(insert clever sig line here)
Syd M.
> J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
> That means that it must be supported.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
Esp. if Jerk Young supports it.
PDW
JTEM
> The House is considering a measure that would make
> opposition to homosexuality a crime.
Well, here on our planet, it would make crime motivated
by hate punishable by more severe sentences.
It's pretty simply, really. When crime is motivated by
money you can protect yourself. You can not carry cash
or credit cards. If you think you're going into a bad
neighborhood you can leave that expensive watch at home.
But when crime is motivated by hate it's an entirely
different story.
You can't stop being black, gay, white, Italian.
And oh, no hate crime legislation says "gay." it says
"Sexual orientation." So it's just as illegal to attack
a straight person for not being gay as it is to attack a
gay person because their gay.
If morallity was on your side you wouldn't feel the need
to lie about it, now would you, you evil skank?
Mark Sebree
> On 25 Mar 2007 19:41:43 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
> >That means that it must be supported.
>
> Queers already have equal rights.
No, they do not. They do not, for example, have the right to marry
the consenting, unrelated, single adult of their choice in the same
manner and for the same reasons as as heterosexuals, and they do not
have the right to have such marriages recognized as legal anywhere in
the country, as homosexuals have. (The second part will only likely
last until the first Supreme Court challenge since it is a violation
of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.)
Homosexual couples have greater difficulty adopting children or being
foster parents. Because they cannot marry, there can be difficulty
and challenges in the execution of their wills if one dies.
Homosexual couples cannot receive estate untaxed as heterosexual
couples can if one dies. If one of the couple is hospitalized, the
partner can be prevented from seeing him or her by the hospital staff
or the patient's family, which neither can do if they could get
married.
The list of rights have homosexuals do not have goes on. It is
blatantly obvious that homosexual do NOT have equal rights.
Mark Sebree
(American-American, U.S. Navy Veteran)
>
> duke, American-American
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>J Young <youngo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>>
>>That means that it must be supported.
>
>Queers already have equal rights.
Do they have the rights of marriage? No.
You're lying again, bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Parsifal
> On 25 Mar 2007 19:41:43 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
> >That means that it must be supported.
>
> Queers already have equal rights.
Can they marry who they want? No. Then they don't have equal rights.
Try again.
Parsifal
> In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
You don't know anyting about decency, J Young. Fuck off.
Your existence is crime against humanity.
Anlatt the Builder
>
> The House is considering a measure that would make opposition to
> homosexuality a crime.
This is not what the bill would make a crime, unless you think
"opposition to homosexuality" means "beating up gays."
John D.Wentzky
pba...@worldonline.nl <pba...@worldonline.nl> typed:
I know your agenda.
> But it is clear you would oppose the law, because you are very
> biassed,
A lie.
I am impartial regarding the law.
> and you would have something in common with the criminals
> this law would be federally persecuting.
Persecuting?
LOL!
You wrote like an unjust criminal coward.
> Gay-bashing is never self-protection.
An absolute lie.
A lie designed to shield criminal gays from their just recompense.
> which is obvious from the fact, that the attackers always make sure,
> they are at least two against one.
Which ensures that any dead or maimed gay will never have a case that can be
won.
> (and even then the one must be a smaller guy also)
Revelaing your bully rapist demeanor.
> If I may beleive my information about gay-bashers ,
You can't. If you do you will be believing a lie.
> they wouldn't even dare attack a HIV-carrier
> lest they would spill his blood.
Do you mean because they wouldn't know how to use tazers?
John D.Wentzky
No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
>> In news:1174846303.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
>> Anlatt the Builder <tir...@aol.com> typed:
>>
>>> As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
>>> Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
>>> these laws.
>>
>> These laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>>
>>> Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into
>>> play when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays.
>>
>> The prejudice is against threats to the lives and bodies of persons
>> who are not gay.
>>
>>> This is not because the laws give gays special rights,
>>
>
> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect everyone,
Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps society.
> and enhanced punishments for hate crmes is warranted because the
> culprits are harder to catch (the hardest crimes to solve are ones in
> which there is little to no physical evidence, no witnesses, and no
> relation between the criminal and the victim).
Which is why you like Harry Potter, huh?
As you scurry along to place blame upon someone other than your guilty self
via lies and false testimony, you have no chance for escape.
Increasing the protection for crime is sealing your doom.
John D.Wentzky
Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:39:07 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
> alt.atheism
>
>>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>>
>> a lazy tax-leech government.
>
> ROTFLMAO! So, how many government checks do you collect each month
> again, leech?
Fewer than the government hands out to criminals.
Andrealphus
duckg...@cox.net, typed this:
> On 25 Mar 2007 19:41:43 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> J Young <youngo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>>
>> That means that it must be supported.
>
> Queers already have equal rights.
>
Not yet, but not long from now.
Ray Fischer
>No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect everyone,
>
>Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps society.
Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot, now
decide to emulate the likes of Mengele and Goebbels by exterminating
those people he doesn't like.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John D.Wentzky
Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
> John D.Wentzky <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>
>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
>>> everyone,
>>
>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
>> society.
>
> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
Neither statements are true about me.
> now decide to emulate the likes of Mengele and Goebbels by exterminating
> those people he doesn't like.
So why is it you aren't going around, raising your right hand and saying,
"Heil Wentzky!"
ScottyFLL
>
> Hate-Crimes Bill Would Give Gays Special Righs
That would be nice. Thank you.
Douglas Berry
D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
alt.atheism
>In news:73pd0314i27gtuhgo...@4ax.com,
>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:39:07 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
>> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
>> alt.atheism
>>
>>>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>>>
>>> a lazy tax-leech government.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! So, how many government checks do you collect each month
>> again, leech?
>
>Fewer than the government hands out to criminals.
Answer the question, leech. How much of my money do you get for being
a bum?
John D.Wentzky
Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:19:44 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
> alt.atheism
>> In news:73pd0314i27gtuhgo...@4ax.com,
>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:39:07 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
>>> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
>>> alt.atheism
>>>
>>>>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>>>>
>>>> a lazy tax-leech government.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO! So, how many government checks do you collect each month
>>> again, leech?
>>
>> Fewer than the government hands out to criminals.
>
> Answer the question, leech. How much of my money do you get for being
> a bum?
You have never paid me a cent.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
>> John D.Wentzky <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>>> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
>>>> everyone,
>>>
>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
>>> society.
>>
>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>
>Neither statements are true about me.
Both are, you racist, homophobic bigot.
>> now decide to emulate the likes of Mengele and Goebbels by exterminating
>> those people he doesn't like.
>
>So why is it you aren't going around,
Go to hell, bigot. Your own words damn you. Your own hate convicts you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
No One
> In news:871wjdf...@nospam.pacbell.net,
> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
> > "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
> >
> >> Wrong. They are designed to shield gay criminals from prosecution.
> >
> > This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect everyone,
>
> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps society.
So you condone murder. Also, you failed biology. It turns out that
the most likely time to transmit and the HIV virus is typically before
the infection is diagnosed. The rate of transmission is highest
before diagnosis (if only because anti-viral drugs reduce the viral
load).
The risk factors are complex. See
<http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/420640>
<http://infectious-diseases.jwatch.org/cgi/content/citation/2000/601/13>.
> > and enhanced punishments for hate crmes is warranted because the
> > culprits are harder to catch (the hardest crimes to solve are ones in
> > which there is little to no physical evidence, no witnesses, and no
> > relation between the criminal and the victim).
>
> Which is why you like Harry Potter, huh?
> As you scurry along to place blame upon someone other than your guilty self
> via lies and false testimony, you have no chance for escape.
> Increasing the protection for crime is sealing your doom.
Wentzky, see your doctor and get your meds adjusted. I never said
anything about "Harry Potter" and never even saw any of those films.
The Chief Instigator
>In news:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
>Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
>> John D.Wentzky <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>>> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
>>>> everyone,
>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
>>> society.
>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>Neither statements are true about me.
"Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA than
the ban on abortions. "
-John D Wentzky in <4rfjp25arol8fsfs6...@4ax.com>, 11/8/2006
>> now decide to emulate the likes of Mengele and Goebbels by exterminating
>> those people he doesn't like.
>So why is it you aren't going around, raising your right hand and saying,
>"Heil Wentzky!"
Because, unlike you, he's sane.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Omaha 10, Houston 2 (March 24)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 30 vs. Peoria, 7:35
John D.Wentzky
The Chief Instigator <pat...@eris.io.com> typed:
> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
>> In news:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
>> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
>>> John D.Wentzky <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>>>> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>
>>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
>>>>> everyone,
>
>>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
>>>> society.
>
>>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>
>> Neither statements are true about me.
>
> "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA than
> the ban on abortions. "
> -John D Wentzky in <4rfjp25arol8fsfs6...@4ax.com>,
> 11/8/2006
I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be safe
and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal idiots who have
nothing better to do than drag up something out of their ass storage system
that is more than three months past?
Ray Fischer
>In news:szkodmg...@eris.io.com,
>The Chief Instigator <pat...@eris.io.com> typed:
>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>>
>>> In news:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
>>> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
>>>> John D.Wentzky <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>>>>> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>>
>>>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
>>>>>> everyone,
>>
>>>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
>>>>> society.
>>
>>>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>>
>>> Neither statements are true about me.
>>
>> "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA than
>> the ban on abortions. "
>> -John D Wentzky in <4rfjp25arol8fsfs6...@4ax.com>,
>> 11/8/2006
>
>I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be safe
>and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal idiots
Like you, idiot? You're too lazy to get out and get a job much less
threaten the lives of others.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Parsifal
wrote:
> Innews:szkodmg...@eris.io.com,
> The Chief Instigator <patr...@eris.io.com> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
> >> Innews:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
> >> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
> >>> John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
> >>>> No One <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>
> >>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
> >>>>> everyone,
>
> >>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
> >>>> society.
>
> >>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>
> >> Neither statements are true about me.
>
> > "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA than
> > the ban on abortions. "
> > 11/8/2006
>
> I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be safe
> and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal idiots who have
> nothing better to do than drag up something out of their ass storage system
> that is more than three months past
Truth hurts, doesn't it, Wentzky?
Google is your worse ennemy.
As for "unoriginal idiots", you think that being racist, antisemite
and homophobic makes you original?
Douglas Berry
D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
alt.atheism
>In news:8rde03dgko5odd96r...@4ax.com,
>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:19:44 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
>> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
>> alt.atheism
>>> In news:73pd0314i27gtuhgo...@4ax.com,
>>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:39:07 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
>>>> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
>>>> alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>>>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>>>>>
>>>>> a lazy tax-leech government.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO! So, how many government checks do you collect each month
>>>> again, leech?
>>>
>>> Fewer than the government hands out to criminals.
>>
>> Answer the question, leech. How much of my money do you get for being
>> a bum?
>
>You have never paid me a cent.
Nonsense. If you are receiving federal disability, you are taking
some of my tax money. How much?
The Chief Instigator
Pinch
wrote:
> Innews:szkodmg...@eris.io.com,
> The Chief Instigator <patr...@eris.io.com> typed:
>
>
>
> > "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
> >> Innews:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
> >> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
> >>> John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
> >>>>> everyone,
>
> >>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
> >>>> society.
>
> >>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>
> >> Neither statements are true about me.
>
> > "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA than
> > the ban on abortions. "
> > 11/8/2006
>
> I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be safe
> and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal idiots
You're an UNoriginal bigot.
> who have
> nothing better to do than drag up something out of their ass storage system
> that is more than three months past?
Get fucked, sonny-boy: nobody's required to obey you. If they wish to
unearth your google-archived shame, they can and will, regardless of
your tornadic rants. Comprehende?
Pinch
>
> >J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
> >That means that it must be supported.
>
> Queers already have equal rights.
They're still unable to marry the single, consenting (unfamilial)
adult of their choice in almost every state of the US of A. (God bless
Massachusetts...for making a difference.)
John D.Wentzky
Parsifal <jeanpasc...@gmail.com> typed:
Google isn't my enemy, you god damned idiot.
Google is my friend.
There anyone in the entire US can read that they are damned or not.
LOL!
YOU GOD DAMNED FOOL!
John D.Wentzky
The Chief Instigator <pat...@eris.io.com> typed:
> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
>> In news:szkodmg...@eris.io.com,
>> The Chief Instigator <pat...@eris.io.com> typed:
>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
>>>> In news:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
>>>> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
>>>>> John D.Wentzky <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>
>>>>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
>>>>>>> everyone,
>
>>>>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males
>>>>>> helps society.
>
>>>>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>
>>>> Neither statements are true about me.
>
>>> "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA
>>> than the ban on abortions. "
>>> -John D Wentzky in <4rfjp25arol8fsfs6...@4ax.com>,
>>> 11/8/2006
>
>> I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be
>> safe and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal
>> idiots who have nothing better to do than drag up something out of
>> their ass storage system that is more than three months past?
>
> You posted it. Live with it.
You are god damned peon bitchwad from hell, loser boy.
I have an investigation going on to uncover whoever lied to the anderson
cops here to get them to lynch me in January.
I am going to have all you god damned cowards punished.
Believe it, you god damned hangover shitheaded fool.
Your tactics are damned.
John D.Wentzky
Pinch <pi...@cheerful.com> typed:
> On Mar 26, 2:31 am, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
> wrote:
>> Innews:szkodmg...@eris.io.com,
>> The Chief Instigator <patr...@eris.io.com> typed:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>>
>>>> Innews:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
>>>> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
>>>>> John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> No One <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>>
>>>>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
>>>>>>> everyone,
>>
>>>>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males
>>>>>> helps society.
>>
>>>>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>>
>>>> Neither statements are true about me.
>>
>>> "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA
>>> than the ban on abortions. "
>>> -John D Wentzky in <4rfjp25arol8fsfs6pi2j6aornn37cc...@4ax.com>,
>>> 11/8/2006
>>
>> I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be
>> safe and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal
>> idiots
>
> You're an UNoriginal bigot.
What a lie, you fool.
>> who have
>> nothing better to do than drag up something out of their ass storage
>> system that is more than three months past?
>
> Get fucked,
Eat shit, you perverted bastarrd.
> sonny-boy:
I'm no son of yours, you god damned pro-choice pro-gay lazy FOOL!
> nobody's required to obey you.
You're wrong, you GOD DAMNED COWARD AIDS SPREADING FAGGOT SHITHEADED
PRO-CHOICE UNDERLING IDIOT PIECE OF SHIT!
> If they wish to unearth your google-archived shame, they can and will,
> regardless of
> your tornadic rants. Comprehende?
I comprende that if any more treason is committed against me that muy
comments are archived and that they can and will be used against my enemies.
You are a god damned, un-comprehending fool, you god damned idiot.
John D.Wentzky
Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:14:09 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
> alt.atheism
>> In news:8rde03dgko5odd96r...@4ax.com,
>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:19:44 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
>>> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
>>> alt.atheism
>>>> In news:73pd0314i27gtuhgo...@4ax.com,
>>>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:39:07 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
>>>>> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
>>>>> alt.atheism
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a lazy tax-leech government.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO! So, how many government checks do you collect each
>>>>> month again, leech?
>>>>
>>>> Fewer than the government hands out to criminals.
>>>
>>> Answer the question, leech. How much of my money do you get for
>>> being a bum?
>>
>> You have never paid me a cent.
>
> Nonsense. If you are receiving federal disability, you are taking
> some of my tax money. How much?
I repeat:
YOU HAVE NEVER PAID ME A CENT, YOU GOD DAMNED LIAR!
ScottyFLL
wrote:
> Innews:3vff03h08blshgcq8...@4ax.com,
> Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:14:09 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
> > alt.atheism
> >> Innews:8rde03dgko5odd96r...@4ax.com,
> >> Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
> >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:19:44 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
> >>> alt.atheism
> >>>> Innews:73pd0314i27gtuhgo...@4ax.com,
> >>>> Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
> >>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:39:07 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
> >>>>> alt.atheism
>
> >>>>>>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>
> >>>>>> a lazy tax-leech government.
>
> >>>>> ROTFLMAO! So, how many government checks do you collect each
> >>>>> month again, leech?
>
> >>>> Fewer than the government hands out to criminals.
>
> >>> Answer the question, leech. How much of my money do you get for
> >>> being a bum?
>
> >> You have never paid me a cent.
>
> > Nonsense. If you are receiving federal disability, you are taking
> > some of my tax money. How much?
>
> I repeat:
Oh, my!! Straight to hell with you, then!
Pinch
wrote:
> Innews:1174916840.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
> Pinch <p...@cheerful.com> typed:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 2:31 am, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> Innews:szkodmg...@eris.io.com,
> >> The Chief Instigator <patr...@eris.io.com> typed:
>
> >>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
> >>>> Innews:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
> >>>> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> typed:
> >>>>> John D.Wentzky <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>> No One <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>
> >>>>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
> >>>>>>> everyone,
>
> >>>>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males
> >>>>>> helps society.
>
> >>>>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>
> >>>> Neither statements are true about me.
>
> >>> "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA
> >>> than the ban on abortions. "
> >>> -John D Wentzky in <4rfjp25arol8fsfs6pi2j6aornn37cc...@4ax.com>,
> >>> 11/8/2006
>
> >> I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be
> >> safe and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal
> >> idiots
>
> > You're an UNoriginal bigot.
>
> What a lie, you fool.
Well you're definately NOT original when comes to your rank bigotry.
> >> who have
> >> nothing better to do than drag up something out of their ass storage
> >> system that is more than three months past?
>
> > Get fucked,
>
> Eat shit,
I'm not a fast-food junkie, unlike you.
> you perverted bastarrd.
The word "bastard" is spelt ONLY with a single "r," for your
information. Or is it you're practicing your tongue rolls for your
upcoming date with that online, hot, gay latino for whom you lust?
> > sonny-boy:
>
> I'm no son of yours, you god damned pro-choice pro-gay lazy FOOL!
>
> > nobody's required to obey you.
>
> You're wrong, you GOD DAMNED COWARD AIDS SPREADING
I'm not even HIV positive, and already you accuse me of having
developed AIDS?
> FAGGOT
I'm straight.
>SHITHEADED
Only to shit-heads, such as yourself.
>PRO-CHOICE
That's my position (and the only piece of truth you've said of me).
>UNDERLING IDIOT PIECE OF SHIT!
Unlike you, I'm not an unproductive welfare-leech.
>
> > If they wish to unearth your google-archived shame, they can and will,
> > regardless of
> > your tornadic rants. Comprehende?
>
> I comprende
No, you don't.
> that if any more treason is committed against me that muy
As in "very'...? ;-)
> comments are archived
They are.
>and that they can and will be used against my enemies.
And they'll be freely thrown back at you when you begin to behave like
a manic chimp on crack-cocaine again.
> You are a god damned, un-comprehending fool,
That doesn't make ANY sense, what-so-ever.
> you god damned idiot.
F.O.A.D. seems to be the appropriate response to your reaction, at
this time.
The Chief Instigator
*yawn* You're the no-brain wonder who's making sure Anderson County isn't
being deprived of its idiot.
>I have an investigation going on to uncover whoever lied to the anderson
>cops here to get them to lynch me in January.
...in other words, you'll just do whatever the voice in your head tell you.
>I am going to have all you god damned cowards punished.
...just like you're respectable in any rational sense of the word.
>Believe it, you god damned hangover shitheaded fool.
>Your tactics are damned.
Wake me up when I'm supposed to care about your insanity, SC Crackhead.
The Chief Instigator
>>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
That's your profession, indeed.
>>> who have
>>> nothing better to do than drag up something out of their ass storage
>>> system that is more than three months past?
>> Get fucked,
>Eat shit, you perverted bastarrd.
She's not quite the bastard you proclaim her to be.
>> sonny-boy:
>I'm no son of yours, you god damned pro-choice pro-gay lazy FOOL!
Drunk again? I'm almost surprised.
>> nobody's required to obey you.
>You're wrong, you GOD DAMNED COWARD AIDS SPREADING FAGGOT SHITHEADED
>PRO-CHOICE UNDERLING IDIOT PIECE OF SHIT!
The nice men in the white coats will be arriving soon to take you back to the
Home.
>> If they wish to unearth your google-archived shame, they can and will,
>> regardless of your tornadic rants. Comprehende?
>I comprende that if any more treason is committed against me that muy
>comments are archived and that they can and will be used against my enemies.
You're not a government, Anderson County Crackpot. Anyone can express their
opinions of you, and you can choose to either deal with that reality, or
return your head to its normal storage facility.
>You are a god damned, un-comprehending fool, you god damned idiot.
BFD. If you ever show up in the city I live in, I'll consider worrying.
Enjoy your latest psychotic break.
"Your problem is you need to learn from your MISTAKES.
I don't need to do that since I live a mistake-free life."
-"John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> in
<KlMsh.360$ch1.138@bigfe9> on 1/21/2007
Pr0r3p
> > opposition to homosexuality a crime.
>
> Well, here on our planet, it would make crime motivated
> by hate punishable by more severe sentences.
>
> It's pretty simply, really. When crime is motivated by
> money you can protect yourself. You can not carry cash
> or credit cards. If you think you're going into a bad
> neighborhood you can leave that expensive watch at home.
> But when crime is motivated by hate it's an entirely
> different story.
>
> You can't stop being black, gay, white, Italian.
>
> And oh, no hate crime legislation says "gay." it says
> "Sexual orientation." So it's just as illegal to attack
> a straight person for not being gay as it is to attack a
> gay person because their gay.
>
> If morallity was on your side you wouldn't feel the need
> to lie about it, now would you, you evil skank?
Well, JTEM, you have EARNED this *again* ---
/| /| |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\__/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |__ _ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
JTEM-- RRR/Rump Riding Retard, homo-cult lemming.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban. Selfish,
hate filled -- mindlessly supports sociopathic agendas
that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of millions of
people.
A true HLLL. (Homosexual Liberal Leftist Loon.)
LC
AOLoser "bob&carole" <bobandc...@hotmail.com> forging as "Pr0r3p"
<Pr0...@ifrance.com> wrote in message
news:1174924572.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Well, JTEM, you have EARNED this *again* ---
<snip bobbin' carole's idiocy>
Gee, what happened to "Rev. Phelps"?
From: "Pr0r3p" <Pr0...@ifrance.com>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hate-Crimes Bill Would Give Gays Special Righs
Date: 26 Mar 2007 08:56:12 -0700
Message-ID: <1174924572.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.116.202
From: "bob&carole" <bobandc...@hotmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.116.202
From: "The Most Reverend Phelps" <fredp...@bigstring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.116.202
Moron...
pba...@worldonline.nl
wrote:
> Innews:1174851339.0...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
> pba...@worldonline.nl <pba...@worldonline.nl> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 mrt, 20:39, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> Innews:1174846303.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
> >> Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> typed:
>
> >>> On Mar 25, 10:43 am, "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> In the name of sanity and decency, this bill *must* be defeated.
>
>
> >>>> The House is considering a measure that would make opposition to
> >>>> homosexuality a crime.
>
> >>>> Department power to investigate and prosecute "bias-motivated
> >>>> violence."
>
> >>>> Homosexual advocates who support the bill say violence against
> >>>> homosexuals is on the rise. They contend 14 percent of the 1,000
> >>>> hate crimes reported in 2005 were due to sexual orientation.
>
> >>>> "They claim that this is an epidemic, [but] one third of the 'hate
> >>>> crime's statistics' are for 'name-calling,' " Andrea Lafferty,
> >>>> executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, told Family
> >>>> News in Focus. "This is not a reason to bring in the federal
> >>>> government. The ultimate objective is to use the [prosecution] of
> >>>> hate speech against people of faith."
>
> >>>> Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America said the bill would
> >>>> favor one class of crime victims over another.
>
> >>>> "It elevates a certain people group based on their chosen sexual
> >>>> behaviors-homosexuals and so-called transgenders-to a higher level
> >>>> of status in our society," Barber said, "so that they are
> >>>> considered a more valuable victim."
>
> >>>> The Senate is expected to introduce a bipartisan companion bill
> >>>> next month.
>
> >>> You are spreading misconceptions.
>
> >> Untrue, misconception presenter.
>
> >>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>
> >> a lazy tax-leech government.
>
> >>> case, prejudice based on sexual orientation, or perceived sexual
> >>> orientation.
>
> >> Which means that they are prejudice laws which discriminate on the
> >> basis of
> >> sexual orientation.
>
> >>> This includes:
>
> >>> - straight people attacking gay people due to prejudice against
> >>> gays.
>
> >> A mask used to disguies the crimes committed by the gays who were
> >> attacked
> >> as a matter of self-protection of straights.
>
> >>> - gay people attacking straight people due to prejudice against
> >>> straights
>
> >> A crime.
>
> >>> - a gay man attacking a lesbian due to prejudice against lesbians
> >>> - a straight man attacking another straight man due to the
> >>> perception that the victim was gay
> >>> - and so on
>
> >> None of which are valid reasons to discriminate on the basis of
> >> sexual
> >> orientation.
>
> >>> It does NOT include:
> >>> - a straight man attacking a gay man for reasons that have nothing
> >>> to do with sexual orientation
>
> >> which would show that a straight man attacking a gay HIV infected
> >> male who
> >> attempts to infect or did infect others is exercising self-defense
> >> and
> >> protection of the people.
>
> >>> - a lesbian attacking a straight woman for reasons that have nothing
> >>> to do with sexual orientation
>
> >> A crime.
>
> >>> - and so on
> >>> As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
> >>> Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
> >>> these laws.
>
> >> These laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>
> >>> Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into
> >>> play when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays.
>
> >> The prejudice is against threats to the lives and bodies of persons
> >> who are
> >> not gay.
>
> >>> This is not because the laws give gays special rights,
>
> >> Wrong. They are designed to shiled gay criminals from prosecution.-
> >> Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> > It seems you cannnot read very well.
>
> I know your agenda.
Interesting! Tell me how many entries does it have for April?
> > But it is clear you would oppose the law, because you are very
> > biassed,
>
> A lie.
> I am impartial regarding the law.
Not a lie, a logical conclusion from
quote
> >>> - straight people attacking gay people due to prejudice against
> >>> gays.
>
> >> A mask used to disguies the crimes committed by the gays who were
> >> attacked
> >> as a matter of self-protection of straights.
quote
You clearly show a preduce in favor of straight people committing
violence against gay people, as you pronounce them acting in self-
defense without further investigation.
Being gay is by itself not a danger towards straights.
If you think it is, you are stupid in stead of prejudiced.
I case I was mistaken and you are stupid, I'll will certainly
apologize.
> > and you would have something in common with the criminals
> > this law would be federally persecuting.
>
> Persecuting?
> LOL!
> You wrote like an unjust criminal coward.
A coward I may be
but "unjust" and " criminal" are slander
proof what crime I have comitted,
and proof in which instance I have been unjust
or apologize!
>
> > Gay-bashing is never self-protection.
>
> An absolute lie.
> A lie designed to shield criminal gays from their just recompense.
Sounds like more slander.
Give one documented example of gay-bashing where it would be self-
protection.
and one example of a criminal gay who whould find shelter in my
statement,
or apologize!
> > which is obvious from the fact, that the attackers always make sure,
> > they are at least two against one.
>
> Which ensures that any dead or maimed gay will never have a case that can be
> won.
O, that is the self-protection you mean!
By acting as a gang, they always have more wittnisses than the victim!
I handn't thought of that.
This proofs you are not stupid!
> > (and even then the one must be a smaller guy also)
>
> Revelaing your bully rapist demeanor.
More slander
Give one documtented example of Peter van Velzen from Amstelveen
having bullied anyone. and give one documenten example of Peter van
Velzen from Amstelveen being convicted for rape, or Apologize!
> > If I may beleive my information about gay-bashers ,
>
> You can't. If you do you will be believing a lie.
So all the information that is available about gay-bashers is false?
How do you know that?
Do you have inside information, that the press has missed?
> > they wouldn't even dare attack a HIV-carrier
> > lest they would spill his blood.
>
> Do you mean because they wouldn't know how to use tazers?
I see, if they are as intelligent as you
they might dare attack an HIV-carrier.
Do you have any documented example of gay-bashers using tazers?
(a statement where you confess having done it yourself is sufficient
too)
truthfully,
Peter Velzen
March 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Robibnikoff
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkk5x4...@eris.io.com...
Um, did he just post that he believes the cops are going to lynch him in
January?!?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
The Chief Instigator
That's what it looks like - and he's implying they actually *did* lynch him
two months ago. Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a permanent
residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South Carolina (where mental
health has never been much of a priority).
Robibnikoff
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfy7r...@fnord.io.com...
> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> writes:
>
>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
>>news:szkk5x4...@eris.io.com...
>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
snip
>>>>I have an investigation going on to uncover whoever lied to the anderson
>>>>cops here to get them to lynch me in January.
>
>>> ...in other words, you'll just do whatever the voice in your head tell
>>> you.
>
>>>>I am going to have all you god damned cowards punished.
>
>>> ...just like you're respectable in any rational sense of the word.
>
>>>>Believe it, you god damned hangover shitheaded fool.
>>>>Your tactics are damned.
>
>>> Wake me up when I'm supposed to care about your insanity, SC Crackhead.
>
>>Um, did he just post that he believes the cops are going to lynch him in
>>January?!?
>
> That's what it looks like - and he's implying they actually *did* lynch
> him
> two months ago.
Hmmm, I wonder how he's managing to keep on posting if that's the case!
Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a permanent
> residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South Carolina (where mental
> health has never been much of a priority).
Oh my ;)
The Chief Instigator
>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkfy7r...@fnord.io.com...
>> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> writes:
>>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
>>>news:szkk5x4...@eris.io.com...
>>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>snip
>>>>>I have an investigation going on to uncover whoever lied to the anderson
>>>>>cops here to get them to lynch me in January.
>>>> ...in other words, you'll just do whatever the voice in your head tell
>>>> you.
>>>>>I am going to have all you god damned cowards punished.
>>>> ...just like you're respectable in any rational sense of the word.
>>>>>Believe it, you god damned hangover shitheaded fool.
>>>>>Your tactics are damned.
>>>> Wake me up when I'm supposed to care about your insanity, SC Crackhead.
>>>Um, did he just post that he believes the cops are going to lynch him in
>>>January?!?
>> That's what it looks like - and he's implying they actually *did* lynch him
>> two months ago.
>Hmmm, I wonder how he's managing to keep on posting if that's the case!
Good question...since he can't be a shill for any local PDs, as incoherent as
he is.
>> Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a permanent residence with rubber
>> walls, even if it's in South Carolina (where mental health has never been
>> much of a priority).
>Oh my ;)
He's not had a good couple of decades, apparently - from what he's let slip,
he had a decent job at Duke Energy, but his brother (older or younger, he
didn't specify) was hurt pretty badly in an accident, and needed a transfusion
- which wasn't properly screened, which led to his brother picking up HIV.
Wentzky did the right thing, taking time off from work to look after his
sibling, but in the late 1980s (in South Carolina), the virus ran its course
and his brother died...at which point Johnny chose insanity, blaming all
homosexuals for what happened. Duke Energy decided to relieve themselves of
the liability he was becoming, and he's getting an SSI check monthly. (He's
about your age, so I have no idea who (if anyone) is looking after him - but
he's never going to be the 1983 alumnus of Furman again.) What we get to see
of him is apparently about all that's left.
John D.Wentzky
pba...@worldonline.nl <pba...@worldonline.nl> typed:
Self-defense is legitimate.
When did I say there would be no investigation?
> Being gay is by itself not a danger towards straights.
I didn't say it was.
> If you think it is, you are stupid in stead of prejudiced.
> I case I was mistaken and you are stupid, I'll will certainly
> apologize.
>
>
>>> and you would have something in common with the criminals
>>> this law would be federally persecuting.
>>
>> Persecuting?
>> LOL!
>> You wrote like an unjust criminal coward.
>
> A coward I may be
> but "unjust" and " criminal" are slander
> proof what crime I have comitted,
> and proof in which instance I have been unjust
> or apologize!
Why should I apologize?
I view you as an unjust criminal coward type.
>>
>>> Gay-bashing is never self-protection.
>>
>> An absolute lie.
>> A lie designed to shield criminal gays from their just recompense.
>
> Sounds like more slander.
More of your delusions of inadequacy showing.
> Give one documented example of gay-bashing where it would be self-
> protection.
If someone becomes infected with an STD because of a gay sex-act or is put
at risk of such infection by a gay person, then why are you so afraid and
start thinking that getting bashed is a crime?
> and one example of a criminal gay who whould find shelter in my
> statement,
You mean that hate crime legilsation that does not allow people to protect
themselves against gay threats is not protecting gays who threaten people?
> or apologize!
Why?
>>> which is obvious from the fact, that the attackers always make sure,
>>> they are at least two against one.
>>
>> Which ensures that any dead or maimed gay will never have a case
>> that can be won.
>
> O, that is the self-protection you mean!
> By acting as a gang, they always have more wittnisses than the victim!
> I handn't thought of that.
It seems that gang tactics are protective.
Isn't that why the gays mobilize in gay pride parades now?
> This proofs you are not stupid!
Me?
Aren't you affiliated with gay gang members marching down the streets?
>>> (and even then the one must be a smaller guy also)
>>
>> Revealing your bully rapist demeanor.
>
> More slander
> Give one documtented example of Peter van Velzen from Amstelveen
> having bullied anyone. and give one documenten example of Peter van
> Velzen from Amstelveen being convicted for rape, or Apologize!
Do you actually think that people will believe what I typed?
Convicted and actually having done something are different issues.
>>> If I may beleive my information about gay-bashers ,
>>
>> You can't. If you do you will be believing a lie.
>
> So all the information that is available about gay-bashers is false?
I didn't say that *all* of it is false.
Like you were alluding to there would need to be an investigation if the
authorities were notified.
It would be hard to convict someone who was protecting themselves against
what they perceived to be a threat upon their life.
> How do you know that?
> Do you have inside information, that the press has missed?
No. Just that the opportunity to convict via ignorance is too great in these
hate crime bills.
>>> they wouldn't even dare attack a HIV-carrier
>>> lest they would spill his blood.
>>
>> Do you mean because they wouldn't know how to use tazers?
>
> I see, if they are as intelligent as you
> they might dare attack an HIV-carrier.
I don't know if they would or if they woulnd't.
I assume that people could use common sense and avoid attacking persons
based only on their HIV status.
> Do you have any documented example of gay-bashers using tazers?
No. Not at present.
One reason is because the public doesn't possess many tazers yet.
> (a statement where you confess having done it yourself is sufficient
> too)
I would need a tazer to do that, huh?
John D.Wentzky
Robibnikoff <witc...@broomstick.com> typed:
They did this past January.
An investigation is going forward to find out the identity of every party
that had anything whatsoever to do with this criminal attack upon me.
Any communications from any person or persons via telephone or electronic
means or otherwise that led to this attack could render them as accessories
to the assault upon me that was performed in January of this year.
John D.Wentzky
The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
They did lynch me in January.
I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back in self-defense after he
used excessive force on me.
Then more of them started beating me with their batons.
I did nothing to warrant their illegal actions against me.
> Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a
> permanent residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South Carolina
> (where mental health has never been much of a priority).
Looks to me that their are going to be criminal charges brought against the
criminals who attacked me in January.
The Chief Instigator
If it's being done by you, you're wasting your time.
>Any communications from any person or persons via telephone or electronic
>means or otherwise that led to this attack could render them as accessories
>to the assault upon me that was performed in January of this year.
What specific assault? Funny how you managed not to mention this for two
months (and maybe more). Put some credible proof up, for once.
The Chief Instigator
Returning fire at them is not something wise people would do. If you had
actually done that, you wouldn't be posting because you'd still be locked up.
>> Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a
>> permanent residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South Carolina
>> (where mental health has never been much of a priority).
>Looks to me that their are going to be criminal charges brought against the
>criminals who attacked me in January.
What "looks to you" is a pretty reliable indication that you're unable to
distinguish between reality and fantasy. Got any credible sources for this
claim?
John D.Wentzky
The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
How about you should call my attorney if you need information?
LOL!
Wanna take that step and reveal your identity to him?
The Chief Instigator
Why? It's obviously a public record...if it happened, in the first place.
>Wanna take that step and reveal your identity to him?
Why? I've never hidden my identity, Anderson County Loon. (How much is he
gigging your family for?)
RamRod Sword of Baal
>>Oh my ;)
A sad story, but no sadder than the millions of people who had sex, and did
not know that there was a nasty virus lurking around and contacted the HIV
infection and consequently passed away.
When HIV burst onto the scene no one knew about it, and so it was passed on
from person to person, and most of these people died as a result.
People gave blood because it was the nice thing to do, and unknowingly
passed on this virus.
It took some time before science caught up and the required changes were
made to the blood supply system.
I have known quite a few nice people who have died because of this virus.
The Chief Instigator
>>>Oh my ;)
So have I...and in Wentzky's case, his response was to choose insanity. He's
paying the price for that choice. Me, I'd rather know than not know.
John D.Wentzky
Hey, asshole.
I did nto 'return fire' on them.
Some disrespectful idiot asshole ingrate loser proud arrogant youngster cop
assaulted me, you idiot.
I was fully within my rights to use self-defense against his illegal use of
force agaisnt me.
> If you had actually done that, you wouldn't be posting because you'd still
> be locked up.
They did haul me to jail after they pummelled me with their batons.
Why do you think I'm not in jail now?
>>> Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a
>>> permanent residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South
>>> Carolina (where mental health has never been much of a priority).
>
>> Looks to me that their are going to be criminal charges brought
>> against the criminals who attacked me in January.
>
> What "looks to you" is a pretty reliable indication that you're
> unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
What looks to me is that you are a condescending idiot wimp of criminal
intent against members of the public of the USA.
How many years you been defected or exiled from the former USSR?
> Got any credible
> sources for this claim?
Why do you think I am supposed to give you any information at all regarding
this transgression by the cops against me?
John D.Wentzky
The public record you are requesting isn't online.
>> Wanna take that step and reveal your identity to him?
>
> Why? I've never hidden my identity, Anderson County Loon. (How much
> is he gigging your family for?)
Gigging?
My family aren't frogs.
The Chief Instigator
I didn't mean that to be taken literally, idiot. Returning their use of force
is a blatantly stupid thing to do, if they're actually LEOs.
>Some disrespectful idiot asshole ingrate loser proud arrogant youngster cop
>assaulted me, you idiot.
>I was fully within my rights to use self-defense against his illegal use of
>force agaisnt me.
I guess we'll see when (and if) your case ever makes it to court.
>> If you had actually done that, you wouldn't be posting because you'd still
>> be locked up.
>They did haul me to jail after they pummelled me with their batons.
>Why do you think I'm not in jail now?
I have no idea...but if you're not still in jail, it's obviously not all that
certain that you did anything but tell them off.
>>>> Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a
>>>> permanent residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South
>>>> Carolina (where mental health has never been much of a priority).
>>> Looks to me that their are going to be criminal charges brought
>>> against the criminals who attacked me in January.
>> What "looks to you" is a pretty reliable indication that you're
>> unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
>What looks to me is that you are a condescending idiot wimp of criminal
>intent against members of the public of the USA.
Thanks for showing that my opinion is pretty much right on the mark.
>How many years you been defected or exiled from the former USSR?
I was born in this country, and I've been out of it twice - once for about an
hour (Canada, in 1976), and for five days in Cancún with Dale in 2000. I've
never been to Russia. Feel free to dispute that.
>> Got any credible sources for this claim?
>Why do you think I am supposed to give you any information at all regarding
>this transgression by the cops against me?
It's called "proving your claims", since you've built up a considerable record
of lies and delusions just in this newsgroup over the years.
The Chief Instigator
That sounds about right for South Carolina, where they're still trying to
outlaw the 20th Century.
>>> Wanna take that step and reveal your identity to him?
>> Why? I've never hidden my identity, Anderson County Loon. (How much
>> is he gigging your family for?)
>Gigging? My family aren't frogs.
Your alleged attorney isn't doing pro bono, I suspect...
John D.Wentzky
>
> I didn't mean that to be taken literally, idiot. Returning their use
> of force is a blatantly stupid thing to do, if they're actually LEOs.
You *are* an idiot.
They are not authorized to use force upon members of the public without
acting in their own defense.
>> Some disrespectful idiot asshole ingrate loser proud arrogant
>> youngster cop assaulted me, you idiot.
>> I was fully within my rights to use self-defense against his illegal
>> use of force agaisnt me.
>
> I guess we'll see when (and if) your case ever makes it to court.
Well, with a right to a fair a speedy trial by a jury of my peers, I am sure
they are already losing.
>>> If you had actually done that, you wouldn't be posting because
>>> you'd still be locked up.
>
>> They did haul me to jail after they pummelled me with their batons.
>> Why do you think I'm not in jail now?
>
> I have no idea...but if you're not still in jail, it's obviously not
> all that certain that you did anything but tell them off.
I see you now understand that Free Speech caused them to lose their heads
and to commit crimes against me.
>>>>> Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a
>>>>> permanent residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South
>>>>> Carolina (where mental health has never been much of a priority).
>
>>>> Looks to me that their are going to be criminal charges brought
>>>> against the criminals who attacked me in January.
>
>>> What "looks to you" is a pretty reliable indication that you're
>>> unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
>
>> What looks to me is that you are a condescending idiot wimp of
>> criminal intent against members of the public of the USA.
>
> Thanks for showing that my opinion is pretty much right on the mark.
>
>> How many years you been defected or exiled from the former USSR?
>
> I was born in this country, and I've been out of it twice - once for
> about an hour (Canada, in 1976), and for five days in Cancún with
> Dale in 2000. I've never been to Russia. Feel free to dispute that.
>
>>> Got any credible sources for this claim?
>
>> Why do you think I am supposed to give you any information at all
>> regarding this transgression by the cops against me?
>
> It's called "proving your claims", since you've built up a
> considerable record of lies and delusions just in this newsgroup over
> the years.
This isn't a court room transcript or a lcriminal investigation record
forum.
I do not know why you think I am obligated to prove anything I tell you in
this newsgroup.
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>A mask used to disguies the crimes committed by the gays who were attacked
>as a matter of self-protection of straights.
Only in the eyes of psychopathic would-be murderers like you. Calling
an unprovoked attack (killing is unprovoked if your assailant isn't
attempting to kill you in an immediate fashion) "self-protection" is
easily grounds for involuntary commitment, if not a potassium tattoo.
>> - gay people attacking straight people due to prejudice against
>> straights
>
>A crime.
>
>> - a gay man attacking a lesbian due to prejudice against lesbians
>> - a straight man attacking another straight man due to the perception
>> that the victim was gay
>> - and so on
>
>None of which are valid reasons to discriminate on the basis of sexual
>orientation.
But allowing a straight man to kill a gay man SOLELY because the
victim is gay would make the law sexually discriminatory, whether the
straight man thought there was a threat caused SOLELY by the gay man
being gay, or due to some other fantasy of his. Fantasies aren't
admissible as evidence.
>> It does NOT include:
>> - a straight man attacking a gay man for reasons that have nothing to
>> do with sexual orientation
>which would show that a straight man attacking a gay HIV infected male who
>attempts to infect or did infect others is exercising self-defense and
>protection of the people.
Only if he could PROVE (like with a medical report) BEFORE the attack,
that the gay man was
a) HIV-positive,
b) in a contagious state (not all stages of HIV are contagious,
c) actively attempting to infect the victim.
Having unprotected sex while knowingly being infected with HIV is, AT
MOST, depraved indifference manslaughter - not warranting the death
sentence in ANY state. Especially South Carolina, where (last time I
looked) it's legal to kill ANY escaped prisoner. Escape from prison
on a sentence for shoplifting a Pepsi and you can be shot. Have sex
with someone when you know you can infect them with HIV and you only
go to prison for a couple of decades. YOUR state's laws, John. In
more civilized states, civilians can only kill people when their lives
are immediately threatened, and only in a manner that's legal.
(Carrying an illegal concealed weapon and using it to kill someone who
threatened your life is presumptive evidence that it was a planned
murder.)
>> As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
>> Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
>> these laws.
>These laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
NOT considering an attack more heinous just because the assailant is
gay is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. "Gay", in
case you missed it, IS a sexual orientation. Giving straights the
right to kill gays, but not giving gays the right to kill straights,
is giving straights rights that you won't give gays - prima facie
discrimination. (That requires actual evidence, not just your
assertion, to refute.)
>> Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into play
>> when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays.
>The prejudice is against threats to the lives and bodies of persons who are
>not gay.
NEVER happened yet. Care to post links to cases in which straights
were actually threatened with death by a gay whom they didn't
subsequently beat FAR beyond the necessity of keeping him from being a
threat? Totally incapacitating someone stops any threat he might
pose. Hitting him with your hands CAUSES a threat to your life. But
once he's no longer able to pose an IMMEDIATE threat to your life, any
further beating is aggravated assault.
And you don't even have to kill him. In most jurisdictions, an
assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (or its equivalent) may
amount to murder in certain circumstances.
I guess Darwin will just have to sort your kind out.
>> This is not because the laws give gays special rights,
>Wrong. They are designed to shiled gay criminals from prosecution.
Only if you consider being gay a criminal act. Name a single gay, who
was attacked SOLELY because he was gay, who was posing an IMMEDIATE
threat to his attacker. (If you're able to leave the scene without
being attacked there's no threat that justifies assault. And being
gay is NOT an immediate threat to anyone, regardless of what the
voices in your head tell you.)
Al Klein
wrote:
>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004181.cfm
>The House is considering a measure that would make opposition to
>homosexuality a crime.
>A bill with bipartisan support in Congress would give the Justice Department
>power to investigate and prosecute "bias-motivated violence."
Either you or the person who wrote the article (or, I strongly
suspect, both) doesn't understand the difference between opposing
homosexuality and beating a homosexual to death solely because he's
homosexual.
BTW, despite your attempts to show this as a news article, it's not.
Disclaimer at the bottom of the page:
"(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action)"
And we all know that FoF has no axe to grind.
The Chief Instigator
>In news:szkd52v...@fnord.io.com,
>The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>>
>>> In news:szkbqif...@fnord.io.com,
>>> The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
>>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>>
>>>>> In news:szkfy7r...@fnord.io.com,
>>>>> The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
[...]
>>>>>> That's what it looks like - and he's implying they actually *did*
>>>>>> lynch him two months ago.
>>>>> They did lynch me in January.
>>>>> I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back in self-defense
>>>>> after he used excessive force on me.
>>>>> Then more of them started beating me with their batons.
>>>>> I did nothing to warrant their illegal actions against me.
>>>> Returning fire at them is not something wise people would do.
>>> Hey, asshole.
>>> I did not 'return fire' on them.
>> I didn't mean that to be taken literally, idiot. Returning their use
>> of force is a blatantly stupid thing to do, if they're actually LEOs.
>You *are* an idiot.
>They are not authorized to use force upon members of the public without
>acting in their own defense.
You just admitted that you were threatening them, in that case.
>>> Some disrespectful idiot asshole ingrate loser proud arrogant
>>> youngster cop assaulted me, you idiot.
>>> I was fully within my rights to use self-defense against his illegal
>>> use of force agaisnt me.
>> I guess we'll see when (and if) your case ever makes it to court.
>Well, with a right to a fair a speedy trial by a jury of my peers, I am sure
>they are already losing.
I'm sure you're lying.
>>>> If you had actually done that, you wouldn't be posting because
>>>> you'd still be locked up.
>>> They did haul me to jail after they pummelled me with their batons.
>>> Why do you think I'm not in jail now?
>> I have no idea...but if you're not still in jail, it's obviously not
>> all that certain that you did anything but tell them off.
>I see you now understand that Free Speech caused them to lose their heads
>and to commit crimes against me.
I understand that you're lying.
>>>>>> Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a
>>>>>> permanent residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South
>>>>>> Carolina (where mental health has never been much of a priority).
>>>>> Looks to me that their are going to be criminal charges brought
>>>>> against the criminals who attacked me in January.
>>>> What "looks to you" is a pretty reliable indication that you're
>>>> unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
>>> What looks to me is that you are a condescending idiot wimp of
>>> criminal intent against members of the public of the USA.
>> Thanks for showing that my opinion is pretty much right on the mark.
>>> How many years you been defected or exiled from the former USSR?
>> I was born in this country, and I've been out of it twice - once for
>> about an hour (Canada, in 1976), and for five days in Cancún with
>> Dale in 2000. I've never been to Russia. Feel free to dispute that.
Funny how you clam up when you know you've been caught in the act of lying.
>>>> Got any credible sources for this claim?
>>> Why do you think I am supposed to give you any information at all
>>> regarding this transgression by the cops against me?
>> It's called "proving your claims", since you've built up a
>> considerable record of lies and delusions just in this newsgroup over
>> the years.
>This isn't a court room transcript or a lcriminal investigation record
>forum.
It's the ravings of a mentally ill kook in South Carolina.
>I do not know why you think I am obligated to prove anything I tell you in
>this newsgroup.
If you're that clueless, ask the police why they assaulted you. *snicker*
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>In news:1174851339.0...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
>pba...@worldonline.nl <pba...@worldonline.nl> typed:
>> Gay-bashing is never self-protection.
>An absolute lie.
An absolute truth, since the definition of gay bashing is beating
someone solely because he prefers to have romantic relationships with
men - clearly no threat to you, since you wouldn't have a relationship
with him.
>A lie designed to shield criminal gays from their just recompense.
The law has nothing to do with shielding criminals, it has to do with
imposing penalties on criminals. (Aggravated assault is a crime in
ALL jurisdictions.)
>> which is obvious from the fact, that the attackers always make sure,
>> they are at least two against one.
>Which ensures that any dead or maimed gay will never have a case that can be
>won.
It only deals with bias crimes. ANY gay person who's maimed or killed
has legal recourse (with a dead person his family and the state have
recourse) - the only thing the bill would do is make the penalty
harsher if the sole motivation for the crime were sexual orientation.
If would STILL be illegal to kill a gay man, you just wouldn't get the
extra spicy potassium in your needle.
>> (and even then the one must be a smaller guy also)
>Revelaing your bully rapist demeanor.
If, according to the assailants, the victim has to be smaller, the
victim is a bully? That's what you claimed, John - that if people
only beat up gays who are smaller than they are, the gays are bullies.
If intelligence were TNT you wouldn't be able to blow your nose.
>> If I may beleive my information about gay-bashers ,
>You can't. If you do you will be believing a lie.
If he believes the opposite of anything you tell him about gays,
he'll be believing the gospel truth.
>> they wouldn't even dare attack a HIV-carrier
>> lest they would spill his blood.
>Do you mean because they wouldn't know how to use tazers?
Civilian use of a taser against a person is a felony. In most states,
civilian possession of a taser is a felony, the same as illegal
possession of a firearm.
The Chief Instigator
>In news:szk8xdj...@fnord.io.com,
>The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>>> In news:szk3b3r...@fnord.io.com,
>>> The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
>>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
[...]
>>>>> How about you should call my attorney if you need information?
>>>>> LOL!
>>>> Why? It's obviously a public record...if it happened, in the first
>>>> place.
>>> The public record you are requesting isn't online.
>> That sounds about right for South Carolina, where they're still
>> trying to outlaw the 20th Century.
>>>>> Wanna take that step and reveal your identity to him?
>>>> Why? I've never hidden my identity, Anderson County Loon. (How
>>>> much is he gigging your family for?)
>>> Gigging? My family aren't frogs.
>> Your alleged attorney isn't doing pro bono, I suspect...
>Contigency is a word you seem to forget.
Sanity is a condition you rejected years ago, Wentzky.
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>In news:871wjdf...@nospam.pacbell.net,
>No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>>
>>> In news:1174846303.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
>>> Anlatt the Builder <tir...@aol.com> typed:
>>>
>>>> As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
>>>> Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
>>>> these laws.
>>>
>>> These laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>>>
>>>> Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into
>>>> play when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays.
>>>
>>> The prejudice is against threats to the lives and bodies of persons
>>> who are not gay.
>>>
>>>> This is not because the laws give gays special rights,
>>>
>>> Wrong. They are designed to shield gay criminals from prosecution.
>>
>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect everyone,
>
>Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps society.
Even saying that in public is committing a crime. Are you that
stupid? The next time a gay man is killed in your part of SC, the
police may very well knock on your door. It wouldn't take a very
competent DA to convict you, either. You just publicly admitted
motive.
>As you scurry along to place blame upon someone other than your guilty self
>via lies and false testimony
Are you accusing someone of having unprotected sex while knowingly
HIV-positive? If so, you're wide open to a MASSIVE judgment for
slander. Enough that you'd have to give up the cardboard box under
the bridge that you call home, because you wouldn't have enough to pay
the rent you owe your cockroach landlord.
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>In news:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
>Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>Neither statements are true about me.
Your posts tell us that you're utterly intolerant of gays, so that
part is true.
>So why is it you aren't going around, raising your right hand and saying,
>"Heil Wentzky!"
You need a hearing aid - we're saying "Hell, Wentsky ..." and we have
our hands raised to ward off the blows you're sure to try to rain on
us because you know we're better than you in every way and you can't
stand it.
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be safe
>and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal idiots who have
>nothing better to do than drag up something out of their ass storage system
>that is more than three months past?
As soon as the police make sure that your diapers are dry when you go
to sleep. IOW never, since that's not what Usenet does.
Speaking of dragging something old out of your ass, when was it that
you first claimed that you have the right to kill anyone you think is
gay and might be trying to rape you? More than 3 months.
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>Google isn't my enemy, you god damned idiot.
>Google is my friend.
You call someone a friend who says, "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores
and pimps are worse for the USA than the ban on abortions.
John D Wentzky in
<4rfjp25arol8fsfs6pi2j6aornn37cc...@4ax.com>,11/8/2006"? It says,
plain as the fact that you're a lazy, welfare-sucking slob, that
you're a bigot and a racist. the only difference between you and the
Klan is that even they wouldn't have you - they have SOME principles
(even though dead spiders have better morals).
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>I have an investigation going on to uncover whoever lied to the anderson
>cops here to get them to lynch me in January.
An "investigation"? Does that mean that you bitch to your pals around
the garbage fire every night? Or have they given up on you too?
>I am going to have all you god damned cowards punished.
If anyone who posts here has anything mysterious happen to them, you'd
better have a really good alibi for the time it happened. (You're not
exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you, John, making these
open admissions of motives to commit felonies?)
>Your tactics are damned.
By your phony god?
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:16:45 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
> <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>
>> In news:1174851339.0...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
>> pba...@worldonline.nl <pba...@worldonline.nl> typed:
>
>>> Gay-bashing is never self-protection.
>
>> An absolute lie.
>
> An absolute truth, since the definition of gay bashing is beating
> someone solely because he prefers to have romantic relationships with
> men - clearly no threat to you, since you wouldn't have a relationship
> with him.
I am not a subject of gay langauge or gay opinion.
Gays are not authorized to make the defnitions.
>> A lie designed to shield criminal gays from their just recompense.
>
> The law has nothing to do with shielding criminals,
Bullshit.
You cowardly gays who live in dread are inclined to make illicit laws.
> it has to do with imposing penalties on criminals. (Aggravated assault is
> a crime in
> ALL jurisdictions.)
Self-defense is no crime in any jurisdiction.
>>> which is obvious from the fact, that the attackers always make sure,
>>> they are at least two against one.
>
>> Which ensures that any dead or maimed gay will never have a case
>> that can be won.
>
> It only deals with bias crimes.
For someone who is so much for anti-discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation you just contradicted your own tenet.
> ANY gay person who's maimed or killed
> has legal recourse (with a dead person his family and the state have
> recourse) - the only thing the bill would do is make the penalty
> harsher if the sole motivation for the crime were sexual orientation.
Illicit penalty, gay only ally.
> If would STILL be illegal to kill a gay man, you just wouldn't get the
> extra spicy potassium in your needle.
Extra punishments on the basis of sexual orientation are discriminatory.
>>> (and even then the one must be a smaller guy also)
>
>> Revealing your bully rapist demeanor.
>
> If, according to the assailants, the victim has to be smaller, the
> victim is a bully?
You lost track already?
> That's what you claimed, John - that if people
> only beat up gays who are smaller than they are, the gays are bullies.
No, I didn't.
> If intelligence were TNT you wouldn't be able to blow your nose.
>
>>> If I may beleive my information about gay-bashers ,
>
>> You can't. If you do you will be believing a lie.
>
> If he believes the opposite of anything you tell him about gays,
> he'll be believing the gospel truth.
>
>>> they wouldn't even dare attack a HIV-carrier
>>> lest they would spill his blood.
>
>> Do you mean because they wouldn't know how to use tazers?
>
> Civilian use of a taser against a person is a felony.
Bullshit, ignorance harbinger.
> In most states, civilian possession of a taser is a felony, the same as
> illegal
> possession of a firearm.
Wrongo, ignorance and traitor.
The Amendments guarantee the right to bear arms.
You are not in agreement with the Amendments.
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>I comprende that if any more treason is committed against me that muy
>comments are archived and that they can and will be used against my enemies.
You still seem to miss the FACT, John, that your assertions are
totally *IN*admissible in a court of law as anything other than to
show your state of mind. Which, of late, has been particularly
felonious, so I'd bury any mention of my archived comments, were I
you. They can only be useful when being used against you - sane
people won't see them as justification for your actions, only as
justification for your involuntary commitment. Even in the South
Carolina boonies, there are limits to how psychotic you can be and
still be allowed to walk the streets. Sane people will have you
locked away just to protect themselves from your insanity - which is
amply evidenced by your "archived comments".
Al Klein
<pat...@eris.io.com> wrote:
>BFD. If you ever show up in the city I live in, I'll consider worrying.
>Enjoy your latest psychotic break.
Is "he needed killing" still considered a valid active defense in a
murder trial in Texas? His posts are more than enough proof that he's
a clear and present danger to society.
John D.Wentzky
The Chief Instigator <pat...@eris.io.com> typed:
Not so, you god damned liar.
I never admitted anything of the sort, you god damned peice of dogshit for
brains.
I never threatened any of them, you god damned coward's fool.
>>>> Some disrespectful idiot asshole ingrate loser proud arrogant
>>>> youngster cop assaulted me, you idiot.
>>>> I was fully within my rights to use self-defense against his
>>>> illegal use of force agaisnt me.
>
>>> I guess we'll see when (and if) your case ever makes it to court.
>
>> Well, with a right to a fair a speedy trial by a jury of my peers, I
>> am sure they are already losing.
>
> I'm sure you're lying.
Nah, wimpo, liar, and ignorance fool.
You are an idiot.
Your desire is against the USA.
>>>>> If you had actually done that, you wouldn't be posting because
>>>>> you'd still be locked up.
>
>>>> They did haul me to jail after they pummelled me with their batons.
>>>> Why do you think I'm not in jail now?
>
>>> I have no idea...but if you're not still in jail, it's obviously not
>>> all that certain that you did anything but tell them off.
>
>> I see you now understand that Free Speech caused them to lose their
>> heads and to commit crimes against me.
>
> I understand that you're lying.
You understand that you are an idiot.
>>>>>>> Looks like Johnny's on the fast track to a
>>>>>>> permanent residence with rubber walls, even if it's in South
>>>>>>> Carolina (where mental health has never been much of a
>>>>>>> priority).
>
>>>>>> Looks to me that their are going to be criminal charges brought
>>>>>> against the criminals who attacked me in January.
>
>>>>> What "looks to you" is a pretty reliable indication that you're
>>>>> unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
>
>>>> What looks to me is that you are a condescending idiot wimp of
>>>> criminal intent against members of the public of the USA.
>
>>> Thanks for showing that my opinion is pretty much right on the mark.
>
>>>> How many years you been defected or exiled from the former USSR?
>
>>> I was born in this country, and I've been out of it twice - once for
>>> about an hour (Canada, in 1976), and for five days in Cancún with
>>> Dale in 2000. I've never been to Russia. Feel free to dispute
>>> that.
>
> Funny how you clam up when you know you've been caught in the act of
> lying.
How is a question a lie?
Hard to ward off the heat, isn't it?
>>>>> Got any credible sources for this claim?
>
>>>> Why do you think I am supposed to give you any information at all
>>>> regarding this transgression by the cops against me?
>
>>> It's called "proving your claims", since you've built up a
>>> considerable record of lies and delusions just in this newsgroup
>>> over the years.
>
>> This isn't a court room transcript or a lriminal investigation
>> record forum.
>
> It's the ravings of a mentally ill kook in South Carolina.
Bullshit, you criminal ally.
>> I do not know why you think I am obligated to prove anything I tell
>> you in this newsgroup.
>
> If you're that clueless, ask the police why they assaulted you.
> *snicker*
I am sure that can be accomplished if it goes to trial.
I can demand a trial, and the government is obligated to grant it to me.
IDIOT!
LOSERS!
FOOLS!
CRIMINALS!
John D.Wentzky
The Chief Instigator <pat...@eris.io.com> typed:
> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
>> In news:szk8xdj...@fnord.io.com,
>> The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
>>>> In news:szk3b3r...@fnord.io.com,
>>>> The Chief Instigator <pat...@fnord.io.com> typed:
>>>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>> How about you should call my attorney if you need information?
>>>>>> LOL!
>
>>>>> Why? It's obviously a public record...if it happened, in the
>>>>> first place.
>
>>>> The public record you are requesting isn't online.
>
>>> That sounds about right for South Carolina, where they're still
>>> trying to outlaw the 20th Century.
>
>>>>>> Wanna take that step and reveal your identity to him?
>
>>>>> Why? I've never hidden my identity, Anderson County Loon. (How
>>>>> much is he gigging your family for?)
>
>>>> Gigging? My family aren't frogs.
>
>>> Your alleged attorney isn't doing pro bono, I suspect...
>
>> Contigency is a word you seem to forget.
>
> Sanity is a condition you rejected years ago, Wentzky.
All your efforts have failed you PLH.
You are deemed defeated.
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
Why does it matter when?
Since you are against self-defense, no one cares about your inadequacies.
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:44:27 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
> <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>
>> In news:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
>> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
>
>>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
>
>> Neither statements are true about me.
>
> Your posts tell us that you're utterly intolerant of gays, so that
> part is true.
I am intolerant of them wanting to have sex with me and with them infecting
members of the populace.
>> So why is it you aren't going around, raising your right hand and
>> saying, "Heil Wentzky!"
>
> You need a hearing aid - we're saying "Hell, Wentsky ..." and we have
> our hands raised to ward off the blows you're sure to try to rain on
> us because you know we're better than you in every way and you can't
> stand it.
Bullshit.
If you were better than me you wouldn'ta slipped so much.
You are a testament to failure.
Al Klein
<johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>In news:73pd0314i27gtuhgo...@4ax.com,
>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> typed:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:39:07 -0400 there was an Ancient "John
>> D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> who stoppeth one in
>> alt.atheism
>>>> Hate crime laws enhance the sentencing and record-keeping for
>>> a lazy tax-leech government.
>> ROTFLMAO! So, how many government checks do you collect each month
>> again, leech?
>Fewer than the government hands out to criminals.
So less than all the criminals combined who are collecting government
money. But you're probably stealing more from the government than
most criminals. After all, if you aren't physically unable to perform
any work at all (and your posting to Usenet proves that you could get
a job at least doing computer data entry), then collecting disability
payments is theft. Probably grand larceny in your case. And
criminally defrauding the government.
Gee, that makes you a criminal also, John. Unindicted, but a criminal
nonetheless. A felon too.
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:19:18 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
> <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>
>> In news:871wjdf...@nospam.pacbell.net,
>> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
>>> "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>> In news:1174846303.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
>>>> Anlatt the Builder <tir...@aol.com> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
>>>>> Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
>>>>> these laws.
>>>>
>>>> These laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>>>>
>>>>> Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into
>>>>> play when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays.
>>>>
>>>> The prejudice is against threats to the lives and bodies of persons
>>>> who are not gay.
>>>>
>>>>> This is not because the laws give gays special rights,
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. They are designed to shield gay criminals from prosecution.
>>>
>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
>>> everyone,
>>
>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
>> society.
>
> Even saying that in public is committing a crime.
Actually, it isn't, you idiot.
Free Speech is guaranteed, and since you indicate that ridding the
population of the threat of HIV is not a good idea, it is your stance that
is deemed illegal.
> Are you that stupid?
I'm not so stupid, as you are, to think that getting rid of the threat of
HIV is a crime.
> The next time a gay man is killed in your part of SC, the
> police may very well knock on your door.
They better not, you idiot.
I alreayd know how god damned guilty some people are, and any action of that
sort would constitute nothing more than some coward scumbag trying to place
the balme on me.
> It wouldn't take a very competent DA to convict you, either.
You *are* an idiot.
There would be no proof that I had done it if I actually didn't do it.
YOU IDIOT!
> You just publicly admitted
> motive.
What motive?
I have no other motive than self-defense and the right to the use of lethal
force.
>> As you scurry along to place blame upon someone other than your
>> guilty self via lies and false testimony
>
> Are you accusing someone of having unprotected sex while knowingly
> HIV-positive?
Are you still an idiot?
> If so, you're wide open to a MASSIVE judgment for
> slander.
You are wide open to investigation for fraud.
> Enough that you'd have to give up the cardboard box under
> the bridge that you call home, because you wouldn't have enough to pay
> the rent you owe your cockroach landlord.
There would be no proof if some gay person dies in Anderson SC that I did it
unless I was forced to defend myself or another person against the imminent
danger threat of HIV.
Such an act would exonerate me 100 percent.
That is how the law is written.
Al Klein
<pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>> Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America said the bill would favor one
>> class of crime victims over another.
>No, it is not the victims that would be different it is the criminals.
>The victim might be anyone
That's one point they don't understand. A hate-crimes bill isn't "if
you commit this crime against a gay person", it's "if you commit this
crime because you think your victim is gay". The victim doesn't have
to be gay, and crimes against gay people aren't treated differently
than crimes against straight people - crimes committed DUE TO APPARENT
sexual orientation are dealt with differently.
Killing someone because your foot slipped off the brake pedal is dealt
with differently than killing someone you were intending to kill -
using a car. The act is almost identical - only the motivation makes
the difference between first degree murder and an accident with no
(criminal) punishment.
In the same way, killing someone because punched you SHOULD be treated
differently than killing someone because you think he prefers men to
women (or she prefers women to men).
Al Klein
wrote:
>No, they do not. They do not, for example, have the right to marry
>the consenting, unrelated, single adult of their choice in the same
>manner and for the same reasons as as heterosexuals, and they do not
>have the right to have such marriages recognized as legal anywhere in
>the country, as homosexuals
(I'm sure you meant 'heterosexuals')
> have. (The second part will only likely
>last until the first Supreme Court challenge since it is a violation
>of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.)
I doubt it - the Constitution doesn't give the government the right to
unilaterally declare someone an "enemy combatant", without a trial by
jury, open to the press.
>Mark Sebree
>(American-American, U.S. Navy Veteran)
Same branch - do you think it has something to do with picking up
soap?
>> duke, American-American
Louisianan? Odds are he's of French extraction, even though he
carries a German name. American? What species? Dire wolf? Humans
aren't native to the Western hemisphere, Pukey - your ancestors came
from somewhere else.
No One
> In news:8ipg0319i2hkm5pia...@4ax.com,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:44:27 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
> > <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
> > Your posts tell us that you're utterly intolerant of gays, so that
> > part is true.
>
> I am intolerant of them wanting to have sex with me and with them infecting
> members of the populace.
Wentzky should rest assured that no gay guy would want to have
sex with him! Even the most desparate of the desparate has
some minimum standard to uphold. :-)
And "infecting members of the populace" with what? You can't
"catch" a sexual orientation like you catch a cold. If Wentzky
means an STD, it takes two to tango (and sometimes more, depending
on your taste). If he means HIV in particular, it is no more
deadly than syphilis was in the 1800s. Would Wentzky have wanted
everyone else "euthanized" to protect him from it if he had lived
back then?
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:39:07 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
> <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>
>> A mask used to disguies the crimes committed by the gays who were
>> attacked as a matter of self-protection of straights.
>
> Only in the eyes of psychopathic would-be murderers like you. Calling
> an unprovoked attack (killing is unprovoked if your assailant isn't
> attempting to kill you in an immediate fashion) "self-protection" is
> easily grounds for involuntary commitment, if not a potassium tattoo.
You habve no idea, murdering asshole, how much people will want to kill
people like you in very short order.
The murderer never gets the opportunity to make the first move in my system.
>>> - gay people attacking straight people due to prejudice against
>>> straights
>>
>> A crime.
>>
>>> - a gay man attacking a lesbian due to prejudice against lesbians
>>> - a straight man attacking another straight man due to the
>>> perception that the victim was gay
>>> - and so on
>>
>> None of which are valid reasons to discriminate on the basis of
>> sexual orientation.
>
> But allowing a straight man to kill a gay man SOLELY because the
> victim is gay would make the law sexually discriminatory, whether the
> straight man thought there was a threat caused SOLELY by the gay man
> being gay, or due to some other fantasy of his. Fantasies aren't
> admissible as evidence.
Evidence is admissible.
You almost got that much right.
>>> It does NOT include:
>>> - a straight man attacking a gay man for reasons that have nothing
>>> to do with sexual orientation
>
>> which would show that a straight man attacking a gay HIV infected
>> male who attempts to infect or did infect others is exercising
>> self-defense and protection of the people.
>
> Only if he could PROVE (like with a medical report) BEFORE the attack,
> that the gay man was
>
> a) HIV-positive,
>
> b) in a contagious state (not all stages of HIV are contagious,
>
> c) actively attempting to infect the victim.
Unnecessary, idiot.
All those conditions are unnecessary to exhonerate anyone who kills any gay
male in the USA.
It would be totally acceptable to kill any gay man that is alive.
I do not tolerate lukewarm asshole's ideas such as your own which are
designed only to shield criminal dangers to the public.
> Having unprotected sex while knowingly being infected with HIV is, AT
> MOST, depraved indifference manslaughter - not warranting the death
> sentence in ANY state. Especially South Carolina, where (last time I
> looked) it's legal to kill ANY escaped prisoner. Escape from prison
> on a sentence for shoplifting a Pepsi and you can be shot. Have sex
> with someone when you know you can infect them with HIV and you only
> go to prison for a couple of decades. YOUR state's laws, John. In
> more civilized states, civilians can only kill people when their lives
> are immediately threatened, and only in a manner that's legal.
> (Carrying an illegal concealed weapon and using it to kill someone who
> threatened your life is presumptive evidence that it was a planned
> murder.)
Sorry, you perverted drug profit freak.
Carrying a concealed weapon in no way violates the Second Amendment. Issuing
concealed weapons permits only to those who pay a fee and who become
registered with the goverment violates the equal protections and equal
priveleges clauses and it also violates the right to privacy statutes.
>>> As you can see, the law does not give special rights to gays.
>>> Everyone, gay, straight, and bisexual, gets the same rights under
>>> these laws.
>
>> These laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
>
> NOT considering an attack more heinous just because the assailant is
> gay is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. "Gay", in
> case you missed it, IS a sexual orientation. Giving straights the
> right to kill gays, but not giving gays the right to kill straights,
> is giving straights rights that you won't give gays - prima facie
> discrimination. (That requires actual evidence, not just your
> assertion, to refute.)
Gay, msm, is evidence enough to discriminate against MSMs.
The risk of infection from MSms is too great not to discriminate so.
Also, straights would be exempt because they are not MSMs and do not pose
much risk at all compared to MSMs with regard to lethal disease
trnasmission.
>>> Now, it is true that, IN PRACTICE, these laws generally come into
>>> play when heterosexuals attack gays due to prejudice against gays.
>
>> The prejudice is against threats to the lives and bodies of persons
>> who are not gay.
>
> NEVER happened yet. Care to post links to cases in which straights
> were actually threatened with death by a gay whom they didn't
> subsequently beat FAR beyond the necessity of keeping him from being a
> threat? Totally incapacitating someone stops any threat he might
> pose. Hitting him with your hands CAUSES a threat to your life. But
> once he's no longer able to pose an IMMEDIATE threat to your life, any
> further beating is aggravated assault.
You gonna be there to read the minds of the persons in the fight?
You gonna be able to tell the person who was threatened was able to rid the
attacker of his positive HIV status before he decided to stop?
How are you going ot guarantee that MSMs are not infected with HIV?
LOL!
What assurance can you give to the public that MSMs are not a threat to the
general public?
> And you don't even have to kill him. In most jurisdictions, an
> assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (or its equivalent) may
> amount to murder in certain circumstances.
Nah, HIV propagation criminal ally.
> I guess Darwin will just have to sort your kind out.
He won't.
Survival of the fittest makes me the winner.
>>> This is not because the laws give gays special rights,
>
>> Wrong. They are designed to shield gay criminals from prosecution.
>
> Only if you consider being gay a criminal act.
Most people do.
> Name a single gay, who was attacked SOLELY because he was gay, who was
> posing an IMMEDIATE
> threat to his attacker. (If you're able to leave the scene without
> being attacked there's no threat that justifies assault. And being
> gay is NOT an immediate threat to anyone, regardless of what the
> voices in your head tell you.)
What is your problem, you idiot?
I was attacked by a gay in high school, you piece of dogshit.
No One
> In news:szkodmg...@eris.io.com,
> The Chief Instigator <pat...@eris.io.com> typed:
> > "John D.Wentzky" <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> writes:
> >
> >> In news:4607249e$0$14103$742e...@news.sonic.net,
> >> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> typed:
> >>> John D.Wentzky <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
> >>>> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
> >
> >>>>> This is shear nonsense from Wentzky. Hate crime laws protect
> >>>>> everyone,
> >
> >>>> Wrong. Euthanizing the criminal threat of HIV infected males helps
> >>>> society.
> >
> >>> Wentzky, in addition to being a racist and homophobic bigot,
> >
> >> Neither statements are true about me.
> >
> > "Pro-rapist, nigger-loving whores and pimps are worse for the USA than
> > the ban on abortions. "
> > -John D Wentzky in <4rfjp25arol8fsfs6...@4ax.com>,
> > 11/8/2006
>
> I wonder when usenet is going to honor the right of the people to be safe
> and secure in their property and effects against unoriginal idiots who have
> nothing better to do than drag up something out of their ass storage system
> that is more than three months past?
I wonder when Wentzky is going to appologize for using the 'N' word? :-)
You have to wonder about a guy so hypocritical that he'll complain about
people quoting what he said while never admitting that he shouldn't have
said it in the first place. It's not like he was quoted out of context.
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:57:20 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
> <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>
>> I have an investigation going on to uncover whoever lied to the
>> anderson cops here to get them to lynch me in January.
>
> An "investigation"? Does that mean that you bitch to your pals around
> the garbage fire every night? Or have they given up on you too?
>
>> I am going to have all you god damned cowards punished.
>
> If anyone who posts here has anything mysterious happen to them, you'd
> better have a really good alibi for the time it happened.
I'm sure I will, idiot.
> (You're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you, John,
> making these
> open admissions of motives to commit felonies?)
I have no motive to commit felonies.
>> Your tactics are damned.
>
> By your phony god?
By the law.
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
I am not threat or danger to society, you idiot.
You are reaching and reaching for lies to use against me, you fraudulent
loser.
You have come up with absolutely nothing that renders any guilt or shame
unto me at all.
There is nothing I have done that would render any guilt to me.
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:00:27 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
> <johndw...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> I comprende that if any more treason is committed against me that muy
>> comments are archived and that they can and will be used against my
>> enemies.
>
> You still seem to miss the FACT, John, that your assertions are
> totally *IN*admissible in a court of law as anything other than to
> show your state of mind. Which, of late, has been particularly
> felonious, so I'd bury any mention of my archived comments, were I
> you.
I could tell them about *your* posting habits.
That would not be a reference to my posting habits.
> They can only be useful when being used against you
They are useful in showing that your allegiance is with HIV infected MSMs
who are committing felonies in the USA.
> - sane people won't see them as justification for your actions, only as
> justification for your involuntary commitment.
Not even close, you scumbag.
There are many people who would immediately pronounce me innocent.
Your watered-down illegalities are totally irrelevant to anyone's sense of
reason.
> Even in the South Carolina boonies, there are limits to how psychotic you
> can be and
> still be allowed to walk the streets. Sane people will have you
> locked away just to protect themselves from your insanity - which is
> amply evidenced by your "archived comments".
Sane people does not include any person who is against me.
John D.Wentzky
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> typed:
How about filing a lawsuit versus me as the defendant?
Are you so afraid that you won't?
LOL!
You will have to bear all costs of my defense if you file such a suit.
And, I can hold the case in court a very, very long time.
There are many tactics to send you to the poorhouse if you try to sue me.
> Gee, that makes you a criminal also, John. Unindicted, but a criminal
> nonetheless. A felon too.
Again, you have lied about me.
Mark Sebree
wrote:
> Innews:fsmg03t6bk8uqqs95...@4ax.com,
So, who's in favor of forwarding this excellent example of Wentsky's
character and thinking processes to the Anderson SC Sheriff's
Department? Wentsky, you do not get a vote, since we know that you
will vote "no", and you cannot stop anyone that decides to do so
anyway.
Mark Sebree
John D.Wentzky
No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> typed:
Nice to see that you are in a state of wonderment regarding me.
Douglas Berry
>I have an investigation going on to uncover whoever lied to the anderson
>cops here to get them to lynch me in January.
Really? Name the officer in charge of this investigation, and the name
of the organization he works for.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Douglas Berry
>They did lynch me in January.
Lynching means an illegal hanging.
>I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back in self-defense after he
>used excessive force on me.
That is assaulting an officer.
>Then more of them started beating me with their batons.
>I did nothing to warrant their illegal actions against me.
Other than assaulting an officer. Why, pray tell were you surrounded
by police officers in the first place?
>Looks to me that their are going to be criminal charges brought against the
>criminals who attacked me in January.
Name the DA involved in the case and the county in which charges are
going to be filed, please.