Attention Planet Visitor: i respect your views...
enigmacat
are coming from with regard to feeling that, because i am appalled at
the implementation of such barbaric forms of execution as the
so-called "humane" lethal injection, i am somehow expressing emotions
of love and respect for condemned murderers. i am as outraged as you
are with the often brutal murders of children in particular---the main
reason i never felt even a remote sense of compassion for Ted Bundy
was because he really got off on the killing of 12-year-old Kimberly
Leach. That child's heinous murder haunts me to this day.
Now i realize that Timothy McVeigh killed 19 children when he bombed
the Murrah Building. But what distances him from the evil Bundy is
that he looked at his crime as a "legit political tactic" and took no
pleasure or garnered absolutely no satisfaction or sexual charge when
he learned that all of those little kids had died pretty awful deaths.
i cannot explain why i felt compassion for that man or why i care so
much about Jeff Paul, a young man on the same federal death row unit
as McVeigh was, who writes me long, often sad letters and wishes he
had not been with the two men who actually did the killing. Jeff had a
lousy lawyer and ended up getting the DP while the actual murderers
received a sentence of Lwop.
But having said all that, i detest the whole idea of one human being
who feels that he or she has the right to take the life of another, no
matter how they try to justify their terrible actions.
My reasons for opposing the DP are more political than emotional. i
agree with the mantra of such organizations as Amnesty International
when they stipulate that taking lives is wrong, no matter how it is
justified and that capital punishment comes under the heading of
"cruel and unusual punishment."
i would really appreciate it if you would not throw gruesome and
emotionally horrifying tales of children being brutally killed to make
your point about believing that the DP is the exercising of justice
and not revenge. i am well aware of these facts and you seem to feel
it necessary to charge at me with that emotionally-charged argument
whenever i say something that pisses you off.
BTW, i am not looking for trouble, PV. i just want to put an end to
your beliefs that i somehow condone what those murderers on death row
did.
sincerely,
jane
JIGSAW1695
From: nothg...@wwdc.com (enigmacat)
Date: 3/29/2002 2:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <3ca4e710...@news.lon.imag.net>
sincerely,
jane
=========================
I have to agree with PV here jane. Your posts do reflect a certain bias towards
murderers on death row, and a certain bias against their victims by giving the
convicted killers support.
Jigsaw
enigmacat
Well, perhaps that's partially due to what my friends and family like
to refer to as my "gross naivete" when it comes to inmates on death
row. Can't i have compassion for both murderers *and* victims? Does
being an opponant of the DP mean that i don't give a rat's ass about
the people who are often viciously killed by these people? If that is
the case, then both you and PV have an extremely black and white view
of the world---all or nothing. If i write to a young man on Indiana's
death row and give him something positive on which to cling when his
days are numbered, does it automatically follow that i feel nothing
for the two people his partners murdered while he drove the getaway
car?
i really don't know what you guys want from me. The way i see it, you
think i should abandon any sympathy i might have for death row
inmates, spit upon them as the vermin i should see them as and slide
on over to the retentionist side.
Gentlemen, i'm truly at a loss here. Just what do you want me to do?
sincerely frustrated,
jane
A Planet Visitor
"enigmacat" <nothg...@wwdc.com> wrote in message
news:3ca4e710...@news.lon.imag.net...
can stop referring to the DP as 'legal murder,' or crap such
as that, and stop your hysterical outbursts in respect to
feeling pity for murderers. They do not DESERVE your pity.
You are better than they are. Their victims were better
than they are. And their victims deserve JUSTICE, while
they deserve little else if found guilty. Every expression
that we extend to a convicted murderer MUST be seen as
only 'mercy.' And we should use it often. But never delude
yourself that SOME murderers DO NOT DESERVE 'mercy.'
Theodore Frank was certainly among that select group,
deserving nothing better than to be classed as subhuman.
Having acted as no human should act against its young.
And those select few DEMAND that we express our outrage
in respect to their acts, regardless of any perception of
'non-deterrence' or any false idols put in place by AI or
the ACLU or even abolitionists here and in other parts of
the world. If you wish to argue the DP, do not argue in
terms that are meaningless, because there are enough
terms that are NOT meaningless to provide food for
argument, finding it not necessary to resort to empty
arguments. You may well complain that we often fail to
execute WHO we should execute, and HOW MANY we
execute. But never believe that there exists NO murderers
we should not execute. It speaks to our very instinct as
a species, that we MUST somehow find a defining point
at which we remark "HE must be executed, if we are to
find ANY validity to our existence."
PV
> sincerely,
> jane
>
>
>
>
JIGSAW1695
From: nothg...@wwdc.com (enigmacat)
Date: 3/29/2002 4:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <3ca50ca0...@news.lon.imag.net>
i would really appreciate it if you would not throw gruesome and
>emotionally horrifying tales of children being brutally killed to make
>your point about believing that the DP is the exercising of justice
>and not revenge.
<snipped>
<snipped>
Gentlemen, i'm truly at a loss here. Just what do you want me to do?
==============================
jane, I take great exception to your comment (as a matter of fact it really
pisses me off):
"i would really appreciate it if you would not throw gruesome and emotionally
horrifying tales of children being brutally killed to make your
point........<snipped>."
PEOPLE THIS ONE AINT GONNA BE PRETTY. iF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH, PASS IT BY. I THINK
IT IS TIME FOR MISS JANE TO HAVE A LESSON IN REALITY. You have been warned.
Proceed at your own risk because this is what happens after the killing is
done. I know the protocol by heart because I have seen it so many times/to
many times, maybe.
Caps were put on intentionally...something I have never done before.
jane, what the hell do you think this is all about? Something warm and fuzzy?
Holy innocents on death row? We are talking about children being brutally
killed because that is exactly the point.
We are also talking about innocent adults being tortured, raped, mutilated,
beaten, burned, resulting in a brutal tragic death.
Want to know what happend to Kimberly Leach as well as the dozens of other
adult victims after they died at the loving caring hands of Ted Bundy?
Do you want to know what happend to the murdered people that Jeff Paul was
involved with.
Reread the part in caps again before you go on.
You want me to tell you what it is like to have to go to the medical examiners
office to watch, take photos and collect evidence during a legal/medical
autopsy while a three year old child has its body violated again in order to
obtain justice?
The techs and investigators get fully robed in one piece white scrubs, wearing
protective face masks. the prudent tech puts on four of five pairs of latex
gloves because he knows he is going to get his hands bloody. Its easier to peel
of one layer at a time to replace one pair at a time.
First, the ME turns on the the microphone. He notes the date, time, location,
the name of the victim if known, as well as atending assistants and LEO's.
Want to know what it feels to smell the first stench of death when that long
cut from sternum to pubis is first made?
(Thats why all crime techs and homicide investigators carry a small bottle of
Oil of Wintergreen with them. Available at your local pharmacy for about two
dollars a bottle in US dollars)
How about when the scalp is opened from the back and pulled over the face so
the skull can be cut open with a power saw designed for the job. The skull cap
is removed so that the brain can be examined to confirm or eliminate brain
damage as a cause of death.
Hey, here is another one your death row buddys dont want you to know about. The
first cut is made from the shoulder to the sternum. The second cut is made from
the other should to the sternum. The third cut
is as described above. The flesh is then flensed exposing the rib cage. The ME
then takes a tool and seperates the rib cage from the rest of the body buy
snipping them apart. ( The tool he uses is a common set of pruning shears.
available at your local Sears or hardware store for for around $9.95 US).
Every organ is taken out of the body and examined. The heart, brain, liver and
kindneys are literarly diced up and samples collected in a speciman jar.
Injuries, damage and insults inside the body are noted. Cause of death
determined.
And on and on until the job is done and the body is hollowed out like a canoe
(Old cop and ME humor that helps keep things in perspective).
Then comes the best part. You will really enjoy this. You can even share it
with your friends awaiting the needle for their crimes.
When all is said is done, out of what little respect is left for the cadaver
that used to be a living person, the organs are replaced in the body cavity.
They are put into a large sized plastic garbage bag (available at any
supermarket, abour $5.50 per 25 when on sale. Thats in US Dollars of course)
The bag is then put into the body cavity, snipped off ridge cage replaced, skin
refolded into its original position. An ME assistant then takes a large sewing
needle, and thick,waxed cord and sews the incisions back together. No fancy
surgicle square knots with the ends neatly trimmed here. Just wide, utilitarian
stitches that gets the hob done. The skull cap is then replaced and the hair
stiched back into place.
The tech collects the evidence, labels the film roll for developing (5X7, using
Kodacolor Professional Color film, speed 160. (available at any local store for
about
$3.95 per roll, US$. Average amount of shots taking during the entire homicide
investigation.m.about seventy for a simple homicide. Make it multiples, or
different crime scene locations and the sky is the limit).
The investigator takes out his little recorder and dictates his notes. The ME
finishes his report.
The tech then rolls the fingerprints of the deceaseds body. Sometimes when the
body is decomposed, it is necessary to cut the fingers off and place the bulb
of the finger over your own fingers, hoping that you can get enough ridge
definition for an fingerprint ID card for future reference.
Then we all go out to lunch. Looking at all the fresh, red meat stimulates your
taste buds. Usually its a steak house. Its traditional for the gang to pay for
the meal of a first time rookie. Ribs are recommended. Steaks are ordered rare
to medium rare. Vegitarians use the salad bar, but for some reason usually
sneak a small piece of meat from their partner.
So keep writing your buddies jane. But always keep in mind what they caused.
And try not to remind them the fate that awaits them is the same fate as their
victims. To be cut up, sliced, diced, photgraphed and then recollect in a
garbage bag.
Hey..... I told you it would not pretty. But it is a part of the death that the
antis fail to discuss.
Jigsaw
(PS: I feel better now that I have had my rant. For those of you who think this
is harsh, you are correct. It is as harsh and brutal as it is real. I offer no
apologies for this educational lesson)
Euroguy
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:n5ap8.24324$K52.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
It is a perfectly accurate definition of executions, and saying this is
certainly less outrageous than denying the possibility for innocents to have
been executed.
Besides, I'm proud to say that I respect others' views without any IF.
Euro
Dave Proctor
wrote:
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
>??????:n5ap8.24324$K52.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >
>> I can respect your views IF.. and there IS that IF... IF you
>> can stop referring to the DP as 'legal murder,'
>
>It is a perfectly accurate definition of executions,
No it is NOT a "perfectly accurate definition" - murder is - by
definition - the illegal taking of a life. A state sanctioned
execution, whether or not you agree with the state doing so, cannot -
by definition - be unlawful, hence it cannot - by definition - be
murder.
>and saying this is
>certainly less outrageous than denying the possibility for innocents to have
>been executed.
This point I agree with you on.
Dave
yours_most_truly
>
> "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> >
> > "enigmacat"wrote:
> certainly less outrageous than denying the possibility for innocents to have
> been executed.
>
>
> Euro
>
First, I have nothing but contempt for "Planet Visitor." The only
reason he plopped himself down in this newsgroup was to project his
bestiality fantasies onto Desmond Coughlin. "Planet Visitor" is as
intellectually shallow as a baby's wading pool, and the only core
value he has is that of perpetual and mindless bickering. He is no
retentionist, he's a troll. He only adopted a retentionist stance in
this newsgroup because it offered more mileage per troll's gallon.
Small wonder then that real death penalty retentionists like Richard
Jackson either ignore him or-- in Sharp's case-- have found his posts
to be in so many words *non compos mentis.* In short, "Planet Visitor"
doesn't give a tinker's dam one way or the other about the death
penalty, he's just the resident newsgroup troll.
But one of the "Planet Visitor" trolls here is worthy of note, i.e.
: "It speaks to our very instinct as a species, that we MUST somehow
find a defining point at which we remark "HE must be executed, if we
are to find ANY validity to our existence."
At the outset, that ignores Ludwig Wittgenstein's admonition that
"what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we can't talk
about we must pass over in silence." *Instinct* was rejected long ago
as a useful concept in explaining behaviour because it presents
nothing testable, and is hence at once both profoundly antiscientific
and vintage Jedro.
It also recalls the biting satire of a Phil Ochs song, with its
repeating refrain: "I am the natural American man. I kill therefore I
am!" Bertrand Russel once remarked that songs have far more influence
on a society's future than its laws do. The death penalty
abolitionists have the best songs, in fact they have the *only* songs.
So by that measure alone, the abolition of the death penalty in the
US is a fait accompli.
John Rennie
"yours_most_truly" <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:d9253152.0203...@posting.google.com...
>
> First, I have nothing but contempt for "Planet Visitor." The only
> reason he plopped himself down in this newsgroup was to project his
> bestiality fantasies onto Desmond Coughlin. "Planet Visitor" is as
> intellectually shallow as a baby's wading pool, and the only core
> value he has is that of perpetual and mindless bickering. He is no
> retentionist, he's a troll. He only adopted a retentionist stance in
> this newsgroup because it offered more mileage per troll's gallon.
> Small wonder then that real death penalty retentionists like Richard
> Jackson either ignore him or-- in Sharp's case-- have found his posts
> to be in so many words *non compos mentis.* In short, "Planet Visitor"
> doesn't give a tinker's dam one way or the other about the death
> penalty, he's just the resident newsgroup troll.
He's a nasty old sod, we are all agreed on that. The thing is, he
is the one poster who makes this news group entertaining although
I have enjoyed the odd post from yourself. You don't really
know anything about his motives and to say that he is here just
to bait Desmond is frankly ludicrous. Richard does ignore
him because he avoid bitterness when he can and there is no
doubt that PV's posts contain an enormous amount of bile.
So much that it often obscures the quite sound arguments that
he makes.
>
> But one of the "Planet Visitor" trolls here is worthy of note, i.e.
> : "It speaks to our very instinct as a species, that we MUST somehow
> find a defining point at which we remark "HE must be executed, if we
> are to find ANY validity to our existence."
>
> At the outset, that ignores Ludwig Wittgenstein's admonition that
> "what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we can't talk
> about we must pass over in silence."
I am sure he ignores Wittgenstein and here I must admit
that I have ignored him as well. But then I have ignored
Goethe, Moore and Hume plus dozens of others. You must
resist the temptation to display academic knowledge, it
makes you appear just that little bit pompous.
*Instinct* was rejected long ago
> as a useful concept in explaining behaviour because it presents
> nothing testable, and is hence at once both profoundly antiscientific
> and vintage Jedro.
I must tell my labrador that. I can 'test' his instinct
readily. He will be disappointed to know that his behaviour is
'antiscientific'.
>
> It also recalls the biting satire of a Phil Ochs song, with its
> repeating refrain: "I am the natural American man. I kill therefore I
> am!" Bertrand Russel once remarked that songs have far more influence
> on a society's future than its laws do. The death penalty
> abolitionists have the best songs, in fact they have the *only* songs.
> So by that measure alone, the abolition of the death penalty in the
> US is a fait accompli.
It was General Booth of the Salvation Army who said
that "the Devil had all the good tunes". Be careful that
that argument isn't used against our cause.
Rev. Don Kool
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
[...snip...]
> Well, perhaps that's partially due to what my friends and family like
> to refer to as my "gross naivete" when it comes to inmates on death
> row. Can't i have compassion for both murderers *and* victims? Does
> being an opponant of the DP mean that i don't give a rat's ass about
> the people who are often viciously killed by these people?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
> If that is
> the case, then both you and PV have an extremely black and white view
> of the world---all or nothing. If i write to a young man on Indiana's
> death row and give him something positive on which to cling when his
> days are numbered, does it automatically follow that i feel nothing
> for the two people his partners murdered while he drove the getaway
> car?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
> i really don't know what you guys want from me.
Human compassion for the victims.
> The way i see it, you
> think i should abandon any sympathy i might have for death row
> inmates, spit upon them as the vermin i should see them as and slide
> on over to the retentionist side.
That would be the wisest choice of action.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Don
--
*********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
Rev. Don Kool
> "Euroguy" wrote:
>
>>"A Planet Visitor" wrote:
>>
>>>"enigmacat"wrote:
[...snip...]
> First, I have nothing but contempt for "Planet Visitor." The only
> reason he plopped himself down in this newsgroup was to project his
> bestiality fantasies onto Desmond Coughlin. "Planet Visitor" is as
> intellectually shallow as a baby's wading pool, and the only core
> value he has is that of perpetual and mindless bickering. He is no
> retentionist, he's a troll. He only adopted a retentionist stance in
> this newsgroup because it offered more mileage per troll's gallon.
> Small wonder then that real death penalty retentionists like Richard
> Jackson either ignore him or-- in Sharp's case-- have found his posts
> to be in so many words *non compos mentis.* In short, "Planet Visitor"
> doesn't give a tinker's dam one way or the other about the death
> penalty, he's just the resident newsgroup troll.
Desi, don't you ever get tired of your sock puppets.
Yours in Christ,
A Planet Visitor
"Dave Proctor" <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote in message
news:jjtaaukqmb25vveip...@4ax.com...
abolition? I think you'll find hardly any opposition from
retentionists when it is recognized that there is a possibility
of innocents being executed. It is one of the central elements
that an abolitionist must defend if they see any reason to
the DP. A person would need to be unaware of the entire
concept of the Justice System, and all of the philosophical
thought that has went into the examination of crime and
punishment, to not recognize that possibility. The system
is predicated on the rule of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
And thus presumes that 10 guilty will go free, before 1
innocent is found guilty. But there is no assumption
within that concept which would find that NO innocent will
EVER be found guilty. On the other hand, we are faced
practically EVERY DAY, by some moron who comes along
with the phrase 'lawful murder,' or other impossible phrases
attempting to justify abolition.
Clearly, someone denying the POSSIBILITY of the execution
of an innocent in the use of the DP, does more HARM
than good to his argument. Because that argument is
based on a lie. Just as clearly, someone claiming that
'The DP is murder,' does more HARM than good to THEIR
argument. Because that argument is based on a lie as
well.
PV
> Dave
>
A Planet Visitor
"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ca55...@news1.meganetnews.com...
of the execution of an innocent, or even the conviction of an
innocent. And if we expect to prevent that, we MUST abolish
the ENTIRE Justice System, because it is NOT predicated on
ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT, or even on 'unreasonable
doubt.'
That being said; claiming 'The DP is murder,' makes as much
sense as saying 'The DP is the Easter bunny.' No, actually,
the latter makes MORE sense than the former, since the Easter
Bunny is NOT unlawful, under the Justice System. If you
can believe you can say 'the DP is murder,' then I can clearly
say 'Abolition is murder,' and it makes equal sense for me to
say that. So in effect, what has that accomplished? Answer:
Not a damn thing, except a couple of hysterics screaming
nonsense at each other. Grow up, and recognize that there
are many reasonable arguments in opposition to the DP, but
'The DP is murder,' IS NOT ONE OF THEM. It only makes
you look more stupid than you probably are (debatable, of
course).
> Besides, I'm proud to say that I respect others' views without any IF.
>
Translation -- "I accept the presentation of lies as fact."
But then we always knew that most of your arguments are
based on that principle.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"yours_most_truly" <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:d9253152.0203...@posting.google.com...
Of course. And the feeling is mutual. But my contempt for
you is justified. Since you've often attempted to twist both
logic and morality. While yours for me is simply spilling
out the venom that seems to affect your persona. I clearly
do not see all abolitionists as 'evil' or even 'unreasonable.'
But YOU surely see ALL retentionists as, at the least,
'unreasonable.' And my persona specifically, in general
terms of 'evil.' It's a distorted view of reality, which you have
become quite adept at. Perhaps because you find looking
at reality forces you to face issues you'd rather avoid.
> The only
> reason he plopped himself down in this newsgroup was to project his
> bestiality fantasies onto Desmond Coughlin. "Planet Visitor" is as
> intellectually shallow as a baby's wading pool, and the only core
> value he has is that of perpetual and mindless bickering. He is no
> retentionist, he's a troll. He only adopted a retentionist stance in
> this newsgroup because it offered more mileage per troll's gallon.
> Small wonder then that real death penalty retentionists like Richard
> Jackson either ignore him or-- in Sharp's case-- have found his posts
> to be in so many words *non compos mentis.* In short, "Planet Visitor"
> doesn't give a tinker's dam one way or the other about the death
> penalty, he's just the resident newsgroup troll.
>
Oh... I think if past posts are examined we would find the
'troll' concept much more evident in YOUR posts. In fact,
let's return to the FIRST post you offered in this group --
"A retentionist post which makes even "Planet Visitor"
succumb to the gag reflex! Will wonders never cease?"
Seriously, though: Logic and statisticalcargo cultism have
always been Sharpjfa's special talents. What is new is
that he no longer can articulate whatever point he is
trying to "prove" by resorting to them, assuming of course
there is any."
From the VERY FIRST WORDS, in your VERY FIRST
POST, you clearly demonstrated that your only purpose
here was to be a troll. And I was to be the object of that
trolling venture.
> But one of the "Planet Visitor" trolls here is worthy of note, i.e.
> : "It speaks to our very instinct as a species, that we MUST somehow
> find a defining point at which we remark "HE must be executed, if we
> are to find ANY validity to our existence."
>
> At the outset, that ignores Ludwig Wittgenstein's admonition that
> "what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we can't talk
> about we must pass over in silence."
Who???? Shit, sailor... if you're going to use someone as
a source, at least don't depend on Wittgenstein, who actually
had no concept of reality, and depended on mysticism for
much of his 'philosophy.' Wittgenstein himself knew that
philosophy is not one of the natural sciences. But conversely,
and often perversely, claimed it could make 'anti-realism'
somehow become 'realism.' Philosophy is a science of the
'mind by which humans should interact,' and the mind
cannot DESTROY or CREATE a 'natural' reality, if that reality
does or does not exist as a 'natural fact.' It can change how
we BEHAVE as a species, and it SHOULD function in that
respect. But it cannot reshape, alter or define the 'natural
laws of nature.' We cannot change physical law using philosophy.
I am a great believer in 'philosophical thought' having the
ability to shape how we INTERACT with each other, and the
logic attendant to that interaction. But do not delude yourself
into thinking that philosophy can make the stars reshape
themselves into certain patterns, cause the basic law of entropy
to reverse itself, or suddenly make 2 + 2 equal 3. Or that it
can make 'rights' some sort of 'natural force,' outside of
the ability of humans to create such 'rights.'
I well remember your 'trolling' concept in that respect. Claiming
that there are some 'natural rights' which are beyond those
that men create. One wonders why they are only given to
the 'chosen few,' and not the starving in Africa, since they
seem to be 'natural' to you? One wonders why Jefferson said
"All men are ... endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable Rights." Including 'liberty' among those rights,
yet still feeling it was proper for him to keep slaves? You
NEVER did address that question. In any case, in that argument
you attempted to extend 'philosophy' to having the ability to change
'natural fact.' The 'fact' IS -- We may GIVE 'rights' to each other,
in terms of philosophical thought, agreement, and interaction.
But we cannot CREATE 'rights' as some 'natural fact.' Let
me demonstrate that Wittgenstein was clearly confused about
this issue, by referring to a source on the net --
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/w/wittgens.htm#Life
"Wittgenstein's place in the debate about philosophical Realism
and Anti-Realism is an interesting one. His emphasis on
language and human behavior, practices, etc. makes him a
prime candidate for Anti-Realism in many people's eyes. He
has even been accused of linguistic idealism, the idea that
language is the ultimate reality. The laws of physics, say,
would by this theory just be laws of language, the rules of
the language game of physics. Anti-Realist scepticism of
this kind has proved quite popular in the philosophy of science
and in theology, as well as more generally in metaphysics
and ethics."
Wittgenstein NEVER understood the difference between
realism and anti-realism, so of course any perception of
'rights' would consequently be in terms of 'anti-realism.'
Language is NOT the ultimate reality, if it expresses
unreality. It is a means we use to communicate with
each other, using definitions which are agreed to in order
to convey our thoughts and our needs. And speaking a
lie, in ANY language, does NOT make it 'reality.'
And, if you find it unclear that when I refer to 'HE,' understand
that I am referring to the neutral form of 'a specific murderer.' The
argument that I 'didn't state He/She,' is worthy of dezi's pedantry.
And I've found your arguments generally are based on nothing
but that empty principle, as well.
> *Instinct* was rejected long ago
> as a useful concept in explaining behaviour because it presents
> nothing testable, and is hence at once both profoundly antiscientific
> and vintage Jedro.
>
'Instinct' cannot explain 'behavior!!!' ROTFLMAO. Behavior
IS instinct. See the Harcourt Academic Press Dictionary
of Science and Technology --
http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/5/2/7/5/5275400.html
Don't talk such nonsense, if you expect to 'communicate.'
Of course, since you usually resort to insult, let me mention
that YOUR arguments are 'vintage Goebbles.' A lot of
propaganda, but no real argument behind the words.
<trolling crap clipped>
PV
yours_most_truly
>
> "yours_most_truly" wrote:
> >
> > First, I have nothing but contempt for "Planet Visitor." The only
> > reason he plopped himself down in this newsgroup was to project his
> > bestiality fantasies onto Desmond Coughlin. "Planet Visitor" is as
> > intellectually shallow as a baby's wading pool, and the only core
> > value he has is that of perpetual and mindless bickering. He is no
> > retentionist, he's a troll. He only adopted a retentionist stance in
> > this newsgroup because it offered more mileage per troll's gallon.
> > Small wonder then that real death penalty retentionists like Richard
> > Jackson either ignore him or-- in Sharp's case-- have found his posts
> > to be in so many words *non compos mentis.* In short, "Planet Visitor"
> > doesn't give a tinker's dam one way or the other about the death
> > penalty, he's just the resident newsgroup troll.
>
> He's a nasty old sod, we are all agreed on that. The thing is, he
> is the one poster who makes this news group entertaining although
> I have enjoyed the odd post from yourself.
Let us agree to disagree on that. I've killfiled him on all my
front-end news servers and now scanning posts in this newsgroup is
nowhere near as tedious as before.
> You don't really
> know anything about his motives and to say that he is here just
> to bait Desmond is frankly ludicrous.
No need to construct a strawman.
> Richard does ignore
> him because he avoid bitterness when he can and there is no
> doubt that PV's posts contain an enormous amount of bile.
> So much that it often obscures the quite sound arguments that
> he makes.
The only sound quality his "arguments" have resembles that of
fingernails being scraped across a chalkboard.
> >
> > But one of the "Planet Visitor" trolls here is worthy of note, i.e.
> > : "It speaks to our very instinct as a species, that we MUST somehow
> > find a defining point at which we remark "HE must be executed, if we
> > are to find ANY validity to our existence."
> >
> > At the outset, that ignores Ludwig Wittgenstein's admonition that
> > "what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we can't talk
> > about we must pass over in silence."
>
> I am sure he ignores Wittgenstein and here I must admit
> that I have ignored him as well. But then I have ignored
> Goethe, Moore and Hume plus dozens of others. You must
> resist the temptation to display academic knowledge, it
> makes you appear just that little bit pompous.
Better that than to plagerise. If I could have expressed that
thought more economically in my own words I would have. And given what
it was, to employ any more verbiage than its originator did would have
been hardly appropriate. When the phrasing one uses is not his own,
convention requires quotation marks and candor requires a source
attribution.
>
> *Instinct* was rejected long ago
> > as a useful concept in explaining behaviour because it presents
> > nothing testable, and is hence at once both profoundly antiscientific
> > and vintage Jedro.
>
> I must tell my labrador that. I can 'test' his instinct
> readily. He will be disappointed to know that his behaviour is
> 'antiscientific'.
Oh no, it's the "my dog told me" rebuttal! OK, just as long as his
"disappointment" is "instinctual" too.
>
> >
> > It also recalls the biting satire of a Phil Ochs song, with its
> > repeating refrain: "I am the natural American man. I kill therefore I
> > am!" Bertrand Russel once remarked that songs have far more influence
> > on a society's future than its laws do. The death penalty
> > abolitionists have the best songs, in fact they have the *only* songs.
> > So by that measure alone, the abolition of the death penalty in the
> > US is a fait accompli.
>
> It was General Booth of the Salvation Army who said
> that "the Devil had all the good tunes". Be careful that
> that argument isn't used against our cause.
How Talbinesque. In any event, Booth was wrong: "Nearer My God to
Thee" is a real foot stomper.
Highimpact1000
news:20020329231830...@mb-fn.aol.com...
>
> Then we all go out to lunch. Looking at all the fresh, red meat stimulates
> your taste buds. Usually its a steak house. Its traditional for the gang
> to pay for the meal of a first time rookie. Ribs are recommended. Steaks
> are ordered rare to medium rare. Vegitarians use the salad bar, but for
> some reason usually sneak a small piece of meat from their partner.
What is this? Are you saying that you become psychotic canibals?
Jesus was ready for this problem.
I quote:
*********************************************
John 6:47
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting
life.
"I am the bread of life.
"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
"This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it
and not die.
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of
this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My
flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man
give us His flesh to eat?"
Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will
raise him up at the last day.
"For My flesh is food indded, and My blood is drink ineed.
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he
who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
"This is he bread which came down from heaven -- not as your fathers ate
the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."
These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
- Many Disciples Turn Away -
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a
hard saying; who can understand it?"
When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured about this, He
said to them, "Does this offend you?
"What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words
that I speak to you are spirit and they are life.
***************************
Jesus was/is the Spirit. He was/is the word which gives life. Those who
comitts such horific acts of murder need the Spirit. Their acts are always
in the past. Since we don't know what happens when you die, it is unwise to
kill people unless we absolutely have to kill and it is kill or be killed.
I don't think you deter psychotic killers really... I think it's simply hatred and
outrage. The same thing they did.
Why be angry? Your hatred isn't sin against anyone except yourself.
JIGSAW1695
From: highimp...@yahoo.com (Highimpact1000)
Date: 3/30/2002 9:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <373df39a.02033...@posting.google.com>
I quote:
*********************************************
John 6:47
***************************
=========================
Im not not angry, nor do I hate anyone.
Euroguy
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:ZVmp8.18034$y26.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Dave Proctor" <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote in message
> news:jjtaaukqmb25vveip...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:12:33 +0800, "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> > >??????:n5ap8.24324$K52.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >> >
> > >> I can respect your views IF.. and there IS that IF... IF you
> > >> can stop referring to the DP as 'legal murder,'
> > >
> > >It is a perfectly accurate definition of executions,
> >
> > No it is NOT a "perfectly accurate definition" - murder is - by
> > definition - the illegal taking of a life. A state sanctioned
> > execution, whether or not you agree with the state doing so, cannot -
> > by definition - be unlawful, hence it cannot - by definition - be
> > murder.
Murder is, in its legal definition, the illegal taking of human life. In its
litteral definition, murder is a perfect synonym of homicide, i.e. the act
of taking human life. It is then perfectly correct to depict executions as
"legal murders". Note that, in many cases, executions in the US are
implemented in violation of international conventions and then they do
become "illegal murders".
> > >and saying this is
> > >certainly less outrageous than denying the possibility for innocents to
have
> > >been executed.
> >
> > This point I agree with you on.
> >
> Are we now 'grading' degrees of lies, in an attempt to justify
> abolition?
We're not grading degrees of lies: to do that, you would need wo lies.
Saying that no innocents have been executed in the US since 1976, or that
there cannot be any innocent executed in the US, is clearly one lie.
Saying that executions are "legal murders" canot be described as a lie, as
you can see above. It may be a scandalous expression for you to read, but
that's nevertheless not opposite to reality.
> I think you'll find hardly any opposition from
> retentionists when it is recognized that there is a possibility
> of innocents being executed. It is one of the central elements
> that an abolitionist must defend if they see any reason to
> the DP. A person would need to be unaware of the entire
> concept of the Justice System, and all of the philosophical
> thought that has went into the examination of crime and
> punishment, to not recognize that possibility. The system
> is predicated on the rule of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
> And thus presumes that 10 guilty will go free, before 1
> innocent is found guilty. But there is no assumption
> within that concept which would find that NO innocent will
> EVER be found guilty.
And this is why the death penalty isn't acceptable. In a civilized justice
system, all mistakes should be amendable.
Euro
Euroguy
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:ZVmp8.18033$y26.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Saying this is not an argument against the death penalty. It is merely a
factual observation.
> > Besides, I'm proud to say that I respect others' views without any IF.
> >
>
> Translation -- "I accept the presentation of lies as fact."
> But then we always knew that most of your arguments are
> based on that principle.
You confuse views and lies.... Very interesting and indicative of your
perverted nature. But don't take your situation for a generality. When I
talk about views, I don't mean lies (contrary to you, appearently).
Euro
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>I can respect your views IF.. and there IS that IF... IF you
>can stop referring to the DP as 'legal murder,' or crap such
>as that
I know. I mean, there's nothing worse than fucking idiots making up
their own self contrived concepts and technically inaccurate
terminology in the hope that it supports their own weak rhetoric, is
there?
I remember once, this bloke claimed that the doctrine of self defence
could be exercised by an artificial collective social construct with
no discernable self.
Fancy that!
w00f
]
dirtdog
<da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote:
>
>No it is NOT a "perfectly accurate definition" - murder is - by
>definition - the illegal taking of a life.
Forgive me for being anal, but murder is actually unlawful killing
where there is an inention* to kill or an intention to cause GBH.
The important distinction comes in the fact that the United States
insists on carrying out activites which are essentially unlawful in
when viewed in light of international law.
Thus, in the eyes of America, the exercise of the DP is never
unlawful. They consider their own CJS to be within their own
jurisdiction.
However, more sensible and less arrogant citizens of other
geopolitical entities would quite correctly remind themselves that the
US has given away its right to execute for the crimes of minors by
ascending to several internation treaties.
Thus, I consider the execution of those such as Napoleon Beazley to be
unlawful - and I am quite right in doing so.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
w00f
*- Oblique intent - See Woollin (cite on request)
A Planet Visitor
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> ??????:ZVmp8.18034$y26.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Dave Proctor" <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote in message
> > news:jjtaaukqmb25vveip...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:12:33 +0800, "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> > > >??????:n5ap8.24324$K52.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >> >
> > > >> I can respect your views IF.. and there IS that IF... IF you
> > > >> can stop referring to the DP as 'legal murder,'
> > > >
> > > >It is a perfectly accurate definition of executions,
> > >
> > > No it is NOT a "perfectly accurate definition" - murder is - by
> > > definition - the illegal taking of a life. A state sanctioned
> > > execution, whether or not you agree with the state doing so, cannot -
> > > by definition - be unlawful, hence it cannot - by definition - be
> > > murder.
>
> Murder is, in its legal definition, the illegal taking of human life. In its
> litteral definition, murder is a perfect synonym of homicide, i.e. the act
> of taking human life. It is then perfectly correct to depict executions as
> "legal murders". Note that, in many cases, executions in the US are
> implemented in violation of international conventions and then they do
> become "illegal murders".
>
homicide. Nor is 'homicide' a 'perfect' synonym of murder.
To be a 'perfect' synonym they must be TOTALLY interchangeable,
and of course they are NOT. ALL murder is homicide, but since
ALL homicide is NOT murder, you cannot call it a 'perfect' synonym.
Clearly there are overwhelming examples of homicides that are
NOT murder. Self-defense, police response, vehicle homicide,
lawful executions, and all homicides not meeting the standards
defined by the word 'murder.' 'The DP is homicide,' is a
PERFECTLY true statement, and I find no problem with that
statement... but 'The DP is murder,' is a PERFECTLY false
statement.
And your last sentence is about the most absurd conclusion
I have EVER seen from someone claiming to be 'sensible.'
An 'international' agreement that is not ratified by a sovereign
nation is worth only toilet paper within that sovereign nation.
Even an execution of a murderer accomplished in a State which
has abolished the DP would not make that 'the DP,' but would
make it simply MURDER, by the INDIVIDUALS who performed
such an execution. It would be 'vigilante justice,' rather than
STATE Justice. The STATE cannot commit an ILLEGAL
act, since the STATE DEFINES what IS illegal. Do not
speak to me of regimes that violate such in YOUR opinion.
It has nothing to do with what the STATE can do.
> > > >and saying this is
> > > >certainly less outrageous than denying the possibility for innocents to
> have
> > > >been executed.
> > >
> > > This point I agree with you on.
> > >
> > Are we now 'grading' degrees of lies, in an attempt to justify
> > abolition?
>
> We're not grading degrees of lies: to do that, you would need wo lies.
> Saying that no innocents have been executed in the US since 1976, or that
> there cannot be any innocent executed in the US, is clearly one lie.
>
> Saying that executions are "legal murders" canot be described as a lie, as
> you can see above. It may be a scandalous expression for you to read, but
> that's nevertheless not opposite to reality.
>
Of course it IS a lie... good grief. I'm so sick of that lie.
And reasonable abolitionists are as well. Simply put,
if you claim 'the DP is murder,' then I can claim 'Abolition
is murder.' I can claim 'the DP is the Easter Bunny,' if
we wish to not use the definitions that accompany the
words we say. Want me to prove it? Here you go. These
previously convicted murderers were NOT executed, a
principle of 'abolition.' Having NOT been executed they
committed the following murders.
Dwain Little, Oregon. Raped/Stabbed 16-year-old girl. Life
term 1966. Paroled 1974. Returned as Parole Violator 1975.
Again Released 1977. Then shot family of 4. Three
consecutive life terms for rape and murder 1980.
John McRae, Michigan/Florida. Life for murder of 8-year-old
boy. Pedophile. Paroled 1971. Convicted of another murder
of a boy after parole, in Michigan 1998. Charges pending
on 2 other counts in Florida.
John Miller, California. Killed an infant 1957, convicted of murder,
1958. Paroled 1975. Killed his parents 1975. Life term 1975.
Michael Lawrence, Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term,
1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990.
Donald Dillbeck, Florida. Killed policeman in 1979. Escaped
from prison in 1990, kidnapped and killed female motorist after
escape. Condemned 1991.
Edward Kennedy, Florida. Killed motel clerk. Sentenced to
Life. Escaped 1981. Killed policeman and male civilian after
prison break. Executed 1992.
Dawud Mu'Min, Virginia. Killed cab driver in holdup. Sentenced
1973. Escaped 1988. Raped/killed woman 1988. Condemned
1989. Executed 1997.
Viva Nash, Utah/Arizona. Two terms of life for murder in Utah,
1978. Escaped in 1982. Murdered again. Condemned in
Arizona, 1983.
Randy Greenawalt - Escaped from Prison in 1978, while serving
a life sentence for a 1974 murder. He then murdered a family of
4 people, shotgunning them to death, including a toddler.
Thankfully, he has now been executed.
Norman Parker, Florida/D.C. Life term in Florida for murder,
1966. Escaped 1978. Life on another count of murder in
1979.
Winford Stokes, Missouri. Ruled insane on two counts of
murder 1969. Escaped from asylum, 1978. Murdered
again. Executed for this murder, 1990.
Charles Crawford, Missouri. Life term in 1965 for
murder. Paroled 1990. Convicted of murder again in 1994.
Jack Ferrell, Florida. Murdered 1981. 15 years to life, 1982.
Paroled 1987. Murdered again 1992. Condemned 1993.
Timothy Buss - Killed five-year-old girl. Sentenced to 25 years
in 1981. Paroled 1993. Murdered 10-year-old boy. Condemned
1996.
Martsay Bolder, Missouri. Sentenced to Life, 1973. Murdered
prison cellmate 1980.
Henry Brisbon, Illinois. Killed 2 in robbery. Sentenced to 1000-
3000 years. Killed inmate in prison 1982.
Arthur Shawcross (The 'Monster of the Rivers') -- Released after
serving a life sentence (whatever THAT means) for a child murder,
turned to killing prostitutes, leaving many in watery graves.
Now serving ten consecutive sentences of 25 years to life - 250
years in all.
Samuel D. Smith in prison for murdering Zita Casey, 79, during a
burglary in St. Louis in 1978. While in prison he murdered another
inmate, Marlin May, during a knife fight in 1987 in prison.
Charles Daniels was convicted and sentenced to Life for the
1965 rape and murder of a Louisiana woman. Later having
his sentence commuted, he was release. And he again
killed another woman, 32-year-old Debbie Tatum. He's been
convicted again of Murder, and STILL received only a Life
sentence. This time L wop. One wonders if we'll hear of
Charles Daniels again in the future.
Jarmarr Arnold - who, while on DR, murdered another
DR inmate by stabbing him in the forehead with a sharpen
spike. Proving that not even a death sentence can
prevent murder until the sentence is carried out.
Thankfully, Jarmarr Arnold has also now been justly
executed.
Robert Lee Massie. See
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
Sentenced to the DP, but overturned by Furman,
which resulted in him committing further new murders.
Kenneth McDuff - Sentenced to the DP, but overturned
by Furman. Who once remarked "Killing a woman is like
killing a chicken. They both squawk."
See - http://www.reporternews.com/texas/bod1118.html
Another ~300 post-Furman DP sentenced murderers who
had their sentences commuted to alternate prison sentences
as a result of Furman, murdered 6 more while still in prison.
Melvin Geary, originally sentenced to L wop, for the
stabbing death of a woman in 1973 with a boning knife. The
State Parole Board (the same type board you claim NEVER
exhibit mercy), commuted that sentence to 'life w/parole'. He
served 13 years of that life sentence for the murder and was
then paroled. After his release, Geary was subsequently
convicted of murdering 71-year-old Edward Colvin of Sparks,
again with a boning knife after Colvin took him in.
When you can explain even ONE reason, why any of these
individuals should not have been executed the FIRST time,
much less the second in many of the cases, then we might
have some rational area to discuss. As it is... YOUR
support for abolition in some measure contributed to those
new murders committed by already convicted murderers.
> > I think you'll find hardly any opposition from
> > retentionists when it is recognized that there is a possibility
> > of innocents being executed. It is one of the central elements
> > that an abolitionist must defend if they see any reason to
> > the DP. A person would need to be unaware of the entire
> > concept of the Justice System, and all of the philosophical
> > thought that has went into the examination of crime and
> > punishment, to not recognize that possibility. The system
> > is predicated on the rule of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
> > And thus presumes that 10 guilty will go free, before 1
> > innocent is found guilty. But there is no assumption
> > within that concept which would find that NO innocent will
> > EVER be found guilty.
>
> And this is why the death penalty isn't acceptable. In a civilized justice
> system, all mistakes should be amendable.
>
What!!! How absurd. Have you EVER heard of 'double
jeopardy'? How can we amend a mistake in freeing a
guilty person, after they have been acquitted? Clearly,
O.J. could go on TV, and announce "I did it, so what?"
and we could do NOTHING. You cannot have it both
ways, sport. The prosecution gets one bite at the apple,
and that's what the defense should get as well. And
the defense has due process for a decade after being
found guilty to right any presumed wrong. At ANY TIME
that 'guilty' verdict can be overturned. While the prosecution
doesn't have 1 microsecond to right a wrong after a verdict
on 'not guilty,' is brought in. The accused could give a
'hi-five' to his defense attorney and announce 'I got
away with it,' before the courtroom was cleared, and it
wouldn't mean SQUAT to 'finding justice.'
> Euro
>
> On the other hand, we are faced
> > practically EVERY DAY, by some moron who comes along
> > with the phrase 'lawful murder,' or other impossible phrases
> > attempting to justify abolition.
Could that 'moron,' of the day... be YOU???
A Planet Visitor
murder,' is ALSO a factual observation... Making YOU
a supporter of MURDER. See my other post for HOW
MANY MURDERS you've supported. How's it feel to
know you 'support' murder??
And I am beginning to believe that without plagiarism,
you really don't have much to say. Remember Kant? --
"No subject can have a predicate that contradicts it,' called
the principle of contradiction." Saying 'the DP is murder,'
violates that principle. And that principle is "'the Supreme
Principles of all Analytical Judgments."
So...let me ask you clearly -- Do you believe 'murder' is
LAWFUL? Can it be LAWFUL to 'murder' another human?
It certainly MUST be EITHER 'lawful' or 'unlawful.' Then.. Do
you believe 'penalties' for crimes are LAWFUL? Can we
sentence a rapist to a penalty of prison? Can we sentence
a kidnapper to a penalty of prison? If we can, then 'penalties'
for crimes are LAWFUL. And if 'murder' IS a crime, it is
unlawful. The implication is obvious, and the proof even
more obvious. You must either accept that penalties for
crimes are lawful, or presume to discard the entire philosophical
social practice of 'punishment for a crime by removal from
society for some specified period of time.' Given that you
possibly agree with the concept of a 'Justice System,' you
must agree that 'penalties' are lawful. Thus, all that is left is to
realize that EVERY Justice System considers 'murder'
as a crime. There IS NO lawful murder. Nor is there an
unlawful penalty for a crime within the Justice System.
Presuming you wish to see that truth, and not simply
provide more fodder to demonstrate your lack of understanding
of 'crime and punishment,' I would ask you to reexamine
'the DP is murder.'
> > > Besides, I'm proud to say that I respect others' views without any IF.
> > >
> >
> > Translation -- "I accept the presentation of lies as fact."
> > But then we always knew that most of your arguments are
> > based on that principle.
>
> You confuse views and lies.... Very interesting and indicative of your
> perverted nature. But don't take your situation for a generality. When I
> talk about views, I don't mean lies (contrary to you, appearently).
>
No, YOU confuse lies by CALLING them 'truths.' And if
anyone seems to be of a perverted nature, it would appear
to be you, finding it reasonable to MAKE EXCUSES for murder.
Trying to lower the perception of that most horrendous of
crimes, to an action taken by the State, represented by a
body of people, rather than the ACTUAL crime of an
INDIVIDUAL committing SLAUGHTER upon another
INDIVIDUAL. Without that individual victim having committed
any act whatsoever, which would justify their death. When
we presume that NO murderer would justify execution, we
are in fact EXCUSING ALL murderers to a certain extent.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:c2oeau0b68j8pe1d2...@4ax.com...
is the opposite of 'protection.' Wasn't he the same bloke who
believed that the 'self' doesn't exist, because he can't see it?
Fancy that.
PV
> Fancy that!
>
> w00f
> ]
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:26:38 GMT, Dave Proctor
> <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >No it is NOT a "perfectly accurate definition" - murder is - by
> >definition - the illegal taking of a life.
>
> Forgive me for being anal, but murder is actually unlawful killing
> where there is an inention* to kill or an intention to cause GBH.
>
understand. What kind of lawyer, are you??? Now if you
would only explain that to Suzi...
> The important distinction comes in the fact that the United States
> insists on carrying out activites which are essentially unlawful in
> when viewed in light of international law.
>
Too bad that you feel YOU can define 'international' for the
rest of the world. It's just a WORD, stupid, and doesn't
mean squat in the context of sovereign governments.
> Thus, in the eyes of America, the exercise of the DP is never
> unlawful. They consider their own CJS to be within their own
> jurisdiction.
>
As well it is, in both cases... Fancy that!
> However, more sensible and less arrogant citizens of other
> geopolitical entities would quite correctly remind themselves that the
> US has given away its right to execute for the crimes of minors by
> ascending to several internation treaties.
>
No.. the one's who are ARROGANT are those who presume
THEY can impose their views on OTHERS. The U.S. has no
such goal. We don't give a shit if the U.K. doesn't even put
murderers in jail. As long as you don't try to send them to
the U.S. However, the U.K. members here, embodied in
YOUR form, seem obsessively concerned that the U.S.
Justice System conform to some standard that THEY have
erected. Simply because they decided to call it 'International.'
We have NEVER ratified any part of any treaty such as you
rather ignorantly claim. In fact, there is a good possibility
we will withdraw our 'intent to agree' to that treaty, which I
fully support doing, because of the stupidity of others who
would wish to impose their Justice System on ours.
> Thus, I consider the execution of those such as Napoleon Beazley to be
> unlawful - and I am quite right in doing so.
>
No, you're not quite right... in fact, you're quite wrong. And
you know it.
> Happy to have cleared things up for you,
>
Happy to have cleared things up for you.
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<clueless troll snipped>
>No.. the one's who are ARROGANT
Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
Few thing's change around here the'se day's do they, PV?
w00f
PS- Kiwi Fruit's
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:c2oeau0b68j8pe1d2...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:15:31 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> >I can respect your views IF.. and there IS that IF... IF you
>> >can stop referring to the DP as 'legal murder,' or crap such
>> >as that
>>
>> I know. I mean, there's nothing worse than fucking idiots making up
>> their own self contrived concepts and technically inaccurate
>> terminology in the hope that it supports their own weak rhetoric, is
>> there?
>>
>> I remember once, this bloke claimed that the doctrine of self defence
>> could be exercised by an artificial collective social construct with
>> no discernable self.
>>
>And I remember one bloke who claimed that 'self-defense'
>is the opposite of 'protection.'
And, your patent misquote aside, how correct he was!
> Wasn't he the same bloke who
>believed that the 'self' doesn't exist, because he can't see it?
>
No, he wasn't. I don't think that he ever said that. Not even once.
Not even when he was pissed.
Making thing's up i'snt very good, PV. Their are far better way's to
spend you're time.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
rutting season.
PV
>
> w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
fess up.
> Making thing's up i'snt very good, PV. Their are far better way's to
> spend you're time.
>
Denying things isn't very good either, dirt. Are you denying
that you claim society doesn't have a 'self' because you
can't see it, feel it, touch it, and watch it move?
PV
> w00f
>
>
Highimpact1000
> =========================
>
> Im not not angry, nor do I hate anyone.
So why do you willfully support harming someone then?
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <373df39a.02033...@posting.google.com>
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
===============================
Out of christian love for my fellow man. Why else?
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:aohfau03i316vvb33...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:17 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <clueless troll snipped>
>>
>>
>> >No.. the one's who are ARROGANT
>>
>> Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Few thing's change around here the'se day's do they, PV?
>>
>ROTFLMAO.
There is _nothing_ funny about a childish inability to use puctuation.
Nothing funny at all.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>Denying things isn't very good either, dirt. Are you denying
>that you claim society doesn't have a 'self' because you
>can't see it, feel it, touch it, and watch it move?
>
No, PV, I said that society does not have a self for the simple reason
that it does not - certainly not to any extent which wouldn't vary
wildly from person to person - meaning that law making built around
such definition would be fundamentally flawed, and doomed to fall into
disrepute.
Your flat _refusal_ to even attempt to put forward any real definition
of society has merely strengthened my knowledge that I am totally
correct (as usual). In fact, although you purported to give me a
little equation which was of sod all use, and as usual, was designed
only to give the uneducated the impression that you had a meaningful
response to my request to define the 'self' of 'society', you now even
realise yourself how nonsensical your notion that society is anything
more than a subjective social construct really was.
w00f
Highimpact1000
What are you ON?!?
Dave Proctor
wrote:
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
>??????:ZVmp8.18034$y26.4...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Dave Proctor" <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote in message
>> news:jjtaaukqmb25vveip...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:12:33 +0800, "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
>> > >??????:n5ap8.24324$K52.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>> > >> >
>> > >> I can respect your views IF.. and there IS that IF... IF you
>> > >> can stop referring to the DP as 'legal murder,'
>> > >
>> > >It is a perfectly accurate definition of executions,
>> >
>> > No it is NOT a "perfectly accurate definition" - murder is - by
>> > definition - the illegal taking of a life. A state sanctioned
>> > execution, whether or not you agree with the state doing so, cannot -
>> > by definition - be unlawful, hence it cannot - by definition - be
>> > murder.
>
>Murder is, in its legal definition, the illegal taking of human life. In its
>litteral definition, murder is a perfect synonym of homicide, i.e. the act
>of taking human life. It is then perfectly correct to depict executions as
>"legal murders".
Hardly, since the two terms - "legal" and "murder" - are mutually
exclusive.
>Note that, in many cases, executions in the US are
>implemented in violation of international conventions and then they do
>become "illegal murders".
Only if the United States is a party to such conventions - most of
which they are not.
Dave
Dave Proctor
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>No.. the one's who are ARROGANT are those who presume
>THEY can impose their views on OTHERS. The U.S. has no
>such goal.
So the next time the US Government makes an utterance about human
rights abuses in another country, I expect you will be writing to your
Congressperson asking them to intervene and get the government to mind
its own business?
Also, what about Kuwait? And Vietnam? And a score of other countries,
where the US Government (and many others, including my own) sought to
intervene in the affairs of another country?
> We don't give a shit if the U.K. doesn't even put
>murderers in jail. As long as you don't try to send them to
>the U.S. However, the U.K. members here, embodied in
>YOUR form, seem obsessively concerned that the U.S.
>Justice System conform to some standard that THEY have
>erected. Simply because they decided to call it 'International.'
>We have NEVER ratified any part of any treaty such as you
>rather ignorantly claim.
You have ratified the Convention guaranteeing that foreign nationals
would be provided with assistance from their consular officials, and
then executed some crims who were foreign nationals but who did not
have access to such assistance. Granted they did not ask for that
assistance, but the cops knew they were entitled to it, the crims
didn't, so how could they know they had to ask?
The courts found that they were denied their rights, but that "no harm
was done" and then allowed the executions anyway.
Why didn't the court rule the same way in Miranda? "Oh yeah, he had
the right to an attorney, but he didn't ask for one, and no harm was
done, so we will let it stand."
It seems like there is one rule for US citizens and a different rule
for foreign nationals.
</RANT>
Dave
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:36:09 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
> >Denying things isn't very good either, dirt. Are you denying
> >that you claim society doesn't have a 'self' because you
> >can't see it, feel it, touch it, and watch it move?
> >
>
> No, PV, I said that society does not have a self for the simple reason
> that it does not - certainly not to any extent which wouldn't vary
> wildly from person to person - meaning that law making built around
> such definition would be fundamentally flawed, and doomed to fall into
> disrepute.
>
Utterly absurd logic. In fact, even if it were true, it would
not preclude a 'self.' You are now backtracking, and saying
'it might have a self, but certainly not to any extent.....' So you
have defined the LIMITATIONS you PERSONALLY impose on
what constitutes a 'self.' One hardly knows what you are
TRYING to say. That the law is not a 'subjective' view of
society? That it does or does not vary as a 'person' self
might? Of course, you're patently wrong here. And you're
not so stupid that you don't know it. Would you not say
that the Third Reich was a society that underwent
self-destruction? And the Roman Empire as well.
> Your flat _refusal_ to even attempt to put forward any real definition
> of society has merely strengthened my knowledge that I am totally
> correct (as usual). In fact, although you purported to give me a
> little equation which was of sod all use, and as usual, was designed
> only to give the uneducated the impression that you had a meaningful
> response to my request to define the 'self' of 'society', you now even
> realise yourself how nonsensical your notion that society is anything
> more than a subjective social construct really was.
>
I have provided at least 20 definitions from a number of
philosophical sources which speak of the 'self' of
society. I could give hundreds more, but I will not pander
to your ignorance. Because, in every case, you have
ignored them, and just started a new thread, or clipped
the content of their words. I'll not repeat them... you well
know that people, much more clever people then you,
have clearly examined the concept of 'the self of society,'
and come away with an understanding of that self. I
cannot do more toward bringing you to that same
understanding if you are too hard-headed to wish to see
that understanding.
PV
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:h6ogauohseqp8bj39...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:32:46 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>> >news:aohfau03i316vvb33...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:17 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <clueless troll snipped>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >No.. the one's who are ARROGANT
>> >>
>> >> Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >>
>> >> Few thing's change around here the'se day's do they, PV?
>> >>
>> >ROTFLMAO.
>>
>> There is _nothing_ funny about a childish inability to use puctuation.
>>
>> Nothing funny at all.
>>
>Nor is there anything funny about being a silly pedantic.
I am amused that who, who once pounced on every typo with a 'ROTFLMAO'
has now accepted your serious inability to use simple punctuation, and
now dismisses every SPAG flame as pedantry.
Of course, in the most part, they usually are. However, there is one
exception - and that is apostrophe abuse.
Given the myriad of different word combinations which form the English
language, it is inevitable that even the cleverest of individuals will
inevitably get it wrong occasionally.
However, the rule concerning apostrophes is _so_ simple that a fucking
retarded child would be capable of mastering it - which is why I find
it so astonishing that so few people actually _do_ use them correctly.
Of course, no spell checker will pick up an apostrophe abuser such as
yourself, and this leads to a rather more interesting point - if you
are not capable of following such simple rules of punctuation as
these, what state would your spelling be in were it not for the fact
you run everything through a spell checker?
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:17 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >No.. the one's who are ARROGANT are those who presume
> >THEY can impose their views on OTHERS. The U.S. has no
> >such goal.
>
> So the next time the US Government makes an utterance about human
> rights abuses in another country, I expect you will be writing to your
> Congressperson asking them to intervene and get the government to mind
> its own business?
>
nothing to do with the arrogant presumption that a nation
can impose its views on another sovereign nation... be it
the U.S. or the EU.
> Also, what about Kuwait? And Vietnam? And a score of other countries,
> where the US Government (and many others, including my own) sought to
> intervene in the affairs of another country?
>
That isn't the argument at all. It's easy enough to recall
history, and point fingers... Lord knows... there are
fingers to point. But it does no good to say that 'because
it was done in the past, we have the right to do it now.'
The point is -- it is ARROGANT on the part of a nation to
presume it can act thusly. ANY nation, or any group of
nations. In the past, or in the present. The presumption
of one, doesn't make the other any more viable.
> > We don't give a shit if the U.K. doesn't even put
> >murderers in jail. As long as you don't try to send them to
> >the U.S. However, the U.K. members here, embodied in
> >YOUR form, seem obsessively concerned that the U.S.
> >Justice System conform to some standard that THEY have
> >erected. Simply because they decided to call it 'International.'
> >We have NEVER ratified any part of any treaty such as you
> >rather ignorantly claim.
>
> You have ratified the Convention guaranteeing that foreign nationals
> would be provided with assistance from their consular officials, and
> then executed some crims who were foreign nationals but who did not
> have access to such assistance. Granted they did not ask for that
> assistance, but the cops knew they were entitled to it, the crims
> didn't, so how could they know they had to ask?
>
Please, Dave... do not confuse apples and oranges. Of
course that treaty was ignored in the case of the LaGrange
brothers, and the U.S. was clearly chastised for doing so.
But THAT fact doesn't make it RIGHT for the EU to try to
dictate ITS Justice System to the U.S.
> The courts found that they were denied their rights, but that "no harm
> was done" and then allowed the executions anyway.
>
We all well know about it. It has NOTHING to do with the
present argument.
> Why didn't the court rule the same way in Miranda? "Oh yeah, he had
> the right to an attorney, but he didn't ask for one, and no harm was
> done, so we will let it stand."
>
> It seems like there is one rule for US citizens and a different rule
> for foreign nationals.
>
> </RANT>
>
Yes... it was definitely a rant... I know them.... I use them
frequently, myself. But it still didn't address the central
issue... which is 'Does ANY Nation or group of Nations
have the Right to demand another sovereign nation accept ITS
Justice System?' You may think it IS 'right,' but I can see
vast and harmful implications to believing it is right. Clearly,
the treaty you speak of was NOT an independent agreement
between the U.S. and the EU to SHARE a Justice System.
Nor were EITHER of them anything more than separate parties
to that agreement. Being separate parties does NOT give the
EU the right to demand the U.S. change ITS Justice System to
suit the EU, which was the thrust of the declaration from
the EU.
PV
> Dave
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"Dave Proctor" <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote in message
>news:se5iau4u21pcpp4gu...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:17 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No.. the one's who are ARROGANT are those who presume
>> >THEY can impose their views on OTHERS. The U.S. has no
>> >such goal.
>>
>> So the next time the US Government makes an utterance about human
>> rights abuses in another country, I expect you will be writing to your
>> Congressperson asking them to intervene and get the government to mind
>> its own business?
>>
>You may expect whatever you wish to expect. It has
>nothing to do with the arrogant presumption that a nation
>can impose its views on another sovereign nation... be it
>the U.S. or the EU.
>
You were, therefore, opposed to sanctions against South Africa, then?
>> Also, what about Kuwait? And Vietnam? And a score of other countries,
>> where the US Government (and many others, including my own) sought to
>> intervene in the affairs of another country?
>>
>That isn't the argument at all. It's easy enough to recall
>history, and point fingers... Lord knows... there are
>fingers to point. But it does no good to say that 'because
>it was done in the past, we have the right to do it now.'
>The point is -- it is ARROGANT on the part of a nation to
>presume it can act thusly. ANY nation, or any group of
>nations. In the past, or in the present. The presumption
>of one, doesn't make the other any more viable.
I have waited to see you again attempt to take part in a serious
argument to see how poor at debate you really are, PV.
This paragraph is entirely _void_ of any meaning, other than your
typically arrogant insistence that the US is free to impose its will
on others, but the mere suggestion that others advise the US how to
act is arrogant.
<further insular nonsense by PV snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 02:34:57 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:h6ogauohseqp8bj39...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:32:46 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >> >news:aohfau03i316vvb33...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:17 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <clueless troll snipped>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >No.. the one's who are ARROGANT
> >> >>
> >> >> Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Few thing's change around here the'se day's do they, PV?
> >> >>
> >> >ROTFLMAO.
> >>
> >> There is _nothing_ funny about a childish inability to use puctuation.
> >>
> >> Nothing funny at all.
> >>
> >Nor is there anything funny about being a silly pedantic.
>
>
> I am amused that who, who once pounced on every typo with a 'ROTFLMAO'
> has now accepted your serious inability to use simple punctuation, and
> now dismisses every SPAG flame as pedantry.
>
mistakes in grammar. You have no idea how MANY mistakes
you STILL make that I now ignore, because to point them out
would only give you a reason to claim I am a pedant as well.
I'll not fall into your silly traps again, as I did with obscenities.
After seeing you refer to Mothers in such obscene terms, I
came to realize that you're emotionally disturbed toward your
own Mother, and will only remark on that point, and the point
of your obvious reluctance to enter into a 'real' relationship with an
'actual' person, rather than the fantasies and obscene
day-dreams you post here.
> Of course, in the most part, they usually are. However, there is one
> exception - and that is apostrophe abuse.
>
Could you perhaps cite the source for this 'one exception'?
> Given the myriad of different word combinations which form the English
> language, it is inevitable that even the cleverest of individuals will
> inevitably get it wrong occasionally.
>
> However, the rule concerning apostrophes is _so_ simple that a ****ing
> retarded child would be capable of mastering it - which is why I find
> it so astonishing that so few people actually _do_ use them correctly.
>
It loses NONE of its (or is that it's?) informational content.
It's (or is that its?) paedomorphic of you to even presume
that such is the case. Where we have a REAL problem, is
when someone says that 'self-defense' is the OPPOSITE
of 'protection.' Then we have a REAL problem in stupidity,
since 'self-defense' IS 'protection.' That problem being
YOUR stupidity.
> Of course, no spell checker will pick up an apostrophe abuser such as
> yourself, and this leads to a rather more interesting point - if you
> are not capable of following such simple rules of punctuation as
> these, what state would your spelling be in were it not for the fact
> you run everything through a spell checker?
>
Whatever... you silly fart.
PV
> w00f
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<PV making light of his inability to use apostrophes snipped>
>paedomorphic
Just because you keep getting pulled up as being borderline
illiterate, there's no need to keep throwing out terms from your 'Big
Words for Thick Yanks' book, PV.
<more futile attempts by PV to show that he doesn't care how thick he
is snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:14:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Proctor" <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote in message
> >news:se5iau4u21pcpp4gu...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:17 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No.. the one's who are ARROGANT are those who presume
> >> >THEY can impose their views on OTHERS. The U.S. has no
> >> >such goal.
> >>
> >> So the next time the US Government makes an utterance about human
> >> rights abuses in another country, I expect you will be writing to your
> >> Congressperson asking them to intervene and get the government to mind
> >> its own business?
> >>
> >You may expect whatever you wish to expect. It has
> >nothing to do with the arrogant presumption that a nation
> >can impose its views on another sovereign nation... be it
> >the U.S. or the EU.
> >
>
> You were, therefore, opposed to sanctions against South Africa, then?
>
from within, and INDIVIDUALS outside can comment as they
feel necessary. That is why I find no reason to oppose anyone
posting their views here. Especially you, since your posts only
do good for MY argument. Of course, I will ARGUE my views
in a contrary position, but will never tell them to 'shut up' as
you've told me.
But GOVERNMENT intervention of 'wills' is every bit as harmful
as government intervention of 'arms.' And sometimes only one
step away. All of this... of course....IMHO. Because there
IS no right answer other than what we find is correct within
ourselves. Certainly if YOU believe that the invasion of Poland
by Germany or the War undertaken by the U.S. in Vietnam
was right, then you believe that a nation CAN impose its
views on another sovereign nation. I disagree with such a
view. I believe a sovereign nation has a responsibility ONLY
to itself, and all else is interference. I came to this mind
in the Vietnam War. I believe a sovereign nation has a
responsibility ONLY to protect itself in self-defense whenever
it finds it necessary to do so. Certainly I do not feel the EU
finds itself threatened by the U.S. use of the DP.
>
> >> Also, what about Kuwait? And Vietnam? And a score of other countries,
> >> where the US Government (and many others, including my own) sought to
> >> intervene in the affairs of another country?
> >>
> >That isn't the argument at all. It's easy enough to recall
> >history, and point fingers... Lord knows... there are
> >fingers to point. But it does no good to say that 'because
> >it was done in the past, we have the right to do it now.'
> >The point is -- it is ARROGANT on the part of a nation to
> >presume it can act thusly. ANY nation, or any group of
> >nations. In the past, or in the present. The presumption
> >of one, doesn't make the other any more viable.
>
> I have waited to see you again attempt to take part in a serious
> argument to see how poor at debate you really are, PV.
>
> This paragraph is entirely _void_ of any meaning, other than your
> typically arrogant insistence that the US is free to impose its will
> on others, but the mere suggestion that others advise the US how to
> act is arrogant.
>
Apparently you have some difficulty in reading skills. Note
that I said at the BEGINNING of my PAST post, that it is
WRONG of the U.S. to attempt to impose its views on another
sovereign nation. Do you think it is RIGHT for other nations
to do so? Isn't that how Poland got invaded? Isn't that how
Vietnam began? Are you prepared to defend THOSE acts
of 'imposing views,' on other sovereign nations. Remember,
YOU cannot define what is 'good' and what is 'bad' in respect
to 'views.'
spank...spank...spank.
PV
> w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Let's cut the bollocks:
<snipped>
>>
>> You were, therefore, opposed to sanctions against South Africa, then?
>>
>Yes, I was. It's as simple as that.
I hope you do not _dare_ hold yourself out to be some anti-racism
activist again, PV.
<PV embracing racism in order to defend his position that no country
has any form of right to question US policy snipped in sickened
disgust>
Your ideology is so fraught with silly contradictions that it
continues to astound me, PV.
You seek to impose your views of what is right and wrong on other
daily - take, for example, your desire that seeking abortion be made a
criminal offence.
Yet when it comes to imposing views over some arbitrary and purely
superficial geopolitical boundaries, you all of a sudden fall into
some insular state of mind whereby nobody's idea of right or wrong
should be imposed upon others.
Of course you believe that a country should impose its will on
another. You have been a rabid supporter of a 'kill 'em all' approach
of the war in Afghanistan. Likewise do you believe that if another
Nazi state arose in Europe, we should just 'leave 'em to it'?
Perhaps you would like to denounce right now the US attempts to topple
Castro's administration in Cuba?
The simple fact, PV, is that your ideology stretches no further than
your gut instinct on any particular topic on which you see fit to spew
your bile. Your argument that no other country should criticise the US
application of the DP is based purely on the fact that you have no
counter argument to points put to you, and to try and state otherwise
just shows how clueless and incredibly arrogant you really are.
>spank...spank...spank.
Quite the contrary, PV. You have just made one of the most _stupid_
posts you have ever chosen to publish. You have stated that we should
have left South Africa's black people to their fate against a
technically superior and far better equipped foe, and you have stated
sentiment which will bind you into renouncing a huge proportion of US
foreign policy.
If that's a spanking, gimme more....
One last thing - you're a fuckwit.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:03:04 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>
> <PV making light of his inability to use apostrophes snipped>
>
> >paedomorphic
>
> Just because you keep getting pulled up as being borderline
> illiterate, there's no need to keep throwing out terms from your 'Big
> Words for Thick Yanks' book, PV.
>
Ummm... dirt... the first demonstration of stupidity is the
INABILITY to 'look up a word.' Let me help you -- See
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8250/Paedomorphis.html
Can you please concentrate on the task at hand, and
stop asking stupid questions that you should be able to
research for yourself. You get a D- on that task in this
particular case.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
enigmacat
On 30 Mar 2002 04:18:30 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>Subject: Re: Attention Planet Visitor: i respect your views...
>From: nothg...@wwdc.com (enigmacat)
>Date: 3/29/2002 4:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ca50ca0...@news.lon.imag.net>
>
>i would really appreciate it if you would not throw gruesome and
>>emotionally horrifying tales of children being brutally killed to make
>>your point about believing that the DP is the exercising of justice
>>and not revenge.
> <snipped>
> <snipped>
>Gentlemen, i'm truly at a loss here. Just what do you want me to do?
>
>
>==============================
>jane, I take great exception to your comment (as a matter of fact it really
>pisses me off):
>"i would really appreciate it if you would not throw gruesome and emotionally
>horrifying tales of children being brutally killed to make your
>point........<snipped>."
>
>PEOPLE THIS ONE AINT GONNA BE PRETTY. iF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH, PASS IT BY. I THINK
>IT IS TIME FOR MISS JANE TO HAVE A LESSON IN REALITY. You have been warned.
>Proceed at your own risk because this is what happens after the killing is
>done. I know the protocol by heart because I have seen it so many times/to
>many times, maybe.
>Caps were put on intentionally...something I have never done before.
>
>jane, what the hell do you think this is all about? Something warm and fuzzy?
>Holy innocents on death row? We are talking about children being brutally
>killed because that is exactly the point.
>
>We are also talking about innocent adults being tortured, raped, mutilated,
>beaten, burned, resulting in a brutal tragic death.
>
>Want to know what happend to Kimberly Leach as well as the dozens of other
>adult victims after they died at the loving caring hands of Ted Bundy?
>
>Do you want to know what happend to the murdered people that Jeff Paul was
>involved with.
>
>Reread the part in caps again before you go on.
>
>You want me to tell you what it is like to have to go to the medical examiners
>office to watch, take photos and collect evidence during a legal/medical
>autopsy while a three year old child has its body violated again in order to
>obtain justice?
>
>The techs and investigators get fully robed in one piece white scrubs, wearing
>protective face masks. the prudent tech puts on four of five pairs of latex
>gloves because he knows he is going to get his hands bloody. Its easier to peel
>of one layer at a time to replace one pair at a time.
>
>
>First, the ME turns on the the microphone. He notes the date, time, location,
>the name of the victim if known, as well as atending assistants and LEO's.
>
>Want to know what it feels to smell the first stench of death when that long
>cut from sternum to pubis is first made?
>(Thats why all crime techs and homicide investigators carry a small bottle of
>Oil of Wintergreen with them. Available at your local pharmacy for about two
>dollars a bottle in US dollars)
>
>How about when the scalp is opened from the back and pulled over the face so
>the skull can be cut open with a power saw designed for the job. The skull cap
>is removed so that the brain can be examined to confirm or eliminate brain
>damage as a cause of death.
>
>Hey, here is another one your death row buddys dont want you to know about. The
>first cut is made from the shoulder to the sternum. The second cut is made from
>the other should to the sternum. The third cut
>is as described above. The flesh is then flensed exposing the rib cage. The ME
>then takes a tool and seperates the rib cage from the rest of the body buy
>snipping them apart. ( The tool he uses is a common set of pruning shears.
>available at your local Sears or hardware store for for around $9.95 US).
>
>Every organ is taken out of the body and examined. The heart, brain, liver and
>kindneys are literarly diced up and samples collected in a speciman jar.
>
>Injuries, damage and insults inside the body are noted. Cause of death
>determined.
>
>And on and on until the job is done and the body is hollowed out like a canoe
>(Old cop and ME humor that helps keep things in perspective).
>
>Then comes the best part. You will really enjoy this. You can even share it
>with your friends awaiting the needle for their crimes.
>
>When all is said is done, out of what little respect is left for the cadaver
>that used to be a living person, the organs are replaced in the body cavity.
>
>They are put into a large sized plastic garbage bag (available at any
>supermarket, abour $5.50 per 25 when on sale. Thats in US Dollars of course)
>
>The bag is then put into the body cavity, snipped off ridge cage replaced, skin
>refolded into its original position. An ME assistant then takes a large sewing
>needle, and thick,waxed cord and sews the incisions back together. No fancy
>surgicle square knots with the ends neatly trimmed here. Just wide, utilitarian
>stitches that gets the hob done. The skull cap is then replaced and the hair
>stiched back into place.
>
>The tech collects the evidence, labels the film roll for developing (5X7, using
>Kodacolor Professional Color film, speed 160. (available at any local store for
>about
>$3.95 per roll, US$. Average amount of shots taking during the entire homicide
>investigation.m.about seventy for a simple homicide. Make it multiples, or
>different crime scene locations and the sky is the limit).
>
>The investigator takes out his little recorder and dictates his notes. The ME
>finishes his report.
>
>The tech then rolls the fingerprints of the deceaseds body. Sometimes when the
>body is decomposed, it is necessary to cut the fingers off and place the bulb
>of the finger over your own fingers, hoping that you can get enough ridge
>definition for an fingerprint ID card for future reference.
>
>Then we all go out to lunch. Looking at all the fresh, red meat stimulates your
>taste buds. Usually its a steak house. Its traditional for the gang to pay for
>the meal of a first time rookie. Ribs are recommended. Steaks are ordered rare
>to medium rare. Vegitarians use the salad bar, but for some reason usually
>sneak a small piece of meat from their partner.
>
>So keep writing your buddies jane. But always keep in mind what they caused.
>And try not to remind them the fate that awaits them is the same fate as their
>victims. To be cut up, sliced, diced, photgraphed and then recollect in a
>garbage bag.
>
>Hey..... I told you it would not pretty. But it is a part of the death that the
>antis fail to discuss.
>
>Jigsaw
>
>(PS: I feel better now that I have had my rant. For those of you who think this
>is harsh, you are correct. It is as harsh and brutal as it is real. I offer no
>apologies for this educational lesson)
i don't know what to say. You make an excellent argument for the
heinousness of crime and the savages who commit them. i am in the
midst of reading Ann Rule's "Small Sacrifices" about a mother who has
her three children shot. i just started it and it makes me sick to
read about the kids' injuries. So far in my reading, two of the
children are still alive and one is dead.
i guess i always kind of felt a strange kinship for people on death
row. i spent three years in a hideous institution in the late
1970's----we were just young kids and had emotional problems that were
going to be "fixed" with something called "behaviour modification." It
sounds as insidious as it was and still, to this day, i have severe
anxiety attacks from being thrown into seclusion for weeks at a time.
We were treated like criminals and felt like criminals. Our crime?
Being ill from suffering untold childhood abuse. We turned the rage in
on ourselves, where people like Ted Bundy and Tim McVeigh turned
theirs outward at others.
i know this probably doesn't make a lot of sense. i DO feel a great
deal for the victims, particularly the children. Nothing makes me more
angry than reading about 3-year-olds who have been shot three times in
the back. Sometimes i get so enraged i could kill the murderers
myself, but then i remember some of the troubled kids i knew in the B.
Mod unit, the ones who eventually became so messed up they became
killers themselves. i dated one guy back then who is doing Lwop for
killing his stepfather. After meeting the man and watching him in
action, i didn't blame Ron one bit for what he did.
So i guess all of this meandering monologue is simply my attempt to
say that perhaps i have a rather twisted view of killers and maybe
they don't deserve my compassion and caring. i am very confused by
your post, for i DO understand EXACTLY what you are telling me. i
guess i need to rethink a lot of the way my mind works when it comes
to assessing other human beings. Other sub-human beings as well.
Just don't write me off as a killer lover. i just hate what happened
to me and my friends. i hate people in positions of authority.
i have to walk very carefully, for the monsters are still out there.
All of those terrible staff members are still walking around free.
They never got arrested for what they did to us.
There is no such thing as justice.
sincerely,
jane
William Robert
All this and then Desi rejected you for Dirt Dog. Poor girl! However, you
really are better off.
William Robert
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> "dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> news:h6ogauohseqp8bj39...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:32:46 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> > >news:aohfau03i316vvb33...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:17 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <clueless troll snipped>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >No.. the one's who are ARROGANT
> > >>
> > >> Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >>
> > >> Few thing's change around here the'se day's do they, PV?
> > >>
> > >ROTFLMAO.
> >
> > There is _nothing_ funny about a childish inability to use puctuation.
> >
> > Nothing funny at all.
> >
> Nor is there anything funny about being a silly pedantic.
Or even a silly pedant.
*ducks and runs*
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
A Planet Visitor
"enigmacat" <nothg...@wwdc.com> wrote in message
news:3caa2fba...@news.lon.imag.net...
>
>
>
> On 30 Mar 2002 04:18:30 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Attention Planet Visitor: i respect your views...
> >From: nothg...@wwdc.com (enigmacat)
> >Date: 3/29/2002 4:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3ca50ca0...@news.lon.imag.net>
>
> Just don't write me off as a killer lover. i just hate what happened
> to me and my friends. i hate people in positions of authority.
>
> i have to walk very carefully, for the monsters are still out there.
> All of those terrible staff members are still walking around free.
> They never got arrested for what they did to us.
>
> There is no such thing as justice.
>
I would only ask that you remember the other monsters
who still walk among us. Those who murder and then
dismember and eat the body parts and drink the blood
of their victims. (John Crutchley, the notorious 'vampire
rapist,' one of those I speak of, today died of an apparent suicide while in
prison here). We do ourselves no favor to claim that ALL murderers DESERVE to
stay alive, and
have the pleasure of reliving their previous acts. That is
a hard choice to make if one presumes to see our
species as 'moral.'
PV
> sincerely,
> jane
>
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-55D041....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <lN8q8.47821$K52.8...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > "dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> > news:h6ogauohseqp8bj39...@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:32:46 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > > <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> > > >news:aohfau03i316vvb33...@4ax.com...
> > > >> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 01:20:17 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > > >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> <clueless troll snipped>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >No.. the one's who are ARROGANT
> > > >>
> > > >> Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >>
> > > >> Few thing's change around here the'se day's do they, PV?
> > > >>
> > > >ROTFLMAO.
> > >
> > > There is _nothing_ funny about a childish inability to use puctuation.
> > >
> > > Nothing funny at all.
> > >
> > Nor is there anything funny about being a silly pedantic.
>
> Or even a silly pedant.
>
> *ducks and runs*
>
PV
Highimpact1000
> I would only ask that you remember the other monsters
> who still walk among us. Those who murder and then
> dismember and eat the body parts and drink the blood
> of their victims. (John Crutchley, the notorious 'vampire
> rapist,' one of those I speak of, today died of an apparent suicide while in
> prison here). We do ourselves no favor to claim that ALL murderers DESERVE to
> stay alive, and
> have the pleasure of reliving their previous acts. That is
> a hard choice to make if one presumes to see our
> species as 'moral.'
Note that 'monsters' such as these are not like criminals that kill
because they are serving money or a cause, or out of a personal
vendetta. These are trully sick individuals and I don't know if
there's any hope for them.
They must either be acing out of repressed anger, hatred, and rage, or
they must just be deluded and delusional and wacked in the head.
They definitely need serious help, and prison's not going to give it
to them. Ultimately we should help everyone.... but because of
$$$MONEY$$$ we lack resources.
I think everyone should be eligible for parole after 10 years, but you
should not let monsters like this out of prison.... I can't believe he
was paroled after 10 years! Like do you really think a psycho like
this is any better?? No way! Also, how can a parole board judge
someone in an hour or whatever they spend talking to them?
Maybe prisoners should have mentors or interact with prison guards,
teachers, or psychologist who give them release reccomendations or
something. Of course, it's kind of hard to establsh a relationship
with someone who has power or authority over you.... so, prison is
kind of flawed in the first place.
Also, people in prison for life should be give the option of death or
suicide whenever they want it, since life in prison is inhumane.
Highimpact1000
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020402/od_nm/vampire_dc_1
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<inpenetrable nonsense snipped>
<of the 'self' of 'society'>
>>
>I have provided at least 20 definitions from a number of
>philosophical sources which speak of the 'self' of
>society.
No you haven't.
You wrote: thing=envelope=self=society and thought that'd do.
It didn't.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:fi2kaucu2l83m62ga...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:03:04 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <PV making light of his inability to use apostrophes snipped>
>>
>> >paedomorphic
>>
>> Just because you keep getting pulled up as being borderline
>> illiterate, there's no need to keep throwing out terms from your 'Big
>> Words for Thick Yanks' book, PV.
>>
>
>Ummm... dirt... the first demonstration of stupidity is the
>INABILITY to 'look up a word.' Let me help you -- See
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8250/Paedomorphis.html
>Can you please concentrate on the task at hand, and
>stop asking stupid questions that you should be able to
>research for yourself. You get a D- on that task in this
>particular case.
>
>PV
PV, the first rule of responding to a usenet post is to read it first.
You will note that I showed absolutely _zero_ interest in the meaning
of this non-word which you suppose exists because it is used on a
geocities website.
Hence, the reason for you posting this link which I certainly do not
intend to click on is quite beyond me.
w00f
dirtdog
PV appears to have ignored this stupid comment in the hope that it
goes away.
It will not.
On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:44:37 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:8lvjau05e2v7d9f5o...@4ax.com...
>> You were, therefore, opposed to sanctions against South Africa, then?
>>
>Yes, I was. It's as simple as that. Change should come
>from within
<snipped>
I still await your comments, PV.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 03:06:35 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <inpenetrable nonsense snipped>
>
> <of the 'self' of 'society'>
> >>
> >I have provided at least 20 definitions from a number of
> >philosophical sources which speak of the 'self' of
> >society.
>
> No you haven't.
>
possible for you to deny. If you're too blind to read, that
is certainly not my fault.
> You wrote: thing=envelope=self=society and thought that'd do.
>
No... I wrote society has a self. And an envelope has
a self. Since society can practice 'self-defense,' and
an envelope can be 'self-sealing.' While both are 'things.'
One as a material object, and the other as a conceptual
object.
> It didn't.
That only makes you less aware of the meaning of 'self.'
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 20:51:25 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:fi2kaucu2l83m62ga...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:03:04 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> <PV making light of his inability to use apostrophes snipped>
> >>
> >> >paedomorphic
> >>
> >> Just because you keep getting pulled up as being borderline
> >> illiterate, there's no need to keep throwing out terms from your 'Big
> >> Words for Thick Yanks' book, PV.
> >>
> >
> >Ummm... dirt... the first demonstration of stupidity is the
> >INABILITY to 'look up a word.' Let me help you -- See
> >http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8250/Paedomorphis.html
> >Can you please concentrate on the task at hand, and
> >stop asking stupid questions that you should be able to
> >research for yourself. You get a D- on that task in this
> >particular case.
> >
> >PV
>
> PV, the first rule of responding to a usenet post is to read it first.
>
> You will note that I showed absolutely _zero_ interest in the meaning
> of this non-word which you suppose exists because it is used on a
> geocities website.
>
I can well imagine you have zero interest since it does not
involve either the word f*** or Mother, which are the only
words that grab your attention. Nonetheless, the word
is in common usage in anthropological and biological
terms. And it certainly exists in the OED, which has become
the fawning artifact of those hoping to stifle the scope and
beauty of this most wondrous of languages.
PAEDOMORPHISM - "The retention of juvenile
characteristics in certain adult mammals."
The word fits you quite appropriately. And I only provided
the link in the hope that you would not continue to wallow
in your stupidity. You having now proven how wrong I was.
> Hence, the reason for you posting this link which I certainly do not
> intend to click on is quite beyond me.
>
That only demonstrates your inability to increase your
knowledge beyond bung holes. And the obvious
limitations of your 'classical education.' Which has
become the butt of many a joke here, you paedomorphic
imbecile.
PV
> w00f
>
>
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:O9vr8.111625$y26.16...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> news:pt2sau4rffs35jvup...@4ax.com...
> >
> > PV appears to have ignored this stupid comment in the hope that it
> > goes away.
> >
> > It will not.
> >
> > On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:44:37 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> > >news:8lvjau05e2v7d9f5o...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> > >> You were, therefore, opposed to sanctions against South Africa, then?
> > >>
> > >Yes, I was. It's as simple as that. Change should come
> > >from within
They SHOULD come from within but in the case of
efficient repressive regimes, they don't. Sanctions against
South Africa did work to a limited extent but the end of the
Cold War probably did more to depose white supremacy
than anything. America stopped supporting the status quo
and the apartheid warrirors found that their only ally was
Israel - De Clerk (a politician who never receives enough
credit for his perspicacity and courage) saw the the light.
I have met a number of white South Africans whon assure
me that the economic sanctions affected the poor more than
themselves but that they WERE affected by the cultural
embargoes especially the sporting ones. No international
cricket and rugby hurt deeply but I don't expect an American
to know much about these.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:mj2sauku1jghk53e0...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 03:06:35 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <inpenetrable nonsense snipped>
>>
>> <of the 'self' of 'society'>
>> >>
>> >I have provided at least 20 definitions from a number of
>> >philosophical sources which speak of the 'self' of
>> >society.
>>
>> No you haven't.
>>
>Oh, but I have... and everyone knows it. So it's hardly
>possible for you to deny. If you're too blind to read, that
>is certainly not my fault.
>
>> You wrote: thing=envelope=self=society and thought that'd do.
>>
>No... I wrote society has a self. And an envelope has
>a self. Since society can practice 'self-defense,' and
>an envelope can be 'self-sealing.' While both are 'things.'
>One as a material object, and the other as a conceptual
>object.
>
>> It didn't.
>
>That only makes you less aware of the meaning of 'self.'
>
Eh?
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>. And it certainly exists in the OED,
<monotone drone snipped>
YAWN
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
paedomorphic.
> YAWN
>
Of course... when shown to be ill-informed, pretend
to be bored.
You're going to find that I have begun to ignore most of
your comments, dirt. Since they are REALLY paedomorphic,
and hardly worth mentioning or replying to. Most responses
would only serve to further destroy your self-esteem which
is already shown to be in an extremely fragile state.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
I thought so.
PV
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> in an extremely fragile state.
>
Could you, perchance, be referring to the United States' reputation as
a nation morally capable of performing its self appointed duty as
global policeman?
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
even you must realize what a fragile state it is in.
Nonetheless, other than the assistance of the U.K.,
I see little effort made on the part of the EU to even
concern itself with the Middle East at this moment.
Except perhaps, as you now do, to criticize the U.S.
if we do try to do something, or to criticize the U.S. if
we do not try to do something.
I can only attribute your mental fragility to the fact that
your father has claimed parthenogenesis was responsible
for your birth, since he wishes to claim no part to it.
You need to get past his rejection, and do some
self-examination (yes, dirt...you do have a 'self').
PV
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:j7f0buogiqa48r9cq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 22:03:02 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> > in an extremely fragile state.
>> >
>>
>> Could you, perchance, be referring to the United States' reputation as
>> a nation morally capable of performing its self appointed duty as
>> global policeman?
>>
>No... I am referring to your mental stability. Certainly,
>even you must realize what a fragile state it is in.
>Nonetheless, other than the assistance of the U.K.,
>I see little effort made on the part of the EU to even
>concern itself with the Middle East at this moment.
>Except perhaps, as you now do, to criticize the U.S.
>if we do try to do something, or to criticize the U.S. if
>we do not try to do something.
There is no need for any other EU member to concern itself - the UK,
as part of the EU is taking the lead, and putting your thickie
president's simplistic and inflammatory methods to shame in the
process.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.lo...@w00fitty.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
a general consensus from the 'entity' you hold so dead,
the Eurocorpse Union, that they should just be permitted
to kill each other until the 'last man standing,' wins. It
is the most arrogant, yet most uncivilized grouping I have
ever seen, since the defeat of the first 'axis of evil.'
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Even the simplest of trolls work with you, dont they, PV?
w00f