Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
Earl Evleth
But there is no law and order without justice.
****
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-morales22feb22,0,704779.story?coll=l
a-home-headlines
Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
By Louis Sahagun and Henry Weinstein
Michael Morales avoids, for now, the state's deadly needle because officials
couldn't follow
State Halts Execution to Review Procedure
Officials are unable to meet a judge's demand that a lethal injection be
overseen by a doctor. Effects on the death penalty are unclear.
By Louis Sahagun and Henry Weinstein
Times Staff Writers
February 22, 2006
SAN QUENTIN ‹ Capping a dramatic legal battle that raised questions of
medical ethics and the future of lethal injection, California prison
officials late Tuesday called off Michael Morales' execution, saying they
were unable to comply with a judge's conditions for putting the convicted
rapist-murderer to death.
The state's decision means that the execution will be delayed at the very
least until early May ‹ and more likely for many months ‹ while the federal
court in San Jose conducts a formal evidentiary hearing on the
constitutionality of the state's execution procedures.
Although it is unclear whether the continuing legal saga will have a broad
effect on the death penalty in California ‹ the U.S. Supreme Court has never
found any method of execution unconstitutional ‹ several experts said the
controversy will probably prompt a reexamination of how executions are
conducted here and across the country.
Morales was sitting in a prison cell with his Los Angeles attorney, David
Senior, when San Quentin spokesman Vernell Crittendon brought them the news
that the execution had been called off.
"He was quite relieved to find he was not being executed," Crittendon said.
"He smiled and nodded and thanked me."
It is highly unusual for a death sentence to be stayed in the final hours
because of a legal challenge over the method of execution. The May hearing
is expected to be the most detailed court examination of the state's
execution methods since the switch from use of the gas chamber to lethal
injection in 1996.
The Morales furor began a week ago when U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel
declared that California's three-stage drug cocktail of a sedative,
paralytic drug and heart-stopping chemical ‹ the same protocol used in 37 of
the 38 states with lethal injection ‹ could mask, rather than eliminate, an
inmate's pain during execution.
Fogel said the state would have to modify its execution procedure or he
would hold a full hearing on the process in May.
To address his concern, prison officials elected to go forward just after
midnight Monday with two doctors on hand to ensure that the sedative would
be sufficient to deaden the pain of the heart-stopping drug. Just before the
execution, however, the two anesthesiologists balked, saying the procedures
forced them into the role of executioner, in violation of their medical
ethics.
Fogel then said officials could go forward later in the day with a lethal
dose of the sedative alone ‹ administered by a licensed medical professional
stationed within the execution chamber rather than by the usual "unseen
hand" delivering the fatal drugs from another room.
But just two hours before the new, 7:30 p.m. time for the execution, a
deputy attorney general told court officials that it had been called off.
San Quentin spokesman Crittendon said the state "was not able to find any
medical professionals willing to inject medication intravenously, ending the
life of a human being."
"The warden felt it was not ethical to approach an individual who would
potentially be putting their license in jeopardy," Crittendon said. "How
would it affect their careers by being involved in the execution process in
the manner we've been discussing?"
Tuesday's outcome was applauded by attorney Natasha Minsker, who directs
the death penalty project of the American Civil Liberties of Northern
California. "We think this is appropriate," she said. "There will be a
hearing so both sides can present their evidence. It is a serious issue that
needs careful consideration."
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
which favors the death penalty, said he thought Tuesday's outcome was "an
unfortunate result. It is based on a very remote possibility that there is a
problem with the procedure. It is unfortunate that this is being done at the
last minute."
But he said the delay, while highly unusual, was merely temporary and
predicted that it would have no long term consequences on capital
punishment.
Crittendon said Morales spent the day in a death-watch cell 15 feet from
the execution chamber. At 3:20 p.m., he visited with his lawyers. Then, at
5:45 p.m., he was returned to the more distant death-row cell he had
occupied until Monday.
Crittendon also met with family members of 17-year-old Terri Winchell, whom
Morales was convicted of murdering. "They took this very hard," Crittendon
said.
Reached at her Lodi-area home, Terri Winchell's mother described herself as
"knocked down" by the decision. It "was just like someone hit you in the
stomach," Barbara Christian said. "You feel weak, and the pain hurtsŠ. We
have lived with a knife in our hearts for all these years, and this makes
the knife even sharper."
The halting of the execution comes as challenges to the constitutionality
of lethal injection are spreading across the country. First adopted by
Oklahoma when it enacted a new death penalty law in 1977, lethal injection
is now the predominant method of execution across the nation.
The crux of the challenges is that rather than being more humane than a gas
chamber or the electric chair, lethal injection masks what can be a very
painful death.
Some critics maintain that the problems with lethal injection demonstrate
the impossibility of conducting an execution humanely.
"Government officials don't want the American public to view the death
penalty as a lethal, destructive, violent act that isn't really necessary.
Therefore we sanitize and obscure the act of killing a person, who is no
longer a threat to anyone, with protocols and procedures that are aimed at
comforting the public," said Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the
Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, who specializes in death penalty
appeals.
"The problem is that killing another human being is always painful," added
Stevenson, who also is a professor at New York University School of Law.
Fordham University law professor Deborah Denno, who has written several
scholarly articles on methods of execution, said the hearing in May could
lead to changes in the state's death penalty procedures. She said it was
"unprecedented for a judge to get so involved with how the execution
protocol is carried out."
Denno said she thought that was a positive development, because most
jurists had not looked closely enough at the actual execution process.
California officials "absolutely made the right choice in delaying the
execution and deciding to hold an evidentiary hearing to evaluate lethal
injection with the thoroughness and medical oversight that the procedure
warrants," she said. "The state is also setting a standard that other states
should follow before they proceed further with their lethal injection
executions."
In lieu of the doctor's monitoring the inmate's condition, Judge Fogel had
offered to let officials inject Morales, 46, with nothing but 5 grams of the
powerful barbiturate sodium thiopental, which was expected to lengthen the
execution from the usual 11 minutes to as much as 45 minutes or more.
But no one could say with certainty how long it would take for Morales to
die, because the procedure had never been tried before. Prison officials and
legal scholars said they were unaware of other states using a single
sedative to carry out executions.
At a hearing in Fogel's court last week, attorneys for the state said
stretching out the process would make it harder for family members who
witnessed it, as well as the prison personnel involved in the execution.
Under state law, a death warrant has to be carried out within 24 hours.
Normally, executions in California occur at 12:01 a.m. on the date specified
by the warrant. But after the delay early Tuesday, corrections officials set
the time for 7:30 p.m., affording them 4 1/2 hours to complete the execution
before the warrant expired at midnight.
If Morales had not been executed within that time, prosecutors would have
had to return to Ventura County Superior Court to seek a new execution date
from a judge ‹ possibly the original trial judge, Charles McGrath, who no
longer believes that Morales deserves to die.
Last month, in a rare move, McGrath ‹ who sentenced Morales to death in
1983 on the unanimous recommendation of a trial jury ‹ sent a letter to Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger urging clemency. McGrath said the jury's
recommendation and his decision to sentence Morales to death were based on
false testimony offered by a jailhouse informant.
Morales was convicted in 1983 of torturing, raping and murdering Winchell.
Testimony was presented at trial that Morales had agreed to help his cousin
Rick Ortega kill Winchell after Ortega learned that his bisexual boyfriend
was dating her. Ortega, in a separate trial, was sentenced to life in
prison.
Morales tried to strangle Winchell from behind in a car while Ortega was
driving, according to trial testimony. After the belt broke, Morales struck
her repeatedly in the head with a hammer before dragging her across the road
into a vineyard, where he raped her and stabbed her four times in the chest,
according to testimony.
Morales, who has admitted the crime, said he was high on PCP at the time
and feels deep remorse. His attorneys, including Pepperdine law school Dean
Kenneth W. Starr, mounted a vigorous campaign for clemency. Their effort was
marred by allegations that one of their investigators had submitted juror
affidavits to the governor ‹ urging commutation to life without parole ‹
that were forged. Schwarzenegger turned the lawyers down. Then Judge Fogel
intervened, and state officials ultimately halted the execution.
Mack Winchell, Terri Winchell's 78-year-old father, said the decision
Tuesday was a horrible blow.
"It's awfully hard to put faith in God, then have something like this," he
said. "I will tell you what. I am having a hard time coping with this the
last couple months. The strain and stress of it, every day of your life. You
just can't get that girl out of your mind."
Times staff writers Tim Reiterman, Jill Leovy and Jenifer Warren contributed
to this report.
Cochon Capitaliste
then beat her in the face 23 times with a hammer, THEN he raped her.
How much pain did she feel? She was 17 at the time. if you have any
doubts about whether the murderer is anesthetized, stick a needle in
his eye while he's strapped to the gurney.
Cochon Capitaliste
Mike
news:C022316B.9790C%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> PV wants a law forcing doctors to kill.
>
> But there is no law and order without justice.
>
> ****
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-morales22feb22,0,704779.story?coll=l
> a-home-headlines
>
> Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
> By Louis Sahagun and Henry Weinstein
>
> Michael Morales avoids, for now, the state's deadly needle because
> officials
> couldn't follow
>
>
Maybe they should see if a family member would like to do the job.
Runge
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
C022316B.9790C%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> stomach," Barbara Christian said. "You feel weak, and the pain hurtsS. We
Earl Evleth
"Mike" <mike...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe they should see if a family member would like to do the job.
That or a member of the jury
Earl Evleth
"Runge" <phi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> You seem soo fascinated by all this
My posting was on topic, your's is not.
Darren
I suppose they could use malitary Doctors; they're trained for killing,
civilian doctors aren't and most of em wouldn't because they went into
medicine to save lives (or money) not to take lives.
>
-
Daz
> stomach," Barbara Christian said. "You feel weak, and the pain hurtsS. We
Runge
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
C0228794.97A24%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
Planet Visitor II
Rubbish. I want doctors who are licensed by the state to
obey the laws of that state. While they have every right to
move to another of their choosing, or even abandon the
practice of medicine. They're doctors, not fucking priests,
or Gods. Who ever argued that doctors can disobey the
laws of the state? When doctors play God they become as
arrogant as college professors who move to Paris.
> But there is no law and order without justice.
Right on. Your idea of justice and my idea of justice are
subjective terms, just as those of a doctor. If a doctor
believes it is unlawful for him to perform an execution
then he should give up his license to practice medicine
under the laws of the state and he would not need to
commit an act he considers unlawful. Perfectly logical
argument.
There is no demand that he must keep his license and
commit an act he considers unlawful. After all, why
would he want to practice in a state where he considers
the law "unethical" when he has the freedom to abandon
his practice or move to a state where he believes the
laws are ethical?
It seems that his refusal to perform an act he considers
unethical, but wants to keep his license to practice
medicine in that state is itself an ethical decision on his
part.
Tell me... if you were a practicing physician, and
asked to perform an execution and refused on
"ethical" grounds, would you give up your license
to practice medicine in that state because you
considered the laws of that state to be unethical?
Wouldn't it be unethical of you to NOT give up your
license or move to a state where the laws are what
you consider ethical?
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"An unjust law is no law at all." Martin Luther King Jr.
> stomach," Barbara Christian said. "You feel weak, and the pain hurtsS. We
Donna Evleth
> From: "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:24:31 -0700
> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>
> There is no demand that he must keep his license and
> commit an act he considers unlawful. After all, why
> would he want to practice in a state where he considers
> the law "unethical" when he has the freedom to abandon
> his practice or move to a state where he believes the
> laws are ethical?
>
> It seems that his refusal to perform an act he considers
> unethical, but wants to keep his license to practice
> medicine in that state is itself an ethical decision on his
> part.
In real life it is not that black and white. And the issue of ethics does
not just apply to the DP. Doctors' personal ethics are involved in other
areas as well. When I lived in the States, in the 1960s and early 1970s,
there were Catholic doctors whose personal ethics did not permit them to
prescribe contraceptives for their patients, this being against the
teachings of their religion. They handled the problem by referring the
patient to a non-Catholic colleague.
In the case of the DP, I don't see that a doctor would have to abandon his
practice, move to another state, give up his license, etc. It would be
enough for him to simply refuse to practice this medical act, as the
Catholic doctors did when they refused to prescribe contraceptives.
Donna Evleth
H...@nospam.nix
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C0235B75.29975%dev...@wanadoo.fr...
> In the case of the DP, I don't see that a doctor would have to abandon his
> practice, move to another state, give up his license, etc. It would be
> enough for him to simply refuse to practice this medical act, as the
> Catholic doctors did when they refused to prescribe contraceptives.
>
> Donna Evleth
Exactly. The doctor determines to some extent what his particular ethics
are.
In this case, the whole thing should have been made clear before the date of
the
execution, and if the doctors didn't want to do it, they should have spoken
up
earlier.
I feel sure there were other doctors who would have been available and
who would have been willing to make this man's death painless.
Note that there was no question that the convict was guilty. He had
admitted his
guilt.
Earl Evleth
Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> PV wants a law forcing doctors to kill.
>
> Rubbish. I want doctors who are licensed by the state to
> obey the laws of that state.
Confirming what I wrote.
Doctors are licensed to practice medicine, not death.
You want them to practice death.
sus...@attbi.com
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:C022316B.9790C%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> > PV wants a law forcing doctors to kill.
>
> There is no demand that he must keep his license and
> commit an act he considers unlawful. After all, why
> would he want to practice in a state where he considers
> the law "unethical" when he has the freedom to abandon
> his practice or move to a state where he believes the
> laws are ethical?
I think what is involved in this case is an activist judge. I don't
know the laws dealing with the mechanics of execution, but I bet that
doctors normally have nothing to do with executions, other than to
perhaps confirm death. It seems to me that this judge has imposed the
requirement of a doctor with the full knowledge it would throw the
state into a catch-22 situation: They have to have a doctor do the
lethal injection, otherwise, no execution; but they can't find a doctor
who will actiively participate in an execution.
The girl's family is devastated. They have lived knowing how horrible
their lovely daughter's last few minutes of an all-too-short life were.
I would be in favor of a trial abolition in this country if that would
result in uniformly long and very inevitable life sentences being
handed down to the guilty. But I hold in utter contempt players like
the judge who use cynical maneuvers to play the game, and twist a cruel
blade in the hearts of the victim's family members.
-----------------remainder snipped
--
Susan
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
considered the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath
Typical, disorganised Wikipedia style but it may explain quite a bit if
the oath or one of its variants is commonly sworn in the USA.
--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
David Haley
> In this debate we've seen all kinds of nonsense but nobody has
> considered the following:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath
>
> Typical, disorganised Wikipedia style but it may explain quite a bit if
> the oath or one of its variants is commonly sworn in the USA.
You're a bit late, Q -- plenty of people have mentioned the Hippocratic oath
already in this discussion.
--
David C. Haley
david-...@the-haleys.com
(no unmunging necessary)
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
David Haley <david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote:
> On this day of 2-23-2006 11:27 AM, Mr Q. Z. Diablo saw fit to scribe:
> > In this debate we've seen all kinds of nonsense but nobody has
> > considered the following:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath
> >
> > Typical, disorganised Wikipedia style but it may explain quite a bit if
> > the oath or one of its variants is commonly sworn in the USA.
>
> You're a bit late, Q -- plenty of people have mentioned the Hippocratic oath
> already in this discussion.
Must've passed me by. I have been looking for it quite specifically and
not seen it. Perhaps it's been mentioned by a poster who currently
resides in my killfile. That may explain it.
David Haley
I hope this link works:
Earl also mentioned it.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
David Haley <david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote:
> On this day of 2-23-2006 11:51 AM, Mr Q. Z. Diablo saw fit to scribe:
> > In article <dtl2il$q6a$2...@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> > David Haley <david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On this day of 2-23-2006 11:27 AM, Mr Q. Z. Diablo saw fit to scribe:
> >>> In this debate we've seen all kinds of nonsense but nobody has
> >>> considered the following:
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath
> >>>
> >>> Typical, disorganised Wikipedia style but it may explain quite a bit if
> >>> the oath or one of its variants is commonly sworn in the USA.
> >> You're a bit late, Q -- plenty of people have mentioned the Hippocratic
> >> oath
> >> already in this discussion.
> >
> > Must've passed me by. I have been looking for it quite specifically and
> > not seen it. Perhaps it's been mentioned by a poster who currently
> > resides in my killfile. That may explain it.
>
> I hope this link works:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/browse_frm/thread/d6
> 3a1bb0d1b9e19e/fa5766b3d446cef5?lnk=st&q=david+haley+hippocratic&rnum=2#fa5766
> b3d446cef5
Blimey. You mentioned it in passing. I thought that it was pretty much
the be all and end all of the matter, myself.
> Earl also mentioned it.
I skim Earl's posts at the best of times. They just don't grab me or
move me one way or another - nothing personal.
Runge
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
C0237D47.97BEF%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
Planet Visitor II
news:satan.notinnedmeat-858593.06274224022006@localhost...
> In this debate we've seen all kinds of nonsense but nobody has
> considered the following:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath
>
> Typical, disorganised Wikipedia style but it may explain quite a bit if
> the oath or one of its variants is commonly sworn in the USA.
LOL... As if anyone, anywhere still considers that to be the practices
used by doctors. This, of course, was written when doctors needed
to present themselves as Gods, and many doctors still feel that way.
In fact, every surgeon goes in knowing that he may well do harm to
the patient. I suppose your argument is that no doctor would ever
remove life support from any patient, even if there is a "do not
resuscitate" order from the patient? I suppose you insist that
every doctor opposes in the absolute, euthanasia for every patient,
and each of them would "ethically" not comply with any court order
providing for euthanasia in a state where it is not prohibited?
I suppose your argument is also that if a judge orders a lawyer
to defend an accused, the lawyer does not have to defend him,
if the lawyer feels he would "do harm" to the person he is now
obligated to defend?
Let's face it... doctors should consider the LAW... and follow it,
or leave the profession. And putting a murderer out of his
misery may well be seen as "doing no harm to him." If
the doctor feels it is doing harm to him, and the state feels it is
not, the doctor should ethically abandon his profession to avoid
such a moral conflict, if that oath is meaningful to him, IMO.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"I think we have a moral obligation to our children that can be easily
summarized: number one, protect them from harm." -- Thomas H. Allen
Planet Visitor II
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:24:31 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>>
>> There is no demand that he must keep his license and
>> commit an act he considers unlawful. After all, why
>> would he want to practice in a state where he considers
>> the law "unethical" when he has the freedom to abandon
>> his practice or move to a state where he believes the
>> laws are ethical?
>>
>> It seems that his refusal to perform an act he considers
>> unethical, but wants to keep his license to practice
>> medicine in that state is itself an ethical decision on his
>> part.
>
decision on his part."
> In real life it is not that black and white.
Of course not. Ethical decisions are never objective. They
are subjective. My point was his belief that it is unethical,
yet he accepts that he will obey the laws of the state as part
of accepting a license to practice medicine in that state,
most especially those laws that are affected by his practice of
his profession. Certainly he does not feel himself above the
law when it comes to committing what the state considers
a crime, when he uses his medical expertise. It just seems
he wants to pick and choose which laws he accepts and
which ones he doesn't.
>And the issue of ethics does
> not just apply to the DP.
Of course not, but that is the issue here. A presumed ethical
decision based upon his subjective view which collides with
the ethical oath he took to obey the laws of the state when
he was issued his license to practice medicine in that state.
> Doctors' personal ethics are involved in other
> areas as well.
So you're saying that not obeying a law of the state which issued
him the license to practice medicine is a viable action? Do
you have any idea where that leads? What about a lawyer
who receives a license to practice law who is directed by
a judge to defend someone accused of a crime who refuses
to defend that person because of what he considers his "ethical"
reasons not to?
What if all lawyers took that way out? Is that something you
support? That someone accused of a crime must defend
himself if no lawyer wants to defend him based upon their
"ethical" beliefs? Obviously, I do not for one moment believe
you feel that way... but what's sauce for the gander is sauce
for the goose, or vice versa. So I cannot help but believe you
are arguing this point solely in your opposition to the death
penalty, and not in support of disobeying the law for
presumed personal subjective "ethical reasons," when it is
part of your responsibility to obey the law in accepting a
license from the state to practice your profession.
> When I lived in the States, in the 1960s and early 1970s,
> there were Catholic doctors whose personal ethics did not permit them to
> prescribe contraceptives for their patients, this being against the
> teachings of their religion. They handled the problem by referring the
> patient to a non-Catholic colleague.
Irrelevant anecdotal comment, Donna. And hardly comparable to
this argument. Since I feel the same way about those doctors.
They let their personal ethical considerations conflict with their
legal obligations. I feel that "ethically" they should also give up
their license to practice medicine in areas that would demand
they provide such contraceptives. I am not speaking of what
"doctors can get away with." Since apparently the doctors we
are speaking of, will also "get away with it." I am addressing the
argument that they use, which is the same for the doctors you
mention and those under discussion. If their personal ethical
considerations are so firmly against the laws of the state it
stands to reason that they cannot pick and choose "ethically."
It seems unethical for them to do so, in a sort of catch-22
situation. They insist they can "play by their rules, when they
want to." Obviously they can get away with it in various instances.
My argument is that it doesn't make it "right" if they do. Since
they argue "ethics," yet they refuse to really follow their ethical
principles in respect to the laws of the state.
> In the case of the DP, I don't see that a doctor would have to abandon his
> practice, move to another state, give up his license, etc. It would be
> enough for him to simply refuse to practice this medical act, as the
> Catholic doctors did when they refused to prescribe contraceptives.
As I pointed out with lawyers, what if every doctor used that
excuse simply to avoid spending his time on an action that does
not provide him as much payment as he expects for his time?
What if a priest decided that "ethically" he could not give
religious "absolution" to someone confessing to a crime? Canon
"law" demands that a priest put aside his personal "ethical"
considerations or leave the priesthood.
The fact is the calling of a profession carries with it certain
responsibilities that might demand an act that conflicts with one's
"ethical" beliefs. In a democracy there are alternatives to having
to commit such personally "unethical" acts, and those alternatives
do not mean one can pick and choice based upon his "personal
preferences." One must either abandon that profession or relocate
to an area where he can practice that profession while still
conforming to his personal subjective "ethical" beliefs. Obviously
that is not something that is prohibited in a democracy. And
even the priesthood can be abandoned if personal subjective
"ethical considerations" clash with church doctrine.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we
rather have those because we have acted rightly" -- Aristotle
> Donna Evleth
>
Planet Visitor II
Doctors practice death every day, Earl. However, the point
is can they ignore state law simply because they want to?
If they can do so, why are others not permitted to do so?
Can a person who refuses to obey a law of the state claim
he can do so because of his "ethics." What excuse
can they come up with then, when they violate a law of
the state?
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"The law is reason free from passion." -- Aristotle
Ethics is formed from personal passions.
Earl Evleth
"Runge" <phi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Donneur de leçons
>
Stalker des hommes
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Lancer le cornichon.
Wa-hey!
Donna Evleth
> From: "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:44:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>
> Of course not. Ethical decisions are never objective. They
> are subjective. My point was his belief that it is unethical,
> yet he accepts that he will obey the laws of the state as part
> of accepting a license to practice medicine in that state,
> most especially those laws that are affected by his practice of
> his profession. Certainly he does not feel himself above the
> law when it comes to committing what the state considers
> a crime, when he uses his medical expertise. It just seems
> he wants to pick and choose which laws he accepts and
> which ones he doesn't.
You have gone badly far afield here. What we are talking about is
practicing medicine in a prison. Is there a law that says that a doctor
MUST practice medicine in a prison? I think not. As with what you called
my "anecdotal" comparison with prescribing contraceptives, the doctor has
the right to opt out. He cannot be required to practice medicine in a
prison.
If I am wrong, and there is a law that forces him to do so, please cite it.
Donna Evleth
H...@nospam.nix
"Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qOCdneKLc- What excuse
> can they come up with then, when they violate a law of
> the state?
I dont believe they violated any law of the state. In their place, I might
have well felt that I was being asked to do something against the ethics
of my profession.
This situation with Morales is simply a last ditch ploy Morales' lawyer
managed to slip through the court system to avoid his execution.
It is similar in logic to the 'intelligent design' movement to try to get
creation
science back into schools, avoiding the wording particular to the primary
Supreme Court ruling.
Maybe the new Supreme Court will rule on this sort of issue soon, and decide
whether death is cruel and unusual.
Morales has been on death row for about 25 years. Too much time and money
have already been spent on this murderer. He is hardly a crusader for the
rights
of innocent men on death row. His sidestepping the death penalty may
provoke
the court to either outlaw the death penalty. or to remove this loophole
once and
for all.
Earl Evleth
Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Doctors are licensed to practice medicine, not death.
>> You want them to practice death.
>
> Doctors practice death every day, Earl.
They fight death, they do not practice it.
They hate losing to death.
Forget the word games,PV, they do not practice death.
Planet Visitor II
>
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qOCdneKLc- What excuse
>> can they come up with then, when they violate a law of
>> the state?
>
> I dont believe they violated any law of the state.
You can believe in Santa Claus, for all I care. The laws of the
State have provided for the execution of that proven and
convicted murderer. When anyone insists they do not support
the laws of the state, and refuse to obey that law, they are
violating that law, IMO.
> In their place, I might
> have well felt that I was being asked to do something against the ethics
> of my profession.
>
The state determines your qualifications to practice that profession.
You have nothing to say about independently determining that you
can, without violating the law of the state when it creates a statute
making it a crime to practice medicine without a license.
> This situation with Morales is simply a last ditch ploy Morales' lawyer
> managed to slip through the court system to avoid his execution.
Of course. That's patently obvious.
> It is similar in logic to the 'intelligent design' movement to try to get
> creation
> science back into schools, avoiding the wording particular to the primary
> Supreme Court ruling.
I see no similarity. It seems like just another strawman argument. As
the entire issue of 'intelligent design' as offered by the fanatic and
ignorant religious right is just another strawman to deny evolution.
> Maybe the new Supreme Court will rule on this sort of issue soon, and decide
> whether death is cruel and unusual.
Huh??? Perhaps you mean "the death penalty," since I doubt that
even the SCOTUS can overturn "death." :-)
> Morales has been on death row for about 25 years. Too much time and money
> have already been spent on this murderer. He is hardly a crusader for the
> rightsof innocent men on death row. His sidestepping the death penalty may
> provoke the court to either outlaw the death penalty. or to remove this loophole
> once and for all.
Of course, Morales and his lawyers have "played the system" to its
maximum. Whether that has any reason to close the "loophole"
of due process, is an issue I will not engage in. Since I do not find
due process to be a "loophole," although some doctors manipulated
by some lawyers are trying to make it so. It's the lawyer's job to
do so. It's not the doctor's job to play sockpuppet to those lawyers,
IMO.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
“If you can manipulate news, a judge can manipulate the law.
A smart lawyer can keep a killer out of jail, a smart accountant
can keep a thief from paying taxes, a smart reporter could ruin
your reputation- unfairly." -- Mario Cuomo
Planet Visitor II
The laws of the state, in granting a license to practice law,
determines what the parameters are of what they practice.
I suppose you argue that doctors cannot follow any
"do not resuscitate" order from a patient on life support.
You're a very cruel tyrant in presupposing the limits of
what a doctor may practice. I could offer a ton of
examples in which rational humans and state statutes
would insist that a doctor should practice death. But they
would not faze you, because you appear into supporting
doctors maintaining the life of every person regardless
of how much irreversible pain and agony they are in.
Isn't it nice for you to call yourself a "humanitarian"
by supporting maintaining life regardless of the
circumstances.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
Charlotte Perkins Gilman:
Death? Why this fuss about death. Use your imagination, try
to visualize a world without death! ... Death is the essential
condition of life, not an evil." -- Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Oh... but Earl sees death as an evil.
Planet Visitor II
>
>
>> From: "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net>
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:44:44 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>>
>> Of course not. Ethical decisions are never objective. They
>> are subjective. My point was his belief that it is unethical,
>> yet he accepts that he will obey the laws of the state as part
>> of accepting a license to practice medicine in that state,
>> most especially those laws that are affected by his practice of
>> his profession. Certainly he does not feel himself above the
>> law when it comes to committing what the state considers
>> a crime, when he uses his medical expertise. It just seems
>> he wants to pick and choose which laws he accepts and
>> which ones he doesn't.
>
> You have gone badly far afield here.
Only in your biased mind, Donna. You were the one who brought
up the issue of Catholic doctors not prescribing"contraceptives"
as an "example." And you suppose that was not "far afield."
>What we are talking about is
> practicing medicine in a prison.
And that means?????
> Is there a law that says that a doctor
> MUST practice medicine in a prison?
Of course not. Nor is it stated that he MUST practice in a
certain town, or to a certain patient base. You are mixing
up the argument. Since what is at issue here is his
violation of a judge's ORDER, in respect to an existing
state statute. This refusal was presumably based upon
his "ethical" views, which obviously in this case collide
with the "ethical" views of the statutes of the state. There
is no statute that states he MUST practice medicine
in a prison. But the order of a judge can certainly force
him to treat a particular patient regardless of the setting.
In any case, this is about ETHICS, and not about a
doctor hoping to avoid the criminal statutes of his state -
the state that issued him his license to even practice
medicine - based upon some argument of his "ethics,"
yet not finding anything wrong with "ethically" accepting
permission from the state to practice medicine in that
state.
Apparently you find nothing wrong with accepting the
state's permission to practice medicine in that state,
while finding the same state has criminal statutes
that he finds "unethical." You may disagree, but
I find it "unethical" of him to have accepted that
license if he did not find the laws up to his particular
"ethical" standards. But then, perhaps I hold myself
to higher "ethical" standards than the doctor or you.
> I think not. As with what you called
> my "anecdotal" comparison with prescribing contraceptives, the doctor has
> the right to opt out.
We are speaking of ETHICS here, Donna. I am not addressing
the idea that they cannot "get away with it." I am addressing
the issue that they insist what they would practice would be
"unethical." But the idea that this means they still accept
the statutes of the state, even while admitting that they find
those statutes "unethical," doesn't seem to penetrate their
"ethical" minds. Their refusal to practice what is provided for
in state statutes is itself "unethical" IMO.
I think it's quite clear when I used the example of a lawyer
directed by a judge to defend a person accused of a crime.
Do you really support that lawyer refusing to defend that
person based upon his "ethical" belief that the person is
actually guilty? Fat chance. It seems it's not only those
doctors, but you, willing to pick and choose which statutes
you insist must be followed and which ones you support
ignoring.
> He cannot be required to practice medicine in a
> prison.
>
Once again... apples and oranges.
> If I am wrong, and there is a law that forces him to do so, please cite it.
>
You've put your finger right on the irrelevance of your argument.
There IS A LAW that holds him to obey the orders of a judge
in following the LAW which provided for the death penalty
for that murderer. Tell me... if there is a prisoner who
has an illness that is best treated by one particular specialist,
and that specialist is not a prison doctor, and a lawyer
petitions the court for the services of that specialist to treat
that particular patient, gravely ill, and the judge issues an
order for that specialist to treat that particular prisoner,
would you still insist that the specialist could disobey the
court's order, based upon his "ethical belief" that he cannot
treat criminals? Would you support the death of that
gravely ill prisoner, based upon the "ethical" beliefs of
that specialist?
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"Ethics is in origin the art of recommending to others the
sacrifices required for cooperation with oneself." -- Bertrand
Russell
In this case it appears that the doctors wish to practice
their "ethics" without sacrificing their privileges to practice
medicine as permitted by the state. Hardly ethical, IMO.
> Donna Evleth
>
>
Donna Evleth
> From: "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:48:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>
> You've put your finger right on the irrelevance of your argument.
> There IS A LAW that holds him to obey the orders of a judge
> in following the LAW which provided for the death penalty
> for that murderer. Tell me... if there is a prisoner who
> has an illness that is best treated by one particular specialist,
> and that specialist is not a prison doctor, and a lawyer
> petitions the court for the services of that specialist to treat
> that particular patient, gravely ill, and the judge issues an
> order for that specialist to treat that particular prisoner,
> would you still insist that the specialist could disobey the
> court's order, based upon his "ethical belief" that he cannot
> treat criminals? Would you support the death of that
> gravely ill prisoner, based upon the "ethical" beliefs of
> that specialist?
I do not think that any doctor would have an ethical question in the
hypothetical case you describe here. The issue here is treatment, not
execution. Thus your straw man here is irrelevant.
Donna Evleth
H...@nospam.nix
<sus...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1140720872.5...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> I think what is involved in this case is an activist judge.
Clearly correct.
Issues like this should be solved in the spirit of a democratic society, not
in the manipulations of some few in positions where their power can be used
opportunistically.
Planet Visitor II
Oh... so now we revert to "your opinion." Which has not a
bit more weight than "my opinion."
> The issue here is treatment, not
> execution. Thus your straw man here is irrelevant.
Rubbish. There is just as much an argument that "ethics"
can argue AGAINST treating a criminal as there is arguing
FOR treating a criminal. You just want to make up the
rules of "ethics" based upon your own view, rather than
the fact that "ethics" is subjective, and thus cannot be
argued are impossible to be found in any person. Remember
that we had doctors working for Hitler, based upon THEIR
"ethics" (sic) See --
http://www.remember.org/imagine/doctors.html
The issue here is doctors expressed their "ethical" beliefs in
opposition to a state law, yet accept that the state can dictate
whether they even practice medicine. If they are so "ethical"
why do they agree that the state can determine what they can
practice or not practice?
And apparently your argument is in opposition to any treatment
that would bring about the possibility of death. Thus, we might
as well eliminate the practice of medicine in 90% of all treatments
since there are very few treatments that do not carry with them
a mortality rate. And it also appears you are against treatment
which might end the pain of the terminally ill who are suffering
intense pain and will never get better.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"I am dying from the treatment of too many physicians." --
Alexander The Great
> Donna Evleth
>
Planet Visitor II
by the laws of the state. It seems everyone bears some of the
blame. Chee... it seems we've lost sight of the fact there was
a murder involved here. And a society that demands it will
speak for the victim.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"The New England Journal of Medicine reports that 9 out of 10 doctors
agree that 1 out of 10 doctors is an idiot." - Jay Leno
Donna Evleth
> From: "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:00:25 -0500
> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>
>
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:C022871B.97A23%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> On 22/02/06 19:24, in article b%1Lf.26694$UN2....@tornado.texas.rr.com,
>> "Mike" <mike...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe they should see if a family member would like to do the job.
>>
>> That or a member of the jury
>>
>
> I absolutely agree here, on this issue. No lie. However, I believe it
> should be such a somber and ultimate punishment, that any juror who convicts
> someone should for a lifetime be accountable. After the condemned is
> executed, if the condemned is later found to be innocent of the crime, all
> jurors should report immediately for forfeiture of their lives. THAT is how
> sure they should be of the conviction. That is much closer to justice, in
> my opinion. If any juror feels any different, then they do not truly feel
> the gravity of their own decision to execute someone.
> Bigdawg.
It is also to be noted that jurors who do not feel they can give the death
penalty are allowed to disqualify themselves from jury service in death
penalty cases.
Donna Evleth
>
>
Donna Evleth
> From: "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:20:03 -0500
> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>
> Sorry Donna, but I do not feel that a "painless death" justifies the
> inflicted death. Perhaps the same could be said for another democratic
> state, i.e. the state of WWII Nazis. There were many practitioners back
> then who "helped out" by making the death painless. It does not make it
> right.
>
> Bigdawg.
You have misunderstood me, and that is understandable since I was discussing
with PV, who tends to get things twisted around a bit. I am a principled
abolitionist, which means I do not approve of the death penalty in any case.
"Painless death" is not a justification in my eyes at all. I find inflicted
deaths, as in executions, absolutely wrong. Incidentally, I am old enough
to remember the WWII Nazis, all too often heard them spewing their nasty
propaganda over the radio. They perhaps are part of the reason for my
principles on this issue.
Donna Evleth
>
> <H...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
> news:m7jLf.24187$_S7...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Darren
"bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
news:z7adnTnvyu06q5zZ...@comcast.com...
> Man, you are way out of line with that one.
Says who?
>Military doctors are not trained to take lives at all.
Wrong! Military Doctors like all soldiers are first and foremost soldiers.
Though they are technically non combatant when the shit hit's the fan. they
are expected to unsling thier weapons too.
>MOST are recruited in med school or residency, and ALL are there to save
>lives of our own citizens. I absolutely disagree that there the primary
>job is to kill the enemy. Do your research.
I did. You do yours.
-
Daz
>
> Bigdawg.
>
> "Darren" <dar...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:Na4Lf.40719$m13....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> news:C022316B.9790C%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>>> PV wants a law forcing doctors to kill.
>>
>> I suppose they could use malitary Doctors; they're trained for killing,
>> civilian doctors aren't and most of em wouldn't because they went into
>> medicine to save lives (or money) not to take lives.
>>>
>>
>> -
>> Daz
>>> But there is no law and order without justice.
>>>
>>> ****
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-morales22feb22,0,704779.story?coll=l
>>> a-home-headlines
>>>
>>> Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>>> By Louis Sahagun and Henry Weinstein
>>>
>>> Michael Morales avoids, for now, the state's deadly needle because
>>> officials
>>> couldn't follow
>>>
>>> State Halts Execution to Review Procedure
>>>
>>> Officials are unable to meet a judge's demand that a lethal injection be
>>> overseen by a doctor. Effects on the death penalty are unclear.
>>>
>>> By Louis Sahagun and Henry Weinstein
>>> Times Staff Writers
>>>
>>> February 22, 2006
>>>
>>> SAN QUENTIN < Capping a dramatic legal battle that raised questions of
>>> medical ethics and the future of lethal injection, California prison
>>> officials late Tuesday called off Michael Morales' execution, saying
>>> they
>>> were unable to comply with a judge's conditions for putting the
>>> convicted
>>> rapist-murderer to death.
>>>
>>> The state's decision means that the execution will be delayed at the
>>> very
>>> least until early May < and more likely for many months < while the
>>> federal
>>> court in San Jose conducts a formal evidentiary hearing on the
>>> constitutionality of the state's execution procedures.
>>>
>>> Although it is unclear whether the continuing legal saga will have a
>>> broad
>>> effect on the death penalty in California < the U.S. Supreme Court has
>>> never
>>> found any method of execution unconstitutional < several experts said
>>> the
>>> controversy will probably prompt a reexamination of how executions are
>>> conducted here and across the country.
>>>
>>> Morales was sitting in a prison cell with his Los Angeles attorney,
>>> David
>>> Senior, when San Quentin spokesman Vernell Crittendon brought them the
>>> news
>>> that the execution had been called off.
>>>
>>> "He was quite relieved to find he was not being executed," Crittendon
>>> said.
>>> "He smiled and nodded and thanked me."
>>>
>>> It is highly unusual for a death sentence to be stayed in the final
>>> hours
>>> because of a legal challenge over the method of execution. The May
>>> hearing
>>> is expected to be the most detailed court examination of the state's
>>> execution methods since the switch from use of the gas chamber to lethal
>>> injection in 1996.
>>>
>>> The Morales furor began a week ago when U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel
>>> declared that California's three-stage drug cocktail of a sedative,
>>> paralytic drug and heart-stopping chemical < the same protocol used in
>>> 37 of
>>> the 38 states with lethal injection < could mask, rather than eliminate,
>>> an
>>> inmate's pain during execution.
>>>
>>> Fogel said the state would have to modify its execution procedure or he
>>> would hold a full hearing on the process in May.
>>>
>>> To address his concern, prison officials elected to go forward just
>>> after
>>> midnight Monday with two doctors on hand to ensure that the sedative
>>> would
>>> be sufficient to deaden the pain of the heart-stopping drug. Just before
>>> the
>>> execution, however, the two anesthesiologists balked, saying the
>>> procedures
>>> forced them into the role of executioner, in violation of their medical
>>> ethics.
>>>
>>> Fogel then said officials could go forward later in the day with a
>>> lethal
>>> dose of the sedative alone < administered by a licensed medical
>>> professional
>>> stationed within the execution chamber rather than by the usual "unseen
>>> hand" delivering the fatal drugs from another room.
>>>
>>> But just two hours before the new, 7:30 p.m. time for the execution, a
>>> deputy attorney general told court officials that it had been called
>>> off.
>>>
>>> San Quentin spokesman Crittendon said the state "was not able to find
>>> any
>>> medical professionals willing to inject medication intravenously, ending
>>> the
>>> life of a human being."
>>>
>>> "The warden felt it was not ethical to approach an individual who would
>>> potentially be putting their license in jeopardy," Crittendon said. "How
>>> would it affect their careers by being involved in the execution process
>>> in
>>> the manner we've been discussing?"
>>>
>>> Tuesday's outcome was applauded by attorney Natasha Minsker, who directs
>>> the death penalty project of the American Civil Liberties of Northern
>>> California. "We think this is appropriate," she said. "There will be a
>>> hearing so both sides can present their evidence. It is a serious issue
>>> that
>>> needs careful consideration."
>>>
>>> Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal
>>> Foundation,
>>> which favors the death penalty, said he thought Tuesday's outcome was
>>> "an
>>> unfortunate result. It is based on a very remote possibility that there
>>> is a
>>> problem with the procedure. It is unfortunate that this is being done at
>>> the
>>> last minute."
>>>
>>> But he said the delay, while highly unusual, was merely temporary and
>>> predicted that it would have no long term consequences on capital
>>> punishment.
>>>
>>> Crittendon said Morales spent the day in a death-watch cell 15 feet from
>>> the execution chamber. At 3:20 p.m., he visited with his lawyers. Then,
>>> at
>>> 5:45 p.m., he was returned to the more distant death-row cell he had
>>> occupied until Monday.
>>>
>>> Crittendon also met with family members of 17-year-old Terri Winchell,
>>> whom
>>> Morales was convicted of murdering. "They took this very hard,"
>>> Crittendon
>>> said.
>>>
>>> Reached at her Lodi-area home, Terri Winchell's mother described herself
>>> as
>>> "knocked down" by the decision. It "was just like someone hit you in the
>>> stomach," Barbara Christian said. "You feel weak, and the pain hurtsS.
>>> We
>>> have lived with a knife in our hearts for all these years, and this
>>> makes
>>> the knife even sharper."
>>>
>>> The halting of the execution comes as challenges to the
>>> constitutionality
>>> of lethal injection are spreading across the country. First adopted by
>>> Oklahoma when it enacted a new death penalty law in 1977, lethal
>>> injection
>>> is now the predominant method of execution across the nation.
>>>
>>> The crux of the challenges is that rather than being more humane than a
>>> gas
>>> chamber or the electric chair, lethal injection masks what can be a very
>>> painful death.
>>>
>>> Some critics maintain that the problems with lethal injection
>>> demonstrate
>>> the impossibility of conducting an execution humanely.
>>>
>>> "Government officials don't want the American public to view the death
>>> penalty as a lethal, destructive, violent act that isn't really
>>> necessary.
>>> Therefore we sanitize and obscure the act of killing a person, who is no
>>> longer a threat to anyone, with protocols and procedures that are aimed
>>> at
>>> comforting the public," said Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the
>>> Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, who specializes in death penalty
>>> appeals.
>>>
>>> "The problem is that killing another human being is always painful,"
>>> added
>>> Stevenson, who also is a professor at New York University School of Law.
>>>
>>> Fordham University law professor Deborah Denno, who has written several
>>> scholarly articles on methods of execution, said the hearing in May
>>> could
>>> lead to changes in the state's death penalty procedures. She said it was
>>> "unprecedented for a judge to get so involved with how the execution
>>> protocol is carried out."
>>>
>>> Denno said she thought that was a positive development, because most
>>> jurists had not looked closely enough at the actual execution process.
>>>
>>> California officials "absolutely made the right choice in delaying the
>>> execution and deciding to hold an evidentiary hearing to evaluate lethal
>>> injection with the thoroughness and medical oversight that the procedure
>>> warrants," she said. "The state is also setting a standard that other
>>> states
>>> should follow before they proceed further with their lethal injection
>>> executions."
>>>
>>> In lieu of the doctor's monitoring the inmate's condition, Judge Fogel
>>> had
>>> offered to let officials inject Morales, 46, with nothing but 5 grams of
>>> the
>>> powerful barbiturate sodium thiopental, which was expected to lengthen
>>> the
>>> execution from the usual 11 minutes to as much as 45 minutes or more.
>>>
>>> But no one could say with certainty how long it would take for Morales
>>> to
>>> die, because the procedure had never been tried before. Prison officials
>>> and
>>> legal scholars said they were unaware of other states using a single
>>> sedative to carry out executions.
>>>
>>> At a hearing in Fogel's court last week, attorneys for the state said
>>> stretching out the process would make it harder for family members who
>>> witnessed it, as well as the prison personnel involved in the execution.
>>>
>>> Under state law, a death warrant has to be carried out within 24 hours.
>>> Normally, executions in California occur at 12:01 a.m. on the date
>>> specified
>>> by the warrant. But after the delay early Tuesday, corrections officials
>>> set
>>> the time for 7:30 p.m., affording them 4 1/2 hours to complete the
>>> execution
>>> before the warrant expired at midnight.
>>>
>>> If Morales had not been executed within that time, prosecutors would
>>> have
>>> had to return to Ventura County Superior Court to seek a new execution
>>> date
>>> from a judge < possibly the original trial judge, Charles McGrath, who
>>> no
>>> longer believes that Morales deserves to die.
>>>
>>> Last month, in a rare move, McGrath < who sentenced Morales to death in
>>> 1983 on the unanimous recommendation of a trial jury < sent a letter to
>>> Gov.
>>> Arnold Schwarzenegger urging clemency. McGrath said the jury's
>>> recommendation and his decision to sentence Morales to death were based
>>> on
>>> false testimony offered by a jailhouse informant.
>>>
>>> Morales was convicted in 1983 of torturing, raping and murdering
>>> Winchell.
>>> Testimony was presented at trial that Morales had agreed to help his
>>> cousin
>>> Rick Ortega kill Winchell after Ortega learned that his bisexual
>>> boyfriend
>>> was dating her. Ortega, in a separate trial, was sentenced to life in
>>> prison.
>>>
>>> Morales tried to strangle Winchell from behind in a car while Ortega was
>>> driving, according to trial testimony. After the belt broke, Morales
>>> struck
>>> her repeatedly in the head with a hammer before dragging her across the
>>> road
>>> into a vineyard, where he raped her and stabbed her four times in the
>>> chest,
>>> according to testimony.
>>>
>>> Morales, who has admitted the crime, said he was high on PCP at the time
>>> and feels deep remorse. His attorneys, including Pepperdine law school
>>> Dean
>>> Kenneth W. Starr, mounted a vigorous campaign for clemency. Their effort
>>> was
>>> marred by allegations that one of their investigators had submitted
>>> juror
>>> affidavits to the governor < urging commutation to life without parole <
>>> that were forged. Schwarzenegger turned the lawyers down. Then Judge
>>> Fogel
>>> intervened, and state officials ultimately halted the execution.
>>>
>>> Mack Winchell, Terri Winchell's 78-year-old father, said the decision
>>> Tuesday was a horrible blow.
>>>
>>> "It's awfully hard to put faith in God, then have something like this,"
>>> he
>>> said. "I will tell you what. I am having a hard time coping with this
>>> the
>>> last couple months. The strain and stress of it, every day of your life.
>>> You
>>> just can't get that girl out of your mind."
>>>
>>> Times staff writers Tim Reiterman, Jill Leovy and Jenifer Warren
>>> contributed
>>> to this report.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Planet Visitor II
>I am a physician.
And that's supposed to impress me? Pardon me, but Hitler
also found doctors who held it was "ethical" to torture humans
to see how much a human could stand before expiring. You're
not God, sport. You're a human being, just like the rest of
us. And being a "physician" (oh, my.. everyone kneel)... does
not mean you can define "ethics" for the rest of the world.
> If your rules stood, I would certainly move.
They're not "my" rules. They are the statutes of the state in
which you are licensed to practice medicine. You can't pick
and choose, IMO. Unlike Hitler's doctors, you can pick up
and move if you want. But you'll notice that doctors accept the
rules of the state in which they practice when they accept their
license to practice medicine in that state. No one twists
their arm to accept that license to practice. In fact, it's
highly sought after, all ideas of "ethics," aside.
>You seem to
> equate the law with ethics, or morality, or some righteous quality.
Rubbish. I equate ethics with each individual's view of their own
ethics. There is nothing objective about ethics, as I've shown.
Each man has his own. It is a totally subjective quality. You
may know medicine, yet you don't seem to understand ethics.
One can offer a sustained critique to the point of criticism of
the idea of "ethical realism as part of a larger argument for
redefining the nature of practical philosophy itself." This
is obvious because philosophy based upon "practicality" is highly
suspect, since philosophy holds itself to a standard which is
not experienced in realism. i.e., philosophy holds to a sense of
"perfection."
What is a practical solution for one is not practical for all, and so
philosophy does not argue "practicality." Thus, what turns out
to be the most problematic issue of "ethical realism," is not just
the familiar set of metaphysical and epistemological concerns
associated with philosophy, but the very fact that realism conceives
ethics as a model of subjectively applied knowledge and experience.
In other words, for the layperson... ethics has no "realism" in the
absolute associated with it. We each perceive this "realism"
through our own window to the world.
This idea of "ethical realism" - whether naturalistic (based upon
when we see) or non-naturalistic (based upon what we sense),
reductionist or non-reductionist, Platonic or mundane, naturally
embodies a failure to appreciate the deeply practical nature of
normative standards, making "ethical realism" incapable of
accounting for the normative force ethical requirements have for
us as individuals.
The only solution is to abandon the idea of an absolute"ethical
realism," and to conceive of ethics in a way which excludes
any realist notions that there is some sort of "ethical knowledge"
that we can apply in action which will always result in an "ethical"
outcome. In a sense, ethics is simply the individual expression
of working out practical solutions to practical problems, as each
of us see those "practical solutions." Ethics is the application
of each individual mind, having no realism in respect to achieving
the most philosophically successful outcome.
> Your view is quite arrogant.
ROTFLMAO. Read your first four words, above. And see who
began with an arrogant presumption that his farts do not stink
as other humans, because he's a "physician."
> You either must have the law on your side, or you
> are so jaded that you feel that the majority of people are represented by
> the government.
Actually that is the view taken by the doctors in question. They
assume this belief that you do -- that they are ABOVE the law of
the state in which they are licensed to practice medicine. I am
hardly ever with the "majority," since the majority of humans are
fools, which means standing with that majority makes one....
what??? That's a trick question, BTW.
My point is this is a democracy, in which we are pledged to obey
the law. We have a choice in this matter... but that choice is
NOT to disobey the law, unless we consider it "no law at all."
And if we consider the statutes of the death penalty in the state
which has provided us a license to practice medicine to be "no
law at all," then to me it seems we are morally obligated
(ethically demanded) to relocate to another jurisdiction in
which we accept the statutes meet our normative viewpoint.
This seems to me to be the ethical way to treat this situation
in a democracy. It is the way I would treat it if I were an
abolitionist and felt my ethics could not permit me to participate
in the execution of someone sentenced to the death penalty under
the normative statutes of that state. Were it demanded that I
do so, my ethical beliefs would cause me to turn in my license
to practice medicine in that state and move elsewhere if I felt
I wanted to continue to practice medicine. But my ethical
standards are obviously different from yours. As I've pointed
out, we are not in Hitler's Germany where this was not an option
for many doctors.
> I hate to burst your bubble.
Heh... You really are a pompous little sucker, aren't you?
> The truth of the matter is
> that there is always time to execute later, that there is no going back.
We are speaking of ethics. As I have explained, the idea of
"realism" has no practical meaning here. It does not matter if
a thousand doctors are standing in line to take the place of those
doctors. It does not matter what practical decisions are made
by entities apart from the subjective ethical view of those doctors.
Do try to separate your own beliefs from the idea that nothing
is at issue here but the fact that the subjective ethics of those doctors
provided them the belief that they were "above the law." If they
feel that the death penalty is "not law," they should not accept
other rules of that state, in my ethical belief. I know this will be
difficult for you, given how much I sense you consider yourself
capable of defining "ethics" for all of us mere mortals.
> If
> you get it wrong, then it is over. If you truly wish to degrade any
> profession at all with being subject to a law without question, then put
> yourself in Nazi Germany, and ask yourself, would you pull the trigger on
> this Jewish child?
We don't live in Nazi Germany, do we? We can leave if we wish.
And the question is hardly necessary, since the issue of the Holocaust
has been totally addressed by me. If you had been paying attention
in the past, you would be aware of this. I have been pilloried, and
subject to some of the worst abuse possible here because of my
continued contempt for those here who have argued in support of
Nazi doctrine, and insisted that the Nazis were "innocent" and the
Holocaust was legal. I do not consider the words of the Nazis to
have been LAW. It is an abomination to offer such an argument,
IMO. There is no such LAW. The Holocaust was NOT LEGAL,
and I would not have killed any Jew under any circumstances including
the possibility of losing my own life. I would have hid as many
Jews as possible, if forced to live in Nazi Germany, unable to
escape.
Do you consider the Holocaust LEGAL? Fair question, don't you think,
considering you attempted to make me out to be a Nazi. Do you
consider the victims of the Holocaust to be the same as convicted
murderers sentenced to the death penalty? We have one poster
here who does. He has said that "in the absolute" the Jewish
victims of the Holocaust "were perfect equivalents, both morally
and legally," to convicted murderers sentenced to the death penalty.
Comments such as that have created a firestorm of confrontations
between me and the author of that comment. Do you find that
comment makes sense to you?
But in any case, this is not about MY personal subjective ethics,
but those of the doctors in question.
> What makes one state's law so great, that you may say
> that someone who provides good medical care to thousands of people must
> evacuate the state just so that one evil criminal may die?
You might ask those doctors. What makes them believe they
are above the laws of the state, just so one evil criminal can live?
I think we've settled the issue of you believing we are talking about
them killing Jewish children. We are talking about an evil
murderer. Aren't we? Don't your ethics accept that there is
a moral difference between executing an innocent Jewish
child and executing an "evil" murderer condemned to the death
penalty?
> Do you readily
> accept law just because you exist in some geographic region?
I accept the death penalty as law when it is applied as it is in the
U.S. See -
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/DeathPenalty.html
And no, I do not always accept various laws provided by the state
I happen to live in. But I do not willfully disobey them, as those
doctors have done. I generally consider that disobeying various
laws I might not agree are really law, will only result in more
serious actions being taken against me, so I find accepting is
the better solution. And I find no law in my state that I would
willfully disobey because of my ethical beliefs.
The problem here was that the doctors knew that there would
be no serious actions taken against them, didn't they? And we
are talking about a much more serious obligation than simply
paying an outrageous traffic fine or something like that. If the
state told me to go shoot what I felt was an innocent human
being I would obviously refuse. I don't think those doctors are
using that as their excuse. And if the choice was between shooting
what I felt was an innocent human being or leaving the state and
its "laws," I would be gone in an instant. But those doctors want
both sides. Now to show you that ethics is a subjective idea,
rather than an sense of "reality," I would find no problem in my
ethical framework if called upon to trigger the application of a
lethal injection to that murderer.
> Please outline
> where you are coming from... Especially on your first statement "Rubbish. I
> want doctors who are licensed by the state to obey the laws of that state.".
I think that's rather clear. I mean you are a physician, right? So
what part of that is confusing to you? Do you think physicians
are "above the law"?
> Pretend you are in the state of Nazi Germany....
But I'm not. We've already been there. Pretend YOU are in Nazi
Germany, and charged with working with Dr. Mengele. Would you
argue with Himmler that "ethics" prohibits you from doing so? If
you could leave would you do so? Can't those doctors leave if they
feel the laws of the state are no different than the "laws" (sic) of
Nazi Germany? That's why a democracy cannot be compared
to Nazi Germany.
> Or, to cut to the chase,
> do you feel that the majority dictates what is right?
Don't be absurd. This has nothing to do with the "majority." It has
to do with ethics. I have always felt that -- "It is proof of a base and
low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority,
merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not
change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." --
Giordano Bruno
But democracy is freedom with obligation. If your personal ethics
demand that you cannot accept the obligation that the state places
on you when the state grants you a license to practice medicine, the
ethical choice to me is to refuse that license because you have
the freedom in a democracy to make that choice. Ethics seems
to demand it, if the reason you refuse that obligation is based upon
your personal ethics. One part of your ethics should not conflict
with another, IMO.
> YOU have opened this
> Pandora's box of hard questions, that must be answered by he who asks...
> Bigdawg...
Not hard at all. The issue as far as I'm concerned has always been
that ethics cannot be compromised. I've never argued that those doctors
cannot make an ethical personal decision to not administer a lethal
injection to an "evil" murderer. But they compromised those very
ethics in accepting that the state can permit them to practice medicine.
They had no "ethical problem" in accepting that license from the state
to practice medicine, knowing full well the laws of that state.
> (P.S., if you want to substantiate what you have written about these
> "renegade" physicians, please look up the physician ethics organizations not
> only for the nation, but for your state.
None of that has any relevance to the issue, my son. Perhaps you
should write to the Bar association of your state, and ask if a lawyer,
charged by a judge to defend a man accused of capital murder, can
refuse to defend that accused murderer, based upon his "ethical"
beliefs.
> Let me know what you find. We
> did not sacrifice our lives to train to be puppets, by the way.
My point has always been if you are not a puppet don't act like one
by accepting a handout in the way of a license to practice medicine,
and then weep when you find it carries obligations instituted
by the same state that gave you that handout.
> We are
> there for the individual patients.
Oh, my.... I'm sure you are... and I'm sure your "rates" are very
reasonable. Like the prostitute said... I'm not "free" but I am
"reasonable."
> Even though I may sound idealistic, I
> truly have given this idealism up, and truly have given this much thought.)
It's not so much idealistic that comes through to my view. But more
of pompous self-affection for yourself and your profession. I would
be much more impressed if you said you were working with "doctors
without borders," in a village in Africa where little children are dying
from lack of medical care every day. You may consider yourself
idealistic, but the feeling of you being altruistic is just not coming
through to me.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what
we do not do." -- Moliere
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:U-ydnf47q6f...@giganews.com...
>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> news:C022316B.9790C%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>>> PV wants a law forcing doctors to kill.
>>
>> Rubbish. I want doctors who are licensed by the state to
>> obey the laws of that state. While they have every right to
>> move to another of their choosing, or even abandon the
>> practice of medicine. They're doctors, not fucking priests,
>> or Gods. Who ever argued that doctors can disobey the
>> laws of the state? When doctors play God they become as
>> arrogant as college professors who move to Paris.
>>
>>
>>> But there is no law and order without justice.
>>
>> Right on. Your idea of justice and my idea of justice are
>> subjective terms, just as those of a doctor. If a doctor
>> believes it is unlawful for him to perform an execution
>> then he should give up his license to practice medicine
>> under the laws of the state and he would not need to
>> commit an act he considers unlawful. Perfectly logical
>> argument.
>> There is no demand that he must keep his license and
>> commit an act he considers unlawful. After all, why
>> would he want to practice in a state where he considers
>> the law "unethical" when he has the freedom to abandon
>> his practice or move to a state where he believes the
>> laws are ethical?
>> It seems that his refusal to perform an act he considers
>> unethical, but wants to keep his license to practice
>> medicine in that state is itself an ethical decision on his
>> part.
>>
>> Tell me... if you were a practicing physician, and
>> asked to perform an execution and refused on
>> "ethical" grounds, would you give up your license
>> to practice medicine in that state because you
>> considered the laws of that state to be unethical?
>> Wouldn't it be unethical of you to NOT give up your
>> license or move to a state where the laws are what
>> you consider ethical?
>>
>> Planet Visitor II
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
>>
>> "An unjust law is no law at all." Martin Luther King Jr.
Planet Visitor II
a citizen. But it does provide one to practice medicine. In any case,
this is about ethics in my view. And one man's ethics are not every
man's ethics.
My point has always been that IMO there is a degree of unethical
behavior in accepting the rules of the state to practice medicine as
determined by the rules of that state, and then to opt out of a
particular rule for presumed ethics when other alternatives
exist, which always do in a democracy. If those doctors actually
feel that the laws of the state, which provided them a license to
practice medicine, are so unethical, it doesn't seem ethical that
they would even accept a license to practice by the state... the
state that they consider has unethical laws in their belief.
Of course, jurors cannot automatically disqualify themselves
from jury service. In the U.S., only the state in one form or
another can provide such disqualification through the existing
statues of the state, or a ruling from the judge providing for
disqualification. Obviously the prosecution would also offer
a preemptory challenge to anyone stating they oppose the
death penalty in a capital case where the prosecution intends
to seek the death penalty. I'm glad to see such disqualification
exists, since without it, those who oppose the death penalty if
forced to serve would probably pervert justice by finding someone
they believe is guilty, "innocent," just to serve their own personal
"ethics," which again seems unethical to me.
Let me put this to you: Suppose you were selected for jury
duty in a capital case, and you were not provided the 'easy
way out," of claiming opposition to the death penalty. Would
you then, even if you believed that person was guilty of the
most heinous pedophile murder imaginable, find that person
"not guilty," at the least hanging that jury, and send him back
free on the street, just to satisfy your own "ethics"? If you
would, I consider you would be unethical in doing so, and
perverting the very idea of ethics and justice. I would find
it more ethical of you to move from that state to one not
having the death penalty before having to make that decision.
This is the point I suggest with the doctors.
But it's probably too difficult for you to actually address this
hypothetical ethical problem. Most abolitionists do not
really concern themselves with such arguments, standing
behind the absurd idea that imprisoning every murderer is
an absolute that ensures he will never murder again.
In any case, the argument at hand is simply one of an opinion,
since you do not feel it is unethical to accept a license to
practice medicine and then not practice it as the state requires
based on "personal ethics." While I feel it is unethical to do so.
There are no winners here, between us, Donna. The only
winner is the murderer.
However; the "argument" (sic) of lethal injection being painful,
is a strawman. Certainly there is no proof of it being painful,
since no one survives a lethal injection to say it was. It's
all hocus-pocus dressed up as science, no different than
"intelligent design," both having a personal agenda behind
them. I've survived a few operations, and I can say that
going under is not the slightest bit painful. Coming out,
and now feeling the consequences of the invasion of parts
of my body which are never invaded in a lethal injection is
painful. Of course the psychological issue is different.
But that has not been the argument behind calling lethal
injection "cruel and unusual punishment." Does anyone
really believe that a murderer not executed because of
a belief the lethal injection would be "painful," will go through
the rest of his life and never experience any "greater
physical pain," than that injection? One could argue
that the lethal injection is taking away all future pain.
While this issue is snowballing, because abolitionists look for
any crack in the death penalty they can create, regardless of
how absurd, or unbelievable.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"Pain and death are part of life. To reject them is to reject life itself." --
Havelock Ellis
=
> Donna Evleth
>>
>>
>
Planet Visitor II
>
>
>> From: "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:20:03 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>>
>> Sorry Donna, but I do not feel that a "painless death" justifies the
>> inflicted death. Perhaps the same could be said for another democratic
>> state, i.e. the state of WWII Nazis. There were many practitioners back
>> then who "helped out" by making the death painless. It does not make it
>> right.
>>
>> Bigdawg.
>
> You have misunderstood me, and that is understandable since I was discussing
> with PV, who tends to get things twisted around a bit.
ROTFLMAO... Talk about poisoning the well before even making a
comment -- See
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
> I am a principled
Then act like you're "principled." Why not just refer to me as you did
before I even posted a word to you or even knew you existed? You
know... when you said that I was "an arrogant son-of-a-bitch." Never
did see an apology for that "principled insult."
> abolitionist, which means I do not approve of the death penalty in any case.
> "Painless death" is not a justification in my eyes at all. I find inflicted
> deaths, as in executions, absolutely wrong. Incidentally, I am old enough
> to remember the WWII Nazis, all too often heard them spewing their nasty
> propaganda over the radio. They perhaps are part of the reason for my
> principles on this issue.
>
Perhaps then you might comment upon the words of another poster here
who stated that "in the absolute" the Jewish victims of the Holocaust "are
perfect equivalents, both morally and legally," to murderers sentenced
to the death penalty."? [1] Bet you don't. Bet you play the "hit and
run" tactic made famous in AADP.
[1] Coughlan's words -- "In the absolute, the Nazi Holocaust and the death
penalty are perfect equivalents, both morally and legally." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/09343f66a6cea661
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"The day we see the truth and cease to speak is the day we begin to die" --
Martin Luther King Jr.
Planet Visitor II
You are making an assumption that has no basis in fact. See --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
When you begin your argument with those type accusations
it is almost certain that what will follow will be nothing but
drivel. Try to stick to facts or your opinion clearly stated
and not posed as fact.
> The bottom line
> is... what is "your" moral or ethical compass?
It supports the death penalty as practiced in the U.S. Although
I holds that vast improvements can be made, but lacking those
improvements is not sufficient to find protecting ALL murderers
from the death penalty is better. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/DeathPenalty.html
Obviously there is a sense of evil associated with every
killing of any human being. Even the most certain of
acts of self defense. Even the execution of John Wayne
Gacy. But I ask myself if the world would be better by
keeping all murderers alive to die a natural death, and the
answer in my mind has been "no," up to this point.
The death penalty is an admitted "evil," but it is a
"lesser evil" than keeping every murderer alive to die
a natural death in my mind. Plus I am adamantly
opposed to L wop, and if the death penalty were to
be abolished I would be an advocate for abolishing
L wop.
> Do you feel that the "law of
> the land" is your compass?
Obviously not in any general sense. The law must provide
what I believe is justice. If there is a gross absence of justice
I do not believe it is valid law. I do not believe slavery is valid
law... never was. I do not believe segregation is valid law...
never was. I do not believe the Holocaust was valid law...
never was... never will be. As Martin Luther King Jr.
stated, and I believe -- "an unjust law is no law at all." <full stop>
> If you do, then you stand on shaky ground.
Given I don't, your argument is moot.
> You
> must yield to whatever political party rules on what you believe. If you
> are asked to do something you do not agree with, and you hold it up to
> others like you, and they unanimously agree that it is not right, then I
> believe that you have the right to disagree. That is professionalism.
Nothing wrong with your conclusion. It is also a lack of professionalism,
IMO, to claim an ethical reason to avoid the law, and yet accept the
permission of the state to practice a presumed professionalism.
It's counterintuitive, as far as I'm concerned. They accept the
opportunity to practice what the state has permitted yet insist that
what the state permits is unethical.
> What
> you do not obviously realize is that the "law of the land" does not equate
> to righteousness.
Are you sure you're a physician, and not a preacher? You sound a bit
like Elmer Gantry. I never said the "law of the land" equates to
"righteousness." In fact "righteousness" is another subjective view.
And we are not talking about MY ethics, but those of the doctors
in question. If we want to talk about MY ethics, I can say that if
I felt the death penalty was unethical, and I was called upon to
perform a lethal injection I would immediately turn in my license
to practice medicine in that state, and relocate to a state in which
I find agreement with the laws of that state and my ethical beliefs.
Obviously, my ethics are different from the ethics of those doctors,
and yours apparently. Since I would have no reason to disobey
any court order in the U.S. to perform a lethal injection if I were a
physician. Even if I were to "personally" disagree that the particular
murderer deserved execution, that is not mine to judge, under a
system in which I find the death penalty a meaningful instrument of
justice, and in which I am not privy to all the evidence that the
jury and due process analyzed.
> In other words, do you feel that physicians should be
> punished with 5 years of prison for abortions in South Dekota?
Oh, boy.... let me say that if South Dekota (sic) had a criminal
statute that prohibited on-demand abortions and those physicians
performed illegal abortions I would personally support them going
to prison for five years. But let me interject that the "law" being
written in South Dakota is not one that is written in a way which I
would support.
I am firmly opposed to on-demand abortion in the U.S. It is
"black genocide" in my opinion, and the opinion of many
black civil rights advocates. There is sufficient evidence to
show that abortion mills are located in predominately poor
Black areas. I am not opposed to any birth control of any
kind, nor any day after or week after preventive measure.
Nor do I oppose any rape kit pregnancy prevention, or
abortions requested because of proven incest if under
strict control and law enforcement involvement. While
obviously the life of the carrier is supreme compared to the
fetus if the carrier is threatened medically by carrying the
fetus to full term. But I am opposed to a society of systematic
"hump and dump" of viable fetuses where life provides a
cornucopia of opportunities, and a land in which the population
could double and thrive.
While the paradigms of on-demand abortion and murder have a
very small similarity... although on-demand abortion cannot by any
stretch of the imagination be considered murder, they hold the
similarity that a single individual has made a unilateral decision to
terminate 'unborn life' (on-demand abortion) or 'born life' (murder).
If one considers the fetus to simply be a piece of garbage, then
one can argue no similarity at all. But if one holds that the fetus
is 'life,' then the similarities are stark. On-demand abortion seems
to be the ONLY LEGAL method that permits ONE individual to
make a unilateral decision, with absolutely no society oversight
in an individual sense, in respect to terminating that 'unborn life.'
Even a clear 'self-defense' homicide demands individual society
oversight as to if it was proper and appropriate.
It is deceptive to avoid that issue, IMO. I personally have no
problem with any abortion that medical, social or legal authorities
determine to be appropriate. I do have a problem with a teen-age
twit... rushing into an abortion clinic... to remove that unwanted
'unborn life,' simply to return to her empty juke and jive
existence. Nor am I concerned with any abortion necessary
because of a threatened starving population explosion. They
are totally proper in every conceivable moral argument, IMO.
But I will repeat this scenario again. Since I feel it expresses my
view rather precisely --
Scene 1 --
Nineteen-year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office -- Says to
Doctor -- "Doc, I'm not happy with my viable right arm, it interferes with
my 'life style.' It's viable, but I have an absolute, and inviolate right to 'my
body-my self,' and to choose what to do with my own body. Amputate
my viable right arm, and throw it away. Right now!!"
Doctor picks up phone... speaks 'in a whisper' to nurse...soon orderlies in
white-coats, carrying straight-jackets, come to take young twit away to
booby hatch.
Scene 2 --
Nineteen year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office -- Says to
Doctor -- "Doc, I have this viable piece of life growing in my womb,
and it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable, but I have an absolute, and
inviolate right to 'my body-my self,' and to choose what to do with my body.
Vacuum out this unwanted viable fetus, and throw it away. Right now!!"
Doctor picks up phone -- Speaks 'in a whisper' to nurse,,, "Nurse.. did this
19-year-old twit pays the $500 for her on-demand abortion?" Confirming it
has been paid... Doctor says to twit -- "hop up on this table, young lady...
Spread those legs, and we'll quickly rid you of that viable human life growing
inside of you, and toss it into the pail filled with the others." Vroom....vroomm...
sluurppp... suck....slurppp.....flip..flip... See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/fetus.jpg
Scene 3 --
Two blocks away -- Young, educated, middle-class couple enters adoption
center. Director tells them -- "Sorry, we have no children available for
adoption at this moment... you should come back next year... we'll put your
name on the waiting list. Don't call us... we'll call you. Or you could go to
Romania, which will cost you a total of between $50,000 to $100,000 to
adopt one of their unwanted children. Although there is no guarantee that
they will not just take your money, and never deliver any child."
How typical.. that someone would support sucking out life, and tossing
it into a garbage pail... all on the whim of the twit... wishing only to quickly
return to her 'juke and jive' empty existence. While others, in this most
affluent of societies (I speak of the U.S., and only the U.S. in my comments),
cannot gain what they find to be the most precious commodity in our
advance as a species... life... that they wish to nourish, care for, and rear
into a person who will hopefully provide some benefit for our country and
our species.
How typical... that we would allow that twit to make that 'life and death'
decision. When we permit not a single other act from any individual which
would permit that same decision to be made without oversight from our
society to determine that EACH individual decision that took a life was
necessary and essential.
I am not opposed to abortion, per se. If that arm is gangrenous, or cancerous...
and medical authorities determine it threatens the life of that twit... of the
fetus is determined to threaten the life of that twit, then both amputation or
abortion are certainly necessary and essential. Nor am I opposed to birth
control... the morning after... or the week after. But in 2002, there were more
than 21,000 children adopted from other countries, according to statistics from
the Immigration and Naturalization Services. That's a 186 percent increase in
international adoptions from 1993, and a 13 percent increase from just the
previous year. See --
http://www.babyzone.com/features/content/display.asp?ContentID=1212
While we permit that twit to make decisions which affect the lives of so many,
without the slightest oversight of our society in each specific case, and instead
simply provide a 'general rule,' that the decision rests ONLY in that twit.
Instead...in this society... not a Bangladesh... but one with a cornucopia of
future possibilities for that unborn life. A land of opportunity so vast that we
could easily absorb twice our present population... and benefit from that
increase... we call it that most disgusting of terms -- 'individual on-demand
abortion.' Why not call it what it is -- 'Individual on-demand unnecessary
snuffing out of a part of our future'? Where do we draw the 'moral' line in each
of our subjective ideas of our own 'morality'? Who are we saving from whom...
in on-demand abortion?
And where do those who support on-demand abortion yet insist that
murderers have a "right to life," actually attempt to argue their
views are both compatible and ethical?
And I will say categorically that if you support on-demand abortion
without any society oversight, that I cannot possibly find you in
my view to be a responsible physician. Sorry about that, if you
do. But this is a very real and sensitive subject with me.
Much more so than the execution of about a thousand scumbags
in more than 25 years in the U.S. I would trade my support as
it is for the death penalty in an instant if it could result in the
end of on-demand abortion in the U.S.
> If you do,
> or do not, then what makes them special?
Who are we referring to... those abortion doctors who broke the
law? The law itself presumably designed to oppose on-demand
abortion? Or the fetuses themselves? Now let me say the
law that you are speaking of is not one that I support. It is
almost incredible the lengths some will go to in this issue.
Even contending that frozen sperm or stem cells are "life"
or some such crap. The law as now written in South Dakota
as I understand it, is a total piece of crap. <full stop>
> What gives them preference over
> other countries, states, counties, cities, towns, or personal convictions?
> I'm willing to listen... It is time to stop accusing, and start accounting.
English please.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"For every five African-American women who get pregnant, three have an
abortion," This is a horrific injustice to women, and it's decimating our
communities." - Clenard Childress Jr.,
> Bigdawg...
>
>
Planet Visitor II
> that you are willing to forfeit YOUR life, just because "The Law" is there,
> and because you believe so much in the law over any form of independent
> ethics.
In English, please.
You obviously believe that a 250 year old (or so) legal system is
> the end-all of all legal systems, and you believe that it eclipses any sage
> advice, such as the Hippocratic Oath. Please explain this philosophy...
Self-evident. The argument of "first do no harm," cannot possibly
be seen as applicable in today's medical world. Harm is done all
the time. No surgeon goes into an operation without expecting
that he will physical harm the patient in order to repair what is
supposedly wrong. It is "harm in hoping to heal."
Every operation carries with it the possibility of harm coming to
the patient. One might as well say -- "first, do nothing." Since
that is the only real way to prevent harm in any ABSOLUTE
sense. What might be good for one patient on the table, may
well cause the death of the next patient on the table. It's
called a mortality rate. Of course if we believe we can do
good despite this fact of life, and we have the skills we
believe will do good to the patient, we accept that we may bring
harm. We don't expect it. We hope it doesn't happen. But
it cannot be presumed as a motto that cannot be violated.
We accept that we will probably harm one to save a hundred
as a surgeon faced with difficult medical situations.
This is comparable to the moral trolley problem. As a surgeon
you are faced with six complicated surgeries, and you have
a fair idea that doing nothing, one will recover on his own,
while five will die from the illness. While if you operate you
can save five, but one will die from the operation. And you
have no way of knowing which one will die on the table, or
which one would have recovered on his own. You are only
operating from known morality rates.
Obviously to me, you operate... you do SOMETHING which
saves a greater number than doing NOTHING.
So you are doing HARM, but "harm in hoping to heal."
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"The word "good" has many meanings. For example, if a man
were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred
yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a
good man." -- G.K. Chesterton
> Bigdawg...
>
>
Planet Visitor II
> You need to go to medical school, residency and practice medicine.
Whenever you start with an implied personal insult based purely on
supposition, such as above, or whenever you use the pompous
claim of "I'm a physician," it has been shown that what is sure to
follow from you will be incredibly and cravenly stupid....
> You need
> to experience what the physician experiences before prescribing anything to
> how he/she should be or feel. You ask for the respect of physicians to the
> state, which you consider the "end-all" of reason, but you do not allow the
> collective thought of the experts of medical practice to govern, say, over
> "Arnold" for the final say. Where are you coming from?
See what I mean???
> Are you truly a "Planet Visitor"?
Heh.... What fools these mortals be.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
A woman goes to her doctor who verifies that she is pregnant. This is
her first pregnancy. The doctor asks her if she has any questions.
She replies, "Well, I'm a little worried about the pain. How much
will childbirth hurt?"
The doctor answered, "Well, that varies from woman to woman
and pregnancy to pregnancy and besides, it's difficult to describe pain."
"I know, but can't you give me some idea?" she asks.
"Grab your upper lip and pull it out a little..."
"Like this?"
"A little more..."
"Like this?"
"No. A little more..."
"Like this?"
"Yes. Does that hurt?"
"A little bit."
"Now stretch it over your head!"
> Bigdawg.
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Z5ydnbVyeegpf2Le...@giganews.com...
Planet Visitor II
"bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message news:Ndednes5WMx...@comcast.com...
> Man, you are out there. Please define ethics,
LOL. Please define "beauty," or "evil," or "pleasure," or at least a few
thousand other terms that are equated differently in the minds of each
of us. I define my personal ethics based upon the philosophical
viewpoint that ethics represents the good that I see in my decisions.
But "good" itself is a subjective word. Of course most philosophers
attempt to define ethics and the "good" in terms of absolutes, and I
accept that many ideas (not all, since even philosophers disagree
about various human behavior they view as "good"), of what they
suggest as those absolutes are my personal view of my ethics. I
would probably admit that my idea of ethics is similar somewhat to
the Aristotelian thesis that the substantive practical implications of
ethical character cannot be codified in a examinable set of principles.
In other words, I accept that the practical implications of what I
might find "good," others might find "bad."
The contemplation of human "excellence," in terms of ethics is complex
to put it mildly, and certainly the telos of such a goal is different in
each of our minds. If one examines it, they realize that even the
Nazis FELT that they were doing "ethical" work in attempting to
exterminate the Jews. They FELT they were working within a
framework of both legality and justice. It has always been my
argument that I refuse to accept within MY moral framework that
this is rational. We are supposedly sentient beings, yet slavery,
racism and the Holocaust do not meet the conditions I feel are
demanded of sentient beings, thus they are just "evils" in my view.
Primo Levi perhaps placed the holocaust in a practical ethical
perspective that matches my own, in writing that - "At no other
place or time has one seen a phenomenon so unexpected and
so complex: never have so many human lives been extinguished
in so short a time, and with so lucid a combination of technological
ingenuity, fanaticism, and cruelty." The idea that such a
combination meant to exterminate every Jew in Europe could
be considered "ethical" or the "law," is simply too grotesque to
even contemplate to me. There is no way my conscience could
every accept it as such.
It is the same way I feel about this idea of "man's law." With my
disagreement with the idea that power can make a law acceptable to
all of us as being "LAW." I do not alter my view of justice to
conform to another man's view of justice. And certainly those
who contend they can "make law" do so in the belief that they
are "just" in doing so. If I do not see justice within the words that
are proposed by others to be "law" I do not accept it as "law,"
since it does not meet the basic demand of law that it be just,
at least in the very minimum, in my personal view.
An example would be Rosa Parks, who refused to accept words
that demanded she sit in the back of the bus, as being LAW. It was
not a "violation of law" in her mind, but simply words that could
not actually be law because such discrimination did not meet
the basic conditions acceptable to her to be law. And in her
refusal to accept such racism as law, she managed to help
change the entire direction of my nation. Rewriting the words
to make those words realize the meaning of the law and justice;
so ending segregation as possibly even being considered as LAW
in my nation. Such a small and seemingly ordinary woman, yet
such a powerful impact and message she gave to us, in a life that
asked not for special treatment, but only for equal treatment, as
another human being, as the law is supposed to provide.
Now, In the case of the Nazis and the Holocaust, there is no question,
no debate, that the Nazis felt it WAS LAW to exterminate the
Jews. Just as southern states believed that segregation could
be LAW. This idea of both the Nazis and Southern states at that
time has no merit in respect to my having to agree that it was LAW.
They thought it was law. I will never accept that I must lower my
view of justice to agree with the Nazis that there could BE a law
that called for the extermination of the Jews. Let others fight this
battle among themselves. Those who are willing to lower their
own view of justice to accept the Holocaust as LAW, or even
agree that the Nazi laws of the Holocaust were "just." Fight
among themselves, to see who of them can come closest to
accepting Nazi doctrine as their own doctrine. I'll have none of
it. <full stop>
>and what equates,
> approximates, or associates our law with ethics.
Since the law and ethics are determined in the minds of each
man, the question is obviously meaningless.
> In particular, please
> explain how that an entire profession who provides health care, who
> collectively disagrees with the state, should not evacuate the state and
> leave a health care crisis, in the name of obedience to executing one
> criminal....
Sounding a bit pompous again, doc. How much did you earn last
year?
> Sounds like you are siding with the criminal being executed
> over the professionalism and ethics of our profession.
>
WHAT!!! I have hardly ever seen a greater attempt at a topsy-turvy
argument. Since I support the death penalty, how in the world did you
ever arrive at the conclusion that I am siding with the criminal? I am
siding with my idea of ethics, which presupposes that it cannot
be traded off in a hit and miss effort. They are either ethical
and thus should stand on their ethics and not accept the state
as having any right to even license them as physicians, because
they disagree with the laws of the state; or they are unethical
in accepting that right to practice while refusing to follow the
guidelines imposed by the state. My point is not that they cannot
do this, but that in doing so I find them using unethical means
to argue their ethics. The U.S. is not a dictatorship, and they
have the physical capacity to refuse all advantages and favors
provided by the state based upon their presumed principles.
But they want to have their cake and eat it too. If I were an
abolitionist and legally challenged to perform a lethal injection
there is no question that I would turn in my license to practice
medicine in a state in which I perceived the very laws which
gave me a license to practice medicine, were unethical.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"We must as second best...take the least of the evils." -- Aristotle -
Nichomachean Ethics
> Bigdawg..
>
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:sPidnbHlaLp...@giganews.com...
John Rennie
> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more you
> talk.
Well bigdawg you've taken a somewhat shorter time to reach conclusions
that most of us here took years to fathom. Have you not noticed how
Planet Visitor's views are not responded to except by the sick and the
lame and now you. That's because most of us have him in our killfiles.
However, if you do continue to respond to his inane and increasingly
insulting posts please don't top post.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"John Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
Nonononono!
Please continue to top post - that way I don't have to look through
Jim's wibble for the latest provocation from one of his would-be
opponents.
Darren
"John Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:du0bg3$5um$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
No doubt he'd done what most haven't and read ahead. He's certainly got
Jimmy's number and is very entertaining to boot.
-
Daz
>
Planet Visitor II
> Please, answer me, as I assume you have never been where I have been, seen
> the things that I have seen, and yet you talk as if you know the workings of
> the profession which I am part of....
Rubbish, I certainly don't need to justify my existence to you,
since you are an absolute non-entity as far as I'm concerned.
Nothing more than words posted to a computer. However; I
was raised in inner city Chicago, in a family that would now be
classified as poor, the son of a hard-working blue collar father.
I had five uncles and my father who all served in WW II (my mother
was one of 13 siblings of my maternal grandparents). My father
was too old to be drafted, and naturally had me as a child, but
the damn fool enlisted because his brother was drafted.
Yet I survived and am now more financially secure than I ever
dreamed I would be, while not rich by any stretch. I'm just
passed 74 years old, and for 20 years I was professional military.
I also spent 20 consecutive years in Europe as a civilian following
my military career, working with NATO, USAREUR, and USAFE,
in highly classified cryptographic projects. I had a Top Secret/SIOP/ESI
security clearance that gave me access to Single Integrated
Operating Plans, Especially Sensitive Information concerning the
coordinated plans for a response to a nuclear attack on the U.S.
I served my year in Vietnam, as a REMF. I was in Berlin when
the wall came down. I was in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I.
I am married to a French woman, born in Paris, and I speak three
languages fluently, and a fourth quite adequately. I've seen things
that you will never see, and you will see things that I will never see.
But do not presume any superiority because of that, since I do not
presume any superiority in respect to your youth and inexperience.
> Who are you, and how do you think that
> you are right?
Where did you ever see I have claimed to be "right"? Certainly right
here you make the presumption that you are "right" because of your
perverse belief that you are somehow better than other humans,
because of your claim of where you have been, and what you have
seen. I claim only that in my own personal view, using nothing other
than my own beliefs in what I find to be ethics, I feel that those
doctors were unethical to argue ethics at the same time that they
feed off of a system that has provided them a license to practice
medicine while they argue that the system itself uses what they
feel are unethical practices. That you cannot see the anomaly that
I see in their posturing is simply the result of separate viewpoints
you and I have, which has nothing to do with any FACTUAL
argument. Or even where either of us has been or what we've
seen. I believe ethics is formed from a nurturing process, and
I suspect, while having no proof, that somewhere along the way
nurturing has failed you.
> I know that there may be some possibility of my own opinion
> being wrong, but I certainly do not claim my own reason to be truth as you
> do.
Don't be absurd. You're the one arguing that it is FACTUAL that
those doctors demonstrated their own ethics, and were ethical
in doing so, as if those presumed ethics were passed down to
them by God almighty. As with the Nazis and their BELIEF it
was "ethical" to kill the Jews, I do not question that those doctors
BELIEVE what they did was ethical. Nor that YOU believe it
was ethical. In the case of those doctors, I have my disagreement
their acts were ethical, regardless of how they feel they were. Just
as I disagree with the claims of the Nazis that what they did was
ethical. Is this too complicated for you? Or do you actually insist
that "ethics" is an absolute and objective human response to all
situations?
What qualifies you? No answer truly required. I think that if someone
> has lived enough, one can see how wrong you truly are.
The inoperative word, in my opinion, is your use of the argument
that "you think." "I think" your only purpose here is to defend the
actions of doctors because you also hold that it is ethical of them
to accept a license to practice in a system that they insist uses
unethical practices.
> By the way, with the "english please" statement, let me break it down for
> you...
Please do... and this time try to make it articulate.
> Planet Visitor (i.e. "you"), who signs up on a death penalty case,
> must sign a document that if they condemn someone to death, that they are
> right.
Heh... you still can't do it.. can you? Let me see if I read you. You
presume I have been selected to sit on a jury, and I sign "up on a
death penalty case" (whatever that means), that I must sign a
document that if they (the imponderable "they") condemn someone
to death, that they (again the imponderable "they") are right. Can
you possibly see how convoluted your sentence is? I support
the death penalty. I don't sign anything in doing so. If I am sitting
on a jury each case is judged solely on its merits, and just because
someone is accused of murder it does not make it "right" that they
are automatically guilty. Nor does it make it "right" that they
should be sentenced to the death penalty even if they are convicted
of a capital offense. There is no "pure right or wrong here." You're
the only one trying to claim it is "wrong." Your argument ends up
that it is "wrong" in an absolute sense to sentence ANYONE to
the death penalty because of the slimmest of chances they may
be "innocent." And thus your argument (sic) is that it was "wrong"
to execute John Wayne Gacy, who raped, tortured and murdered
30 young boys and buried them in his backyard.
>They are SO right, that not only is it unanimous, but if they are
> wrong, all 12 must die, even if it is 20 years later.
I don't think you want to enter the territory of claiming John Wayne
Gacy will be "exonerated" twenty years from now.
> In other words, if
> Planet Visitor serves on a jury, and convicts this SOB with such a heinous
> crime, and the "criminal" dies by execution, later to be cleared by DNA or
> other evidence,
Oh.. you mean like Roger Coleman. Ho ho ho ho.
> then Planet Visitor must be strapped to a gurney and
> executed, no trial required. THAT is justice.
That's YOUR idea of justice, not mine. Taking your idea of justice
further, it also demands that every person ultimately "exonerated"
for ANY crime, will require that every member of the jury serve the
same sentence they provided to the person they convicted. Oh,
boy... why not just throw away the justice system, and give every
accused criminal a parade if they promise not to "do it again"?
Maybe an evening of sexual bliss with Miss America? You do know
the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt," don't you?
Do you think every surgeon opens up a patient KNOWING that
the patient will not die on the table? If he does die, do you argue
that "justice" requires that another surgeon then open up THAT
surgeon and perform the very same cuts that caused his patient
to die? We do not live in a perfect world, and we find the justice
system, as with medical surgery, while certainly accepting the
human imperfections that we know exist, serves the purpose of
our future protection and well-being that we expect to find in them.
There have been more than a half million murders since Gregg
reestablished the death penalty in the U.S. more than 25 years
ago. In that time, we have executed about a thousand proven
murderers. Now... do you really argue that our chances of
being executed as an "innocent" are as large as our chances
of being murdered? Come on... suppose we did execute a
single innocent (I do not believe we have, but it is not a mathematical
certainty that we have not or will not do so). That means our
chances of being an innocent executed compared to our chances
of being murdered are 1 compared to a half million murder victims.
> I hope you can understand
> it.
I understand it. Your idea of justice is to abolish the justice
system entirely.
> Seriously, if you can't, I will try to break it down for you.
You're again presuming to have more abilities then you have
demonstrated so far, my son.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"For in everything human failure is a matter of course" William James
> BD
>
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Wu6dndFfW-u...@giganews.com...
Planet Visitor II
>
Poor John... still unable to handle an argument, and needing
to obliquely provide your symbolically generic insult. Not
very "ethical" of you, in my opinion.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"The practical law based on the motive of happiness I term a pragmatical
law; but that law, assuming such to exist, which has no other motive than
the worthiness of being happy, I term a moral or ethical law." -- Immanuel
Kant
Obviously you find your "ethical happiness" in providing insults, having
no other real interest in your empty essence. How barren your life must
be to suffer from this pitiful confrontational void.
Planet Visitor II
> Man, where do I start? You remind me of one of my philosophy professors,
> who was later arrested on campus for violating a trespassing order.
Once again, whenever you start off with an insult what is guaranteed
to follow from you will be the most craven and stupid comments imaginable.
This is now seen as an axiom.
> Most people aren't impressed with the "wordiness" of your posts (neither am
> I). Plus, I made $441 last month, and I worked every day. What did you
> make, O philosopher, who obviously makes assumptions?
It seems like you're not a very successful professional. What's your
problem? I made zero. Since I have not worked in 13 years. I live
off pensions, social security and my investments.
> Let me break this down: You reject the Nazi law of the time, and yet you
> have this respect for the sovereign nature of California???
I reject the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews. I support the
death penalty for a very small subsection of murderers. Are you
attempting to equate the innocent Jews slaughtered by the Nazis
as no different than murderers sentenced to the death penalty in
the state of California? It certainly looks that way to me, since you are
the one attempting to draw that comparison. You should probably
join hands with another abolitionist here who has stated that
"in the absolute" the Jewish victims of the Holocaust "are perfect
equivalents, both morally and legally" to murderers sentenced to
the death penalty. [1]
> You can not
> have it your way.
So your claim is you can have it YOUR way. Try hard to
understand that my opinions are inviolate as are yours. And
we will both have it our way, in respect to our opinions. This is
nothing but an exchange of those opinions, unless you
intend to argue that ethics is both absolute and objective.
Then we can really get it on, since I insist that ethics
is opinion based and is neither absolute nor objective.
> Either you are restricting access to health care to many
> in California by restricting practice of a practitioner who does not believe
> in the DP, or you are condemning a physcian in Nazi Germany who participates
> in the government of the time, and the "evils" of this, and yet provides
> health care to many people.
I suspect you're growing a bit hysterical now, in your "defense" of
those doctors. I'm not restricting anything. I expect doctors to
comply with state statutes... comply with THE LAW... if they accept
that the state can license them to practice medicine. If you wish to
see them as no different than those Nazi doctors you are welcome
to do so. I doubt that Dr. Mengele actually provided "health care
to many people." But then I bow to your "medical expertise" if
you claim that he did.
> Whether or not you respect this profession, whether or not you consider our
> views "pompous", etc., you can not accuse us of supporting a practice of
> deliberately, in one instance, directly ending the life of another human
> being.
Why can't I? Who made you God, and the ruler of what I can say
and not say, since the First Amendment to the Constitution gives
me the protection to say whatever I want to say? I don't say you
can't defend those doctors, so why are you insisting that I cannot
hold an opinion that finds their views offensive to me?
Do I respect the medical profession? It's just a job, sport. Usually
quite lucrative. Do I respect a medical corpsman on the battlefield,
unarmed and treating the wounded? You damn right I do. Just
as I respect anyone willing to risk his life for another. But only
the very intrepid medical researchers such as Pasteur risked their
lives outside of the battlefield to protect other human life. A surgeon
going in to save a life is not placing his own life in danger. A
pill-pusher treating patients is also not risking much of anything.
Those who protect us are risking more. Do I respect any person,
medical or otherwise, who volunteers to help in any way the
starved, famine stricken, and sickly suffering humanity in
Africa and other parts of the third world? Damn straight. In a
sense I respect anyone who contributes to our wellbeing and
benefit as a species, and doctors certainly qualify under that
definition. Probably more than any other profession. I have
always maintained this viewpoint, and have often expressed
my disgust with one of your fellow abolitionists who, when I
mentioned the role of benefiting others that I feel we all play
in life, responded with the absurd question of -- "Is anyone
supposed to "provide an iota of benefit for our species"? Why
should they?" See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/40bac7ba10920fb7
Now that's a fanatic abolitionist posting those words. Do you
agree with his conclusion as a doctor? Perhaps you can
explain to him why we should provide this benefit if you
think we should. His handle is "euro."
My problem with you, if you see a problem, is that you try
to use your profession as a bludgeon to pronounce it as
the reason you feel your argument is superior to those of
others. It's not, you know. While you perform a valuable
service that benefits our species, you are generally among
the most well paid of professions. And in the end, the
mere fact that you are a physician lends absolutely nothing
to our discussion other than the obvious fact that you are
biased in favor of other doctors. Which makes your arguments
that much less compelling. I would expect to find law
enforcement officers being biased in favor of other law
enforcement officers if I held an argument with one of
them. Wouldn't you?
> Dang, why am I even writing this?
Talking to yourself again, Doc???
> Talk about pompous, how about someone who
> believes that what they say or think MUST be right? Do you?
No, I don't. You will not find any comment from me that presumes
I am "right" in this argument. I am simply voicing an opinion. And
I have said that there is no "right" or "wrong" here, since ethical
theory is not something that can be normalized into a framework
that contains nonarbitrary elements proven to factually exist in
an objective sense. You are the only one of the two of us contending
that ethics is something concrete that exists in the same form for
every human being. You must by now realize that this is a view
that cannot be sustained in any factual sense. Your view of ethics,
my view of ethics, the doctor's view of ethics, a murderer's view
of ethics, a racist's view of ethics, and a Nazi's view of ethics
are different and cannot be normalized into a form which can be
argued is absolute, because they are based upon an agent's
independent contingent desires and interests.
> Or, do you
> take this posture of "Well, I may not be right, because there is no truth,
Of course there is TRUTH. But it is contained in what factually
EXISTS in a form we can all examine and agree with the same
results. The TRUTH is that the earth is relatively round, rather than
flat. The TRUTH lies in all those medical FACTS you have digested.
Whether it is "ethically right" for you to prescribed a certain medication
that has side effects, because YOU believe it will help heal your
patient contains no TRUTH to it. It is simply doing the best you
can do, and often those side effects cause you to change the
medication you originally prescribed. At that point, what we can
say is the TRUTH, is that this particular patient experienced those
side effects.
> but you are certainly wrong because (insert a multitude of words nobody
> reads)"? Isn't THAT some sort of screwed up way of saying what you believe
> is truth, and that someone else is wrong?
>
Heh... English please. Let me try again. No one expects to
offer an opinion they do not believe represents a form of "truth"
as they see it (other than Nazi Coughlan, who lies as a matter
of course). When I offer my opinion I expect that you believe
what I offer is a truthful belief that I hold. In other words, I
offer no TRUTH as one might say "the sun comes up in the
east." I offer my truthful view of my own personal ethics. As
you presumably offer the truth of YOUR own personal ethics.
I suspect that you would like to overpower my opinion, by
claiming there is TRUTH to your view, in the sense of saying
"the sun comes up on my ethics." It doesn't you know. Nor
does it come up on mine.
[1] The comment in question from another abolitionist with a link to it --
"In the absolute, the Nazi Holocaust and the death penalty are perfect
equivalents, both morally and legally." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/09343f66a6cea661
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"Faithless is earth, and faithless are the skies!
Justice is fled, and Truth is now no more!" -- Virgil
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vMWdne6IItvC-J7Z...@giganews.com...
Planet Visitor II
> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more you
> understand the way it works. I do not feel as if I am a god. I have a
> challenge for you... Apply to a medical school. Then you will see the
> odds.
>
> Go to a respected medical school. Then you will wake up 4 years later and
> see how much you have learned. You really will meet a bunch of people and
> learn about humanity, up close and personal, and you'll probably stop
> talking like yourself and say things that people can understand, and
> hopefully lose your philosophical pretentiousness, and hopefully you will
> someday learn that whoever taught you this did you a disservice.
>
> Go to a residency, and learn about your limits. Work 120 hours in one week
> (or probably not, since the "laws" have changed to protect the public), and
> see how long you can stand this...
>
> Then, when you get out, listen to someone like "Planet Visitor" tell you how
> you should practice, and I think you will REALLY feel as those who have
> sacrificed feel, and I could name MANY professions, but one in particular,
> the US military in Iraq..... Do not assume that you understand us, but you
> are certainly welcome to join us... For a price. Tell me why I am wrong.
> The answer is very simple. Devote anything you wish to what I have, and
> then you have ground to stand on. Otherwise, you are truly just a visitor.
>
Oh, my... you do tend to rattle on, doc. It starts to look rather
pathetic. Are you serving as a military doctor in Iraq? Not at
$441 a month you're not.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"It is to be noted that in dreams associations are effected and ideas
combined without being in any way influenced by reflection, reason,
aesthetic taste, and moral judgment; the judgment is extremely
weak, and ethical indifference reigns supreme." -- Sigmund Freud
Don't permit yourself to live in that dream world, doc. To live with
a bunch of other fanatic abolitionists who will allow no argument to
intrude upon their dreams and fantasies, and offer only insults then
dust their imaginary hands in satisfaction. Aren't you better
than that? Is your life all about insulting those you happen to
disagree with?
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Wu6dndpfW-u...@giganews.com...
Planet Visitor II
by looking at only one side of the argument. Jesus... you abolitionists
are incredible. It's like you insist you could form your opinion about
the worth or worthlessness of Nazism by listening to Goebbels, and
avoiding the words of Churchill. It's called built in bias, and it seems
that abolitionists are masters of the art.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"To him (the revolutionist) whatever aids the triumph of the revolution
is ethical; all that which hinders it is unethical and criminal." -- Mikhail
Bakunin
Thus you find it ethical to silence and insult all opposition to
your "revolution" of protecting the life of every murderer. How
sad the decline.
Planet Visitor II
> Trust me, you do not understand if you have not been there. It is not a personal insult. It is just the plain facts.
> I can not eclipse Planet Visitor's thought process with my own experience. It just does not work. I am speaking in
> terms of what I have experienced, and that is all I can do. Sitting around thinking up stuff is not what I would
> consider "experience". It is just a defense mechanism. Don't even get me involved in the psychology of why I think
> that you are the way you are... That opens up another realm entirely, as polished as you feel that you are.
>
Speaking of psychology -- You seem to be talking to yourself, doc. Is
this getting to you? Is there something I can do in the way of helping you?
Remember, as Heidegger noted -- that human being is the only being for
whom being is an issue. Do not lose sight of your true essence and do
not fall away from the difficult task of choosing your 'self,' by instead
becoming lost in the herd - the 'they' that predominate the species referred
to as "hard-headed, impossible to intellectually penetrate, prone to only
insults, abolitionists." Do try to rise above this mentality and offer some
sensible and constructive arguments, rather than shyly admit to an
inability to remain constructive. Remain committed to existentialism.
Yours in the interest of good mental health...
Dr. Make U. Feelgood (Licensed therapist to needy abolitionists)
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
“If a man is good in his heart, then he is an ethical member of any
group in society. If he is bad in his heart, he is an unethical member.
To me, the ethics of medical practice is as simple as that.” --
Dr. Elmer Hess
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:vMWdnemIItvC-J7Z...@giganews.com...
Planet Visitor II
> PV, talk about "pompous", you are riding the wave of history. I think if you transplanted yourself, as a planet
> visitor, to the future, you may indeed compare our nation's practices to that of Nazi Germany, slavery, etc. which you
> so easily condemn. Don't get caught up in the moment because you "feel" something is right, or because it is the
> "lesser of the evils", as you put it, lest the Planet Visitor II in 2100 may indeed be looking at your posts as
> brutal, barbaric, and evil.
You're losing it, my son. The pressure has taken it's toll, and you
seem now to be self-medicating. There is now not the slightest
evidence of any connection to the original dialog we held in your
present comment. It is just a rambling mess, to put it bluntly.
It is simply chaotic and disconnected thoughts... something about
the U.S. turning into Nazi Germany... or the EU becoming sainted.
Who really knows what you're trying to say.
Tell me, son... do you feel that the murder of an innocent by a
wrongly released murderer is a "lesser evil" than the execution
of that murderer before he commits that new murder? One of
your abolitionist associates does. In fact he argued that -- "The
murder of my wife by Kenneth McDuff is the lesser of two evils."
Considering the execution of Kenneth McDuff before he could
commit the murder of that poster's wife would be the "greater of two
evils" Think I'm kidding? See [1] below. Let's just see how
strong your argument is regarding the "lesser of two evils."
[1] The poster... Gruppenführer Coughlan's words -- "The murder
of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is the lesser of
two evils." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/45ad448fc2e7ab95
Okay, doc. This is obviously a fallacy of
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#generalization
An over-generalization, expecting it to be a reasonable argument from a
reasonable person, yet failing to verify he actually believes it, once
specific, not-generalized examples are plugged into his comment.
So first, we need to address the issue of who he argues are included
in that generalized group of "an innocent." If his argument holds for
ALL "innocents," then by reason we can plug in a specific value of
a specific person having a personal connection to the author of the
comment. Doing so, we can use his wife, since he has not excluded
her, and has in fact offered her up to a murder in another of his comments.
This would be his comment: --
"For principled abolitionists, it would not matter if the murderer killed
our children, our mothers, our wives.... We _still_ would not support
their execution." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/fdbc7222cf664006
Now that we have determined a specific "innocent" that he accepts as
a value to plug in, his comment can be stated as -- "The murder of
"my wife"by a wrongly released murderer is the lesser of two evils."
Okay... now we need to examine a SPECIFIC example of a "wrongly
released murderer," if his comment is to remain valid throughout the
spectrum of ALL "wrongly released murderers," since his comment
was generalized to ALL "wrongly released murderers." And we have
the specific example of Kenneth McDuff. See --
http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plainfield/i-p/mcduff.html
So if the author of that original comment, Gruppenführer Coughlan,
wishes it to actually represent a valid comment as written it
must be valid for all values. Thus it appears that he believes
that this also represents his view, using particular values of "his
wife" and Kenneth McDuff, so his words mean -- "The murder
of my wife by Kenneth McDuff is the lesser of two evils." The
greater evil being in Gruppenführer Coughlan's view, the execution
of Kenneth McDuff as originally scheduled for a number of other
murders before murdering Nazi Coughlan's wife.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
> BD
>
>
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Wu6dndBfW-u...@giganews.com...
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message news:HJidnWfhNOpa3ZzZ...@comcast.com...
>> You need to go to medical school, residency and practice medicine.
> Whenever you start with an implied personal insult based purely on
> supposition, such as above, or whenever you use the pompous
> claim of "I'm a physician," it has been shown that what is sure to
> follow from you will be incredibly and cravenly stupid....
Amusing how often you start your vapid posts with, 'whenever you start..'
Especially since the majority of your posts contain nothing but insults.
{ snip unread }
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Jewish and Proud of It
yitzhak_...@yahoo.fr
The Official AADP FAQ: http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/
The AADP Spectrum: http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/aadp_spectrum.gif
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
{ snip boasts about how wonderful NN's life is }
> and I speak three
> languages fluently, and a fourth quite adequately.
What about English ?
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message news:VYidnT3rAY2lOp7Z...@comcast.com...
>> PV, talk about "pompous", you are riding the wave of history. I think if you transplanted yourself, as a planet
>> visitor, to the future, you may indeed compare our nation's practices to that of Nazi Germany, slavery, etc. which you
>> so easily condemn. Don't get caught up in the moment because you "feel" something is right, or because it is the
>> "lesser of the evils", as you put it, lest the Planet Visitor II in 2100 may indeed be looking at your posts as
>> brutal, barbaric, and evil.
> You're losing it, my son. The pressure has taken it's toll,
*guffaw*
Lemme guess, NN ... English is one of the 'three languages' that you
'speak fluently' ..?
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/170.html
Donna Evleth
> From: "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:24:09 -0500
> Subject: Re: Execution Halted for Lack of a Doctor Willing to Kill
>
> Dang, why am I even writing this? Talk about pompous, how about someone who
> believes that what they say or think MUST be right? Do you? Or, do you
> take this posture of "Well, I may not be right, because there is no truth,
> but you are certainly wrong because (insert a multitude of words nobody
> reads)"? Isn't THAT some sort of screwed up way of saying what you believe
> is truth, and that someone else is wrong?
When I first came on this group five years ago, I read a bit of PV's prose,
and I called him "an arrogant son of a bitch." He still wants me to
apologize for saying that. I never have, never will, I stand by my original
statement.
Donna Evleth
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>> Dang, why am I even writing this? Talk about pompous, how about someone who
>> believes that what they say or think MUST be right? Do you? Or, do you
>> take this posture of "Well, I may not be right, because there is no truth,
>> but you are certainly wrong because (insert a multitude of words nobody
>> reads)"? Isn't THAT some sort of screwed up way of saying what you believe
>> is truth, and that someone else is wrong?
> When I first came on this group five years ago, I read a bit of PV's prose,
> and I called him "an arrogant son of a bitch." He still wants me to
> apologize for saying that. I never have, never will, I stand by my original
> statement.
Arrogance isn't a problem, _per se_. We're all guilty of it sometimes. In
Nazi Noles's case, however, what is susprising - not to mention hilarious -
is that his arrogance is coupled with a blinding ignorance of almost the
entire gamut of human knowledge.
In short, he's as thick as shit, but thinks that he's the world's most
intelligent man.
I hope he's immortal ... he's the biggest laugh I get on this group.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
> "John Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:du0bg3$5um$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
>> news:LMqdnaK8CZpgN57Z...@comcast.com...
>>> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more you
>>> talk.
>> Well bigdawg you've taken a somewhat shorter time to reach conclusions
>> that most of us here took years to fathom. Have you not noticed how
>> Planet Visitor's views are not responded to except by the sick and the
>> lame and now you. That's because most of us have him in our killfiles.
>> However, if you do continue to respond to his inane and increasingly
>> insulting posts please don't top post.
> Poor John... still unable to handle an argument, and needing
> to obliquely provide your symbolically generic insult. Not
> very "ethical" of you, in my opinion.
ROFL... I dunno what's funnier. The fuckwitted split infinitive, or the
desperate and tearful invocation of The FuckWit Patented Gimmick (TM)
No 42, the 'I no longer know you' gimmick...
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/42.html
Face it, Nazi Noles: you're a fucking cretin, a liar, a pyschopath
and an obsessive Jew-hater. I shudder to think what you'd have been
like if I'd been black, as well as being Jewish.
Worse: everyone knows that you're a fucking cretin, a liar, a pyschopath and
an obsessive Jew-hater.
Darren
> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
> news:O6KdnTvCWKF3P57Z...@comcast.com...
>> Please, answer me, as I assume you have never been where I have been,
>> seen the things that I have seen, and yet you talk as if you know the
>> workings of the profession which I am part of....
>
> Rubbish, I certainly don't need to justify my existence to you,
> since you are an absolute non-entity as far as I'm concerned.
Another example of your so called respect for all human life, Jimmy?
> Nothing more than words posted to a computer.
Thay all are Jimmy, yet you take them so seriously.
>However; I
> was raised in inner city Chicago, in a family that would now be
> classified as poor, the son of a hard-working blue collar father.
> I had five uncles and my father who all served in WW II (my mother
> was one of 13 siblings of my maternal grandparents). My father
> was too old to be drafted, and naturally had me as a child, but
> the damn fool enlisted because his brother was drafted.
Oh boy. He's off again.
>
> Yet I survived and am now more fanatical than I ever
> dreamed I would be,
*Courtesy of Darren's bullshit to truth translation service.*
>while not rich by any stretch. I'm just
> passed 74 years old,
14 more like.
cue fiction.
-
Daz
Darren
Once again proving he don't support freedom of sppech for anyone other than
himself.
>I never have, never will, I stand by my original
> statement.
I stand by it with you.
-
Daz
>
> Donna Evleth
>
Darren
"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:12088sg...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2006-02-28, John Rennie <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote ...
>
>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
>> news:LMqdnaK8CZpgN57Z...@comcast.com...
>>> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more
>>> you
>>> talk.
>
>> Well bigdawg you've taken a somewhat shorter time to reach conclusions
>> that most of us here took years to fathom. Have you not noticed how
>> Planet Visitor's views are not responded to except by the sick and the
>> lame and now you. That's because most of us have him in our killfiles.
>> However, if you do continue to respond to his inane and increasingly
>> insulting posts please don't top post.
>
> http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/170.html
>
> Y.
>
For a laugh.
http://3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592.com/
-
Daz
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>> When I first came on this group five years ago, I read a bit of PV's
>> prose,
>> and I called him "an arrogant son of a bitch." He still wants me to
>> apologize for saying that.
> Once again proving he don't support freedom of sppech for anyone other than
> himself.
Don't forget that NN is so opposed to freedom of speech for anyone
other than himself, that he asked the members of another newsgroup,
known to have met me 'in real life', to murder me ..
He has also written to my employer, in a (vain) attempt to have me fired..
... he has mailbombed the private website of the Former Minister of
Justice..
... and he has forwarded my posts to the same website..
This despite repeated requests from other posters, few of whom are
ordinarily sympathetic to my cause, to shut the fuck up, as at no
time did I claim to represent The Ministry for which I work.
Poor NN. Can he ever be expected to win one ?
Y.
Planet Visitor II
fortress of solitude wrote in message news:LMqdnaK8CZpgN57Z...@comcast.com...
> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more you talk.
Oh, my... the physician admits to a limited span of attention. Pardon
me if I would not care to be treated by you, given that you might claim
that my explanation of my symptoms was boring you, the more I
explained them to you.
I can imagine how you handle your patients, cutting them off in
mid-sentence as they explain what their problem is, and demanding
they "cut to the chase" immediately as you're falling asleep, and
you have other patients waiting. I can just picture you saying --
"Can you move along? I just need to know the part of your body
that's causing you problems. I have 10 different medications that
are all I provide, so could you tell me in one word if your problem
is with your --
1) Head
2) Neck
3) Chest
4) Back
5) Arms
6) Stomach
7) Urine
8) Bowels
9) Legs
10) Feet
Just give me one answer, I'll write the prescription and get you the
fuck out of here as quickly as possible."
Heh... the age of new medicine graduating from our medical schools.
<rest clipped>
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
“Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little,
to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom
they know nothing." -- Voltaire
Planet Visitor II
Well then... who comes across as an "arrogant bitch," Donna?
Apparently you believe that insults are a means of providing
an articulate comment. Who else among abolitionists also
feel that obscenities and insults provide an articulate argument?
BTW -- Since you were so "open-minded" about my pattern
of posting after looking at a single post of mine, perhaps you'd
like to share your "open-mindedness" with us in respect to
a comment from your friend who insisted that "in the absolute"
the Jewish victims of the Holocaust "are perfect equivalents,
both morally and legally," to murderers executed by the death
penalty in the U.S.? [1]
Come on, Donna. If you insist you have a set of balls that
can call me an "arrogant son-of-a-bitch," you should have
enough testosterone to comment about the words of another,
who happens to be a close friend of your spouse. Bet you
don't.
[1] "In the absolute, the Nazi Holocaust and the death
penalty are perfect equivalents, both morally and legally."
See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/09343f66a6cea661
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"Self-love is often rather arrogant than blind; it does not hide
our faults from ourselves, but persuades us that they escape the
notice of others." -- Samuel Johnson
I've been called self-deprecating a number of times by abolitionists,
have you ever been called self-deprecating by a retentionist? It
seems to me that you have too much affection for yourself, leaving
little to go around to others.
> Donna Evleth
>
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
Frank would' Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>James 'the Sensitive and caring Retentionist' Noles wrote:
>
>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
news:HJidnWfhNOpa3ZzZ...@comcast.com...
>
>>> You need to go to medical school, residency and practice medicine.
>
>> Whenever you start with an implied personal insult based purely on
>> supposition, such as above, or whenever you use the pompous
>> claim of "I'm a physician," it has been shown that what is sure to
>> follow from you will be incredibly and cravenly stupid....
>
<begin hate and rage from Nazi Coughlan>
>Amusing how often you start your vapid posts with, 'whenever you start..'
>Especially since the majority of your posts contain nothing but insults.
Ummm..
pot...
kettle...
pitch black...
Actually, I had been largely ignoring you because of your stated
personal problems, but today is catch up time. As it will be until
I get all your past rants of hate and rage for me out of my system
by exposing you. I believe there are 47 more posts from you
that are older than this one, which will now be addressed rather
than ignored by me.
>{ snip unread }
>
Planet Visitor II <neither Jewish nor hating the Jews>
Proud to prove Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are greater than the
chances that Theodore Frank would have done so." -- Nazi Coughlan
making excuses for Theodore Frank. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/e0af06c980c7d535
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
Show me one person aside from your friend, grosvenor, who believes you.
Just one. Shit, even your friend, Darren called you a liar in your claim to being
Jewish.
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.fr> posting from "yahoo" (ho ho ho) wrote:
>James 'the Pure of Soul' Noles wrote:
>
>> "John Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:du0bg3$5um$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
>>> news:LMqdnaK8CZpgN57Z...@comcast.com...
>>>> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more you
>>>> talk.
>
>>> Well bigdawg you've taken a somewhat shorter time to reach conclusions
>>> that most of us here took years to fathom. Have you not noticed how
>>> Planet Visitor's views are not responded to except by the sick and the
>>> lame and now you. That's because most of us have him in our killfiles.
>>> However, if you do continue to respond to his inane and increasingly
>>> insulting posts please don't top post.
>
>> Poor John... still unable to handle an argument, and needing
>> to obliquely provide your symbolically generic insult. Not
>> very "ethical" of you, in my opinion.
>
<begin hate and rage from Nazi Coughlan>
<clip hate, rage and homicidal maniac raving from Nazi Coughlan>
Nothing left, folks, but the debris of a very sick mind, who has become
violent in his claims that I am responsible for exposing his lies and causing
him to be unemployed. It's not my fault, folks.
Planet Visitor II
Proud to prove Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"Everyone has the right to life. That right is a birthright: it is irrevocable.
Governments do not bestow it, and governments certainly aren't
empowered to revoke it." -- Nazi Coughlan
Of course, Nazi Coughlan has taken care to remove those words from
google, where they once existed in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=87vhhnayqy.fsf%40lievre.coughlan.fr
Does that mean he no longer believes in them? Let's ask him. Do
you stand by those words, or do you believe they are not valid
in your doctrine? Perhaps you removed them because of the
charade you are playing in insisting that the Holocaust was legal,
which argues you do not believe the Jews have an irrevocable
right to life as part of their birthright. Tell me, Nazi Coughlan...
do you believe the Jews have an irrevocable right to life as part
of their birthright?
*deathly silence*
>
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
You're not Jewish, Nazi Coughlan. Show me one person aside from your friend,
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.fr> posting from ho ho ho "yahoooooo" wrote:
>On 2006-02-28, John Rennie <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote ...
>
>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
>> news:LMqdnaK8CZpgN57Z...@comcast.com...
>>> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more you
>>> talk.
>
>> Well bigdawg you've taken a somewhat shorter time to reach conclusions
>> that most of us here took years to fathom. Have you not noticed how
>> Planet Visitor's views are not responded to except by the sick and the
>> lame and now you. That's because most of us have him in our killfiles.
>> However, if you do continue to respond to his inane and increasingly
>> insulting posts please don't top post.
>
<begin hate and rage from Nazi Coughlan>
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/170.html
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_1.html
Coughlan spits in the face of MLK whenever a tribute is offered to
him. As he spit in the face of Rosa Parks when she died in trying
to use her in his own racist agenda. What did Donna say then?
Why she said that Nazi Coughlan's comment was "despicable."
That's French for "you're a fucking racist."
Planet Visitor II <neither Jewish nor hating the Jews>
Proud to prove Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
To St. George: "You (and the others who sought to force me off the
group) have yet to provide a single iota of evidence that I have lied to
this newsgroup. Whether or not you *believe* that I have is
irrelevant. Unless you can prove that I have done so, you are
(once more) acting like a spoilt teenager." Nazi Coughlan. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/54cd246c236e188a
Oh... poor Coughlan... was he picking on you? Did that whining
actually show that you don't lie? Given the proof that has been
offered over and over?
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.fr> reduced to posting from "yahoo" wrote:
>James 'the Stainless Retentionist' Noles wrote:
>
>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
news:VYidnT3rAY2lOp7Z...@comcast.com...
>>> PV, talk about "pompous", you are riding the wave of history. I think if you
transplanted yourself, as a planet
>>> visitor, to the future, you may indeed compare our nation's practices to that of
Nazi Germany, slavery, etc. which you
>>> so easily condemn. Don't get caught up in the moment because you "feel"
something is right, or because it is the
>>> "lesser of the evils", as you put it, lest the Planet Visitor II in 2100 may
indeed be looking at your posts as
>>> brutal, barbaric, and evil.
>
>> You're losing it, my son. The pressure has taken it's toll,
>
>*guffaw*
>
>Lemme guess, NN ... English is one of the 'three languages' that you
>'speak fluently' ..?
>
Lemme guess, Nazi Coughlan... Hebrew is one of the languages that
you speak fluently...? Ho de fucking ho.
Planet Visitor II <neither Jewish nor hating the Jews>
Proud to prove Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"I also speak fluent German and Hebrew." -- Nazi Coughlan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/ce1b2af722d16934
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
Frank' Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.fr> forced to post from "yahoooo" wrote:
>James 'The Decent' Noles wrote:
>
<begin hate and rage from Nazi Coughlan>
>{ snip boasts about how wonderful NN's life is }
>
Poor Nazi Coughlan... still showing that envy and jealousy.
Have you located a "wrongly released murderer" to handle
that bitch of a wife you claim to have?
>> and I speak three
>> languages fluently, and a fourth quite adequately.
>
>What about English ?
Pardon me, but the sheer degree of unproven pedantry on your part
was quite simply too much for me too bear, and I could not continue.
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_30.html
Planet Visitor II <neither Jewish nor hating the Jews>
Proud to prove Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"If you want a serious answer, then ask a serious question. Theodore
Frank is about to be executed. You can free him. You know that if
you do free him, there is a chance he will murder again. Take into
account the phenomenally low rates of recidivism among murderers, and
the fact that even bag snatchers are more likely to kill again.
Am I willing to gamble on that infinitesimally small chance that he will
kill again ?
Yes."
Words of Nazi Coughlan. Stating support for the release of Theodore
Frank as an alternative to executing him. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/85b53818dbc77470
"as no abolitionist worth his salt advocates release as an alternative to
execution." -- Nazi Coughlan.. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/fdbc7222cf664006
Hey, what's going on here, Coughlan... are you admitting that you're
not worth your salt as an abolitionist?
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
from "yahoo" (a shade above AOL) wrote:
>On 2006-02-28, Donna Evleth <dev...@wanadoo.fr> wrote ...
>
>>> Dang, why am I even writing this? Talk about pompous, how about someone who
>>> believes that what they say or think MUST be right? Do you? Or, do you
>>> take this posture of "Well, I may not be right, because there is no truth,
>>> but you are certainly wrong because (insert a multitude of words nobody
>>> reads)"? Isn't THAT some sort of screwed up way of saying what you believe
>>> is truth, and that someone else is wrong?
>
>> When I first came on this group five years ago, I read a bit of PV's prose,
>> and I called him "an arrogant son of a bitch." He still wants me to
>> apologize for saying that. I never have, never will, I stand by my original
>> statement.
>
<begin hate and rage from Nazi Coughlan>
>Arrogance isn't a problem, _per se_. We're all guilty of it sometimes. In
>Nazi Noles's case, however, what is susprising -
LOL... Typical European. Can any of you get that word right? I
hope you don't start on claiming I'm ignorant after displaying your
own, right there.
> not to mention hilarious -
>is that his arrogance is coupled with a blinding ignorance of almost the
>entire gamut of human knowledge.
Poor Nazi Coughlan, still jealous of my education and intelligence.
So jealous he demonstrates a homicidal tendency in which I suspect
he would try to kill me if he could, since he has admitted to paying
money to cyber stalk me, and must be enraged to find I've relocated,
and no longer live in Florida.
>In short, he's as thick as shit, but thinks that he's the world's most
>intelligent man.
>
Let's face it, Nazi Coughlan, you have the intelligence of a latrine
fly, so it's no big deal for me to thrash you constantly. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist or even a ditch digger to give you a spanking
making your butt blue.
>I hope he's immortal ... he's the biggest laugh I get on this group.
>
If that's the case, why would you want to picture yourself sadistically
drowning me?... See --
http://www.talkaboutbusinesses.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/messages/365698.html
I suspect everyone knows, but abolitionists will defend you to their
death, that you are a few french fries short of a happy meal.
Planet Visitor II <neither Jewish nor hating the Jews>
Proud to prove Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"even Auschwitz would not execute a 72-year-old man..." -- Nazi Coughlan. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/2e39751aaf992176
"Desmond, this statement is patently ridiculous. Auschwitz had utterly no respect
of any kind for age. They gassed everyone indiscriminately. You make yourself
look like a fool when you say things like this." -- Donna Evleth. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/787a838a5ad6894a
There you go, Coughlan. She finds me an "arrogant son-of-a-bitch," and you
a fool, and obscene. Hehhhhh And she's the spouse of your friend. I
don't think you should be using Donna for your own agenda anymore, Nazi
Coughlan... since it makes you "look like a fool when you" do.
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
Still going back to the same type sig that made such of a fool of you before.
You're not Jewish, Nazi Coughlan. Show me one person aside from your friend,
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
<yit...@yahoo.fr> reduced to posting through "yahoo" wrote:
>On 2006-02-28, Darren <dar...@dev.null> wrote ...
>
>>> When I first came on this group five years ago, I read a bit of PV's prose,
>>> and I called him "an arrogant son of a bitch." He still wants me to
>>> apologize for saying that.
>
>> Once again proving he don't support freedom of sppech for anyone other than
>> himself.
<begin hate and rage from Nazi Coughlan>
>Don't forget that NN is so opposed to freedom of speech for anyone
>other than himself, that he asked the members of another newsgroup,
>known to have met me 'in real life', to murder me ..
>
>http://minilien.fr/a0k2vm
>
LOL... Once again Nazi Coughlan attempts another lie, as he transforms
the word "might" into the word "asked." The fact is in the English language
the words have no similarity, proven by the sentence stating that "bin Laden
might again attack the U.S.," to imply that I am saying "I asked bin Laden
to attack the U.S. again." Of course, Nazi Coughlan in his constant defense
of bin Laden has insisted that bin Laden never attacked the U.S. the first
time.
>He has also written to my employer, in a (vain) attempt to have me fired..
>
Coughlan's words -- "Your posts of the last two days have been forwarded to
the 'avocat général', to the directeur générale de la police judiciare, and to the
police des frontières at Roissy." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/636013c51a5f2036
Talk about a threat. Of course, Nazi Coughlan blames me for losing his job,
but the fault was his, because no one liked him.
>http://minilien.fr/a0k2vz
>
>... he has mailbombed the private website of the Former Minister of
>Justice..
Actually that's impossible to do, since comments were solicited. Of
course we have your admission of having some "A4 paper" (ROTFLMAO)
to make your mailbomb attack more believable. Your words --
"and the sad thing is that all of your e-mails (you must have sent what, upwards
of 150 now ? ROFLM*F*AO!!) will have less impact than the six A4 pages
that I sent by fax yesterday (especially considering the headed notepaper I used [1].
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/ade214221387844f
Oh, those precious and official A4 pages. You're a blast, Nazi Coughlan. I
wouldn't trade you for six euroscums who insisted that Guantanamo can FIT on
a list of names of every major Nazi extermination center, and who stated that
"murderers are humane." You're much more delusional and filled with hate and
rage. See your pathetic dream about torturing me by drowning --
http://www.talkaboutbusinesses.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/messages/365698.html
<clip rest of rage and hate from Nazi Coughlan in his belief that I am responsible
for him being unemployed and on the dole for some six months or more now.>
When does the dole run out, NC?
>
Planet Visitor II
Proving Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish and proud of it
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
Nazi Coughlan comment - "The murder of my wife by Kenneth McDuff would
be a lesser evil." In speaking of his wife as "an innocent" and Kenneth McDuff
as a known "wrongly released murderer." Clearly showing that he would rather
his wife were murdered by Kenneth McDuff than Kenneth McDuff having
been executed as he was originally sentenced to be executed before being
a "wrongly released murderer."
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
You're not Jewish, Nazi Coughlan. Show me one person aside from your friend,
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>>> You're losing it, my son. The pressure has taken it's toll,
>>*guffaw*
>>
>>Lemme guess, NN ... English is one of the 'three languages' that you
>>'speak fluently' ..?
> Lemme guess, Nazi Coughlan... Hebrew is one of the languages that
> you speak fluently...? Ho de fucking ho.
I'll have to brush up on my Hebrew, if the One and I decide to exercise
the 'right of return'.
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Jewish and Proud of It
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
{ snip rage, hatred and denials that NN tried to have me killed }
*sigh*
You're not making this very difficult, are you, NN ?
I just 'LOVE' (sic) it (remember that one, NN ? Heh ... I'll have to
get that into the FAQ at some point) it when you call me 'NC'... each
and every time, it's like another 'plink' as the coin drops on my
jackpot!
Come on, NN .. try harder. Jesus, even John Rennie has called you
'James "Jew-Killer" Noles' ...
Get off the floor, NN and try harder!!
Ho, ho, ho ...
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Jewish and Proud of It
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>>Arrogance isn't a problem, _per se_. We're all guilty of it sometimes. In
>>Nazi Noles's case, however, what is susprising -
> LOL... Typical European. Can any of you get that word right? I
> hope you don't start on claiming I'm ignorant after displaying your
> own, right there.
*guffaw*
It"s obvious that you're not that bright, NN, so pay attention. That
was what one calls a typo. A typo is when one's fingers hit the wrong
key, and one doesn't notice it until one posts, or until someone points
it out.
Remember also that I'm posting whilst sitting in my office in Paris, and
the machine that I'm posting 'from', is located in Sydney [1]. So some-
times (as right now, in fact), there is a half-second or so of 'lag' from
the time my fingers strike the keys, until the letters appear in my
ssh session.
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/ssh_to_oz.jpg
You see, NN, the 'test' of whether a particular fuck-up is a typo,
or is evidence of the stupidity of the person posting, is to 'say aloud'
the word, and ask yourself if the error comes across orally. So in my
example above, no one could say, 'susprising' and think that it wasn't
a typo, as the estraneous 's' before the 'p' makes it obvious that it
isn't a spelling error.
Now if we turn to the multitude of howlers that you have posted in
the past, let's start with 'repleat'. Say it aloud and it is pronounced
exactly the same as 'replete'. That wasn't a typo; you just didn't know
how to spell the word 'replete'. Likewise with your frequent mis-use of
the apostrophe in the possessive of 'it' --> 'it's'. There is no
difference in (damn this lag..) prononciation between 'its' and 'it's'. So
your cock-ups aren't typos - they're just evidence that you don't know how
to use apostrophes. Ditto with 'insure' and 'ensure', which I gather are
pronounced alike in 'American' (sic) English. Or with any of the other
hilarious fuck-ups with which your posting history is 'replea'... sorry,
replete. The same with the English modal 'would', which you wrote as
'wood'. The list goes on ..
Your only response is to cite 'occurence'. Yep, that's one of the list
of 'blank spots' that everyone has: words that he habitually mis-spells.
That's why Word has the ability to 'correct' words that we always
mis-spell, and that's why I have a half-dozen of them in my .vimrc.
Another one of mine is 'existence', or 'existance'; I think that my
status as Francophone is responsible for that one. Then there's
'exaggerate' .. even now, I'm not sure if that's the correct spelling.
The difference is that I don't care, whereas my pointing out your
_faux pas_ drives you insane.
Nor should we forget your now infamous geographical ignorance .. ah, where
do we start, the list is so fucking long ..?
Israel is landlocked, anyone ..?
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#israel
New South Wales is in the UK ..?
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#newsouthwales
The Rainbow Warrior was sunk in 'The Aucklands' ..?
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#aucklands
The capital of Viet-Nam is Tokyo ..?
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#tokyo
In answer to that, you have what? That I counted five continents instead
of six? Big deal .. especially since I in fact corrected myself even before
you noticed it. Then you claim that my insistence that Europe stopped
on Germany's eastern body is 'ignorance' ... *guffaw* Even John Rennie,
who is never less than scathing about me, is aware that like most of what I
post, that claim is designed to irk you. And by God, it works a charm!!
>> no>t to mention hilarious -
>>is that his arrogance is coupled with a blinding ignorance of almost the
>>entire gamut of human knowledge.
>
> Poor Nazi Coughlan, still jealous of my education and intelligence.
> So jealous he demonstrates a homicidal tendency in which I suspect
> he would try to kill me if he could, since he has admitted to paying
> money to cyber stalk me, and must be enraged to find I've relocated,
> and no longer live in Florida.
I don't give a shit where you live, NN. Nor would I have bothered to
find your previous address, if you hadn't tried to wriggle out of
admitting who you were, after Euro's proud, noble and majestic exposure
of you ..
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#cellars
{ snip sundry insults, declarations of victory, and manifest
demonstrations of lunacy }
Y.
[1] no, no, no, NN .. not the Sydney in 'The Aucklands' [2]...
[2] http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#aucklands
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Jewish and Proud of It
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
> a typo, as the estraneous 's' before the 'p' makes it obvious that it
Bingo.
Y.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
{ snip sundry gimmicks, claims of victory and a post 'repleat' (sic)
with insults }
> Actually, I had been largely ignoring you because of your stated
> personal problems, but today is catch up time. As it will be until
> I get all your past rants of hate and rage for me out of my system
> by exposing you. I believe there are 47 more posts from you
> that are older than this one, which will now be addressed rather
> than ignored by me.
Give it your best shot, NN! Any chance at least one of those posts
could be lie-and-error-free?
> Planet Visitor II <neither Jewish
'Why do you hate me, euro?? Is it because I am a Jew??'
<http://minilien.fr/a0k2sq>
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Jewish and Proud of It
David Haley
> I am a physician. If your rules stood, I would certainly move. You seem to
> equate the law with ethics, or morality, or some righteous quality. Your
> view is quite arrogant. You either must have the law on your side, or you
> are so jaded that you feel that the majority of people are represented by
> the government. I hate to burst your bubble.
Jim has this funny notion that one's inner acceptance or approval of a law has
some bearing on the fact that the law is in fact a law to begin with. So for
instance, if some 'evil' government passes a law (as in, the government writes
it up and 'makes it so'), Jim will argue that that law is in fact not a law
because he doesn't accept it as being one. I think he's making a fundamental
mix-up between human laws and 'natural laws', i.e. 'law' and 'Law'.
But my advice is to not bother arguing about it as you will get nowhere and will
get pages and pages of rambling, directionless pseudo-philosophy, as you might
have already noticed.
--
David C. Haley
david-...@the-haleys.com
(no unmunging necessary)
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.fr> reduced to posting from "yahoo" wrote:
>James 'the Educated' Noles wrote:
>
>{ snip rage, hatred and denials that NN tried to have me killed }
>
Proven you are a liar, Nazi Coughlan since the word "might" does
not in any way resemble or mean the word "want" or "hope"
Proven without a doubt using nothing but two sentences in the
English language that demonstrate that fact. Saying that
"Coughlan MIGHT be struck by a meteor tonight," does
not mean the same as "Coughlan SHOULD be struck by
a meteor tonight." Although probably there are those in
your "real life" who would argue they support the latter
comment, even while noting that the two comments do
not mean the same thing.
>*sigh*
>
Poor Coughlan... so desperate for attention.
>You're not making this very difficult, are you, NN ?
Since I'm dealing with a deranged maniacal supporter of
Nazi doctrine, you would certainly hold that opinion, Nazi
Coughlan. Fourtunately, your opinion means jackshit.
>I just 'LOVE' (sic) it (remember that one, NN ?
Yeah, I remember how I "LOVE" to spank you intellectually.
But it is becoming so commonplace that it's lost its vinegar.
> Heh ... I'll have to
>get that into the FAQ at some point) it when you call me 'NC'... each
>and every time, it's like another 'plink' as the coin drops on my
>jackpot!
>
Hey, NC... drop another coin, and hope that it goes toward the
Nazi revival that is your most enthusiastic desire.
>Come on, NN .. try harder. Jesus, even John Rennie has called you
>'James "Jew-Killer" Noles' ...
>
>http://minilien.fr/a0k2w1
>
Poor Nazi Coughlan, still lying, since John Rennie did no such thing.
He questioned your use of it. After all, when you tried to use the
death of Rosa Parks he again broke his silence about you, and
posted -- "Desmond's grotesque insult to Jim which mirrored his
reaction to Jim's rather splendid tribute to Martin Luther King of
yesteryear." See -
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/8a4f86ef9d2383fe
I should have thanked John for his remark, since even through
our disagreements he was perfectly civil in that instance.
Respect from an abolitionist is worth respect. You should
notice that you have never received anything but digust from
any retentionist, and even quite a few abolitionists.
But how you must hate John almost as much as you hate me, because
he was more responsible for exposing your lie in claiming you
are Jewish than I was. It's just that you know he would not
trade punches with you, because his disgust outweighs even mine,
and you know attacking him would be attacking another
abolitionist and you would not have the "crowd" behind you if
you did. And you would then become the pariah that you rightly
should be... a Nazi pariah among abolitionists. John knows
you're a Nazi supporter, but is so disgusted with you, that he
would not even bother to mention that you are. And that
is exactly what he wants me to do, and is disgusted with me
because I continue to even bother with you. Notice that
John said he would take me out of his killfile if I never
responded to any comment from you, or mentioned you again.
That's how much he dislikes you for the liar you are.
<fx: dusts hands in satisfaction at dealing with Nazi Coughlan once again>
Planet Visitor II
Proving Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish and proud of it
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"The fact is, as you well know, that I find Desmond's views, on _all_ issues,
to be objectionable and ludicrous." -- John Rennie. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/efd62ac4340ba68d
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
children' Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>James 'the Educated' Noles wrote:
>
>>>> You're losing it, my son. The pressure has taken it's toll,
>
>>>*guffaw*
>>>
>>>Lemme guess, NN ... English is one of the 'three languages' that you
>>>'speak fluently' ..?
>
>> Lemme guess, Nazi Coughlan... Hebrew is one of the languages that
>> you speak fluently...? Ho de fucking ho.
>
begin raving from Philippe 'the Uneducated' Coughlan --
>I'll have to brush up on my Hebrew, if the One and I decide to exercise
>the 'right of return'.
>
I thought you wanted a "wrongly released murderer" to get rid of her?
Nazi Coughlan comment - "The murder of my wife by Kenneth McDuff would
be a lesser evil." In speaking of his wife as "an innocent" and Kenneth McDuff
as a known "wrongly released murderer." Clearly showing that he would rather
his wife were murdered by Kenneth McDuff than Kenneth McDuff having
been executed as he was originally sentenced to be executed before being
a "wrongly released murderer."
Planet Visitor II
Proving Nazi Coughlan is not Jewish and proud of it
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
Let's run Coughlan's comment by the gentle reader yet again, since
I love to watch his purple vein turns those different shades.
His exact words were --
"The murder of an innocent by a wrongly released murderer is the lesser of
two evils." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/45ad448fc2e7ab95
Okay, gentle reader. Aside from everything else one must notice that
his comment has generalized the idea of "an innocent" and "wrongly
released murderer." So this is obviously a fallacy of
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#generalization
It's an over-generalization, that Coughlan expects to pass muster as
a reasonable argument from a reasonable person, yet he fails the
most basic test: the demand to verify that he actually believes it, once
specific, not-generalized examples are plugged into his comment.
Otherwise, he needs to admit he was just raving as usual, and had
no intention of actually demonstrating he supports his words. Although
Coughlan never did achieve an education that would have provided
him the understanding of the need for this when making comments,
I intend to educate him.
So first, we need to address the issue of who he argues are included
in that generalized group of "an innocent." If his argument holds for
ALL "innocents," then by reason we can plug in a specific value of
a specific person having a personal connection to the author of the
comment. We can, in fact, plug in ANY INNOCENT. Doing so,
we can use his wife, since he has not excluded her, and I believe
he would find her an INNOCENT if she were to be murdered, and
he has in fact offered her up to a murder in another of his comments.
This would be his comment: --
"For principled abolitionists, it would not matter if the murderer killed
our children, our mothers, our wives.... We _still_ would not support
their execution." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/fdbc7222cf664006
So now that we have determined a specific "innocent" that he accepts as
a value to plug in, his comment can be stated as -- "The murder of
"my wife" by a wrongly released murderer is the lesser of two evils."
This is absolutely valid in respect to his comment, if he intends to
claim his wife would be such an "innocent victim of a murderer."
Okay... now we need to examine a SPECIFIC example of a "wrongly
released murderer." This also stands to reason if we expect his comment
is to remain valid throughout the spectrum of ALL "wrongly released
murderers," since his comment WAS generalized to ALL "wrongly
released murderers."
And we have the specific example of Kenneth McDuff. See --
http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plainfield/i-p/mcduff.html
Kenneth McDuff was originally sentenced to the death penalty
for various murderers that he had committed. His death penalty
was overturned as a result of Furman, and it was commuted to
life in prison. While later, he came up for parole and was
released. He then went on to commit a number of other murders,
just as meeting the example of a "wrongly released murderer,"
as Coughlan used in his comment.
So if the author of that original comment, Nazi Coughlan, wishes it
to actually represent a valid comment as written it must be valid
for all values. Thus it appears that he believes that this also
represents his view, using particular values of "his wife" and
Kenneth McDuff, so his words mean -- "The murder of my wife
by Kenneth McDuff is the lesser of two evils." The greater
evil being in Nazi Coughlan's view, the execution of Kenneth
McDuff as originally scheduled for a number of other murders
before murdering Nazi Coughlan's wife. Oh my... do you really
love the life of Kenneth McDuff more than the life of your
wife? What's going on with you?
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
You're not Jewish, Nazi Coughlan. Show me one person aside from your friend,
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
wrongly released murderer?' Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>James 'The Pure of Purpose' Noles wrote:
>
>{ snip sundry gimmicks, claims of victory and a post 'repleat' (sic)
> with insults }
>
LOL... There's lime and salt in KKKoughlan's attempt at an
insult, but it lacks the tang that goes with a Margarita. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_30.html
>> Actually, I had been largely ignoring you because of your stated
>> personal problems, but today is catch up time. As it will be until
>> I get all your past rants of hate and rage for me out of my system
>> by exposing you. I believe there are 47 more posts from you
>> that are older than this one, which will now be addressed rather
>> than ignored by me.
>
>Give it your best shot, NN! Any chance at least one of those posts
>could be lie-and-error-free?
>
All are free of lie or error,, Nazi Coughlan. Now when can we
expect one of those to come from you?
>> Planet Visitor II <neither Jewish
>
>'Why do you hate me, euro?? Is it because I am a Jew??'
><http://minilien.fr/a0k2sq>
>
Why did you rip a yellow star off of a victim of the Holocaust
and try yourself off as one of those victims? Why did you copy
Don Kool and try to pass yourself off as a "Rabbi" in a few
hundred posts to AADP? Why do you continue to spew out
ethic slurs against the Jews, while there is not one single such
slur of that kind ever used by me? Why do you continue to
lie about being Jewish, when not one single poster here has
ever claimed they believe you? Other than your friend,
grosvenor, of course. Who would stand by your claim
that you are Jewish, until hell freezes over. Given that he hates
both you and the Jews.
Why do you continue to defend your comment that "in the
absolute" the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were "morally
and legally" no different than murderers executed in the U.S.
death penalty? Why do you continue to defend your
support for Nazi doctrine, when you stated that the Jewish
victims of the Holocaust were guilty of being "legally
inhuman"? Why do you continue to defend your claim that
no 72-year-old men were executed in Auschwitz, given that
you've been called a "fool" by another abolitionist for doing
so? Why do you continue to insist that the Nazis were
_innocent_ of killing the Jews, and were _persecuted_ by the
Allies? Why did you say the Jews are "milking" the Holocaust,
when it is certain that you are doing so for your own
advantage, and are not concerned about the victims?
Why did you say that you could not insult the
victims of the Holocaust because they were dead, but
then argue that Roger Coleman could be insulted even
though he was dead? And why do you hate me just
because I have dug up the scum of your comments over
the years here, that expose you as an anti-Semite?
Why not simply admit you are not Jewish, and turn over
a new leaf, putting this behind you, by admitting you were
anti-Semitic, but now stating you no longer feel that way
about the Jews? Just think how easy your life would be
if I was not there to expose your hate for the Jews, as
I promise to no longer do, once you admit the error of
your ways in the past.
Haven't I admitted that I do not actually believe I am
Jewish, even while I am one million percent more Jewish
than you ever dreamed of? Why can't you be as bold and
honest as I have been in admitting to your deceptions?
*deathly silence*
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"For who, alas! has lived,
Nor in the watches of the night recalled
Words he has wished unsaid and deeds undone."
Samuel Rogers
>Y.
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
You're not Jewish, Nazi Coughlan. Show me one person aside from your friend,
Vishnu - destroyer of Nazi Coughlan's support of the Shoah
<yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>James 'The Pure of Heart' Noles wrote:
>
>>>Arrogance isn't a problem, _per se_. We're all guilty of it sometimes. In
>>>Nazi Noles's case, however, what is susprising -
>
>> LOL... Typical European. Can any of you get that word right? I
>> hope you don't start on claiming I'm ignorant after displaying your
>> own, right there.
>
>*guffaw*
>
Not very original, Nazi Coughlan. Nor anything other than a
bit embarrassed on your part, eh???
>It"s obvious that you're not that bright, NN, so pay attention. That
>was what one calls a typo. A typo is when one's fingers hit the wrong
>key, and one doesn't notice it until one posts, or until someone points
>it out.
Looking at my keyboard, the "s" and the "r" are some distance apart.
You're not trying to lie your way out of this, are you, Nazi Coughlan? It
does seem that every time you try that trick, your method is to
attack the other as "not being bright." But I was bright enough to
see it immediately. Don't you proof your work? If not, that would
explain quite a bit about your habit of raving hysterically while making
no sense. Keep in mind that you're the expert on being a pedant.
<Jesus H. CHRIST!!! I just clipped about a hundred lines of NC raving trying
to excuse his ignorance. What a thrill that was.>
>Nor should we forget your now infamous geographical ignorance .. ah, where
>do we start, the list is so fucking long ..?
>
>Israel is landlocked, anyone ..?
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#israel
>
Never said it was, you moron --
"Wrong again, I'm afraid. If I drive east, I leave Europe upon crossing
the German border into Poland." -- Heh heh... Coughlan doesn't even
know where Europe ends.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/b8aeb18528bd5777
>New South Wales is in the UK ..?
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#newsouthwales
"Neither Latvia nor Estonia forms part of Europe" See -
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/2dad682ccf594901
>The Rainbow Warrior was sunk in 'The Aucklands' ..?
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#aucklands
"that renegade state, the United Kingdom" --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/c1944c27f8d7dbe3
>The capital of Viet-Nam is Tokyo ..?
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#tokyo
LOL... Now you're making things up, Nazi Coughlan. I spent a year
in Vietnam, before you were playing a harmonic for coins in the Metro.
And I was stationed right outside of Tokyo, in Camp Drake. You've
never even been to the Far East.
>In answer to that, you have what? That I counted five continents instead
>of six? Big deal .. especially since I in fact corrected myself even before
>you noticed it.
No, you didn't, Nazi Coughlan.
> Then you claim that my insistence that Europe stopped
>on Germany's eastern body is 'ignorance' .
Pure and simple ignorance. Noted by many as bigotry. Certainly Switzerland
is in Europe, and you would deny that country the right to call into in Europe or
European, all because of your feverish nationalism and sickening belief that the
world revolves around your "EU." I see your pounding upon the non-existent
EU "Constitution" (sic) is no different than an Mullah pounding his head on the
Koran.
> .. *guffaw* Even John Rennie,
>who is never less than scathing about me, is aware that like most of what I
>post, that claim is designed to irk you. And by God, it works a charm!!
Glad to see you admit your lie about being Jewish is only meant to irk me,
and has no real existence in any factual sense. As long as you admit you
lie to irk me, I'll be glad to admit being irked by your lie.
>>> no>t to mention hilarious -
>>>is that his arrogance is coupled with a blinding ignorance of almost the
>>>entire gamut of human knowledge.
>>
>> Poor Nazi Coughlan, still jealous of my education and intelligence.
>> So jealous he demonstrates a homicidal tendency in which I suspect
>> he would try to kill me if he could, since he has admitted to paying
>> money to cyber stalk me, and must be enraged to find I've relocated,
>> and no longer live in Florida.
>
>I don't give a shit where you live, NN.
No one believes you, NC. Not since you admitted to paying money to find
out where I live, and not since you posted various addresses and phone
numbers which showed you up as a fool, hoping you could post where I live.
You might as well claim that you don't give a shit about being Jewish, while
you lie about being Jewish in every post you create. The fact is you care
very much about both where I live, and how you can hope to maintain your
lie of being Jewish. Too bad that in both cases no one believes you. It
was pretty obvious you care about where I live when you stated you had
reported me to the "police" (ho ho ho) in Leesburg, and when you used
the death of Rosa Parks in caring about where you think I live. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/4af7cf7440950cfe
Which you posted in response to my post offered four hours earlier. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/c1c421fd2b0653f8
Remember what a fool you made of yourself then, as Donna stated that
she found your post "despicable." And Cerberus said your attempt to
give a shit about where I live -- "went down like a lead fart." Not to
mention how John Rennie continues to find you a homicidal maniac, to
put it mildly.
> Nor would I have bothered to
>find your previous address, if you hadn't tried to wriggle out of
>admitting who you were, after Euro's proud, noble and majestic exposure
>of you ..
Yeah, right. Now speak up everyone who believes Crazy Coughlan...
*deathly silence*
All euroscum did was ADMIT to using REVENGE outside of a justice
system to PUNISH me. His words -- "I can accept the label "revenge"
if you like that, since punishment, outside of a justice system, consists
in revenge. And so what? Yes, it's revenge. I claim for it." And guess
who else wrote the words that his motive was also REVENGE? Why
that would be your friend, Theodore Frank, the pedophile murderer who
you insisted you would have go free than be executed, and who you
claimed you would be more likely to commit murder than he would.
He wrote in his diary -- ""Why do I want to degrade and humiliate
children? Sadism... I enjoy the humiliation. Defile the innocent. Make
them scared of sex. It's dirty. I didn't have a happy childhood, neither will
they...Revenge." Same MOTIVE. Same methods... Punishment...
Revenge. Apparently you are not the only one not having had a
"happy childhood." It appears that Theodore Frank and euroscum
also did not have a "happy childhood."
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#cellars
>
Poor Coughlan... recall how you ripped a "yellow star" off a victim
of the Holocaust and tried to play the role of one of those victims to
hide your lie.
>{ snip sundry insults, declarations of victory, and manifest
> demonstrations of lunacy }
>
No one believes you, Nazi Coughlan. That must be the worst insult
of all. Not one single abolitionist or retentionist... not even a single
regular or even newbie visitor to AADP has EVER stated they
believe you are Jewish... other than your friend, grosvenor, that is.
Why not ask Mr. McVay to stick up for you and your comments,
since you gloated about him having insisted you belong in his killfile.
Why not ask him to not only stick up for you, and say he believes
you are Jewish, but also stand by your comment which stated "in
the absolute," The Jewish victims of the Holocaust "are equivalents,
both morally and legally," to murderers executed in the U.S. death
penalty. I really want to see him stand by your comment.
*deathly silence*
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
How about another one of your attempts at cyber stalking -- and trying
to hide your racism at the same moment you expose it with a racist
slur all of your own, not any "quotation marks" around it, but your
feelings -- "Jigsaw lives in Florida, last time I heard, Eugene. Down
there, the good ol' boys don't like them n****s [the original racist
slur from KKKoughlan blanked out] comin' in from South America
an' stealin' tha wimmyn, and causin' all that crime, now ... " See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/ad369f0053c2a27f
Nor is that the first time you stated you believe that only Blacks
commit crime in the U.S.
Want to see another of your LIES -- Your words -- "I do not post
racist or sexist slurs, I do not impersonate others, and I never, ever
lie." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/ba9198d85ff3c45a
Poor KKKoughlan.... so easy to burst your pretentious bubble... it's
become so trivial to expose you for the scum you are. Your lies
contain as many wrinkles as a Shar Pei.
>Y.
>
>[1] no, no, no, NN .. not the Sydney in 'The Aucklands' [2]...
No, no, NC... the Poland in Europe. And the Noles not in
Florida.
>[2] http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/faq/#aucklands
>
>
>--
>Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
>Jewish and Proud of It
Planet Visitor II
> On this day of 2-25-2006 9:17 PM, bigdawg saw fit to scribe:
>> I am a physician. If your rules stood, I would certainly move. You seem to
>> equate the law with ethics, or morality, or some righteous quality. Your
>> view is quite arrogant. You either must have the law on your side, or you
>> are so jaded that you feel that the majority of people are represented by
>> the government. I hate to burst your bubble.
>
> Jim has this funny notion that one's inner acceptance or approval of a law has
> some bearing on the fact that the law is in fact a law to begin with.
No, I have this funny idea that I have the right to express my opinion in
this newsgroup. Just as you have the funny idea that you have the right
to express your opinion that you accept the laws of the Nazis as meeting
your personal view of the law.
> So for
> instance, if some 'evil' government passes a law (as in, the government writes
> it up and 'makes it so'), Jim will argue that that law is in fact not a law
> because he doesn't accept it as being one.
Isn't that more sensible than adjusting your sense of justice to conform
to the views of others who put words on paper and call it law? Keep in
mind that those who do put those words on paper and call it law, do so
because they believe it is "justice," as "they see it." If you accept those
words as your own, you also accept their belief that the words frame
"justice" as you see it. But I suppose Martin Luther King Jr., means
nothing to you, since he wrote to a friend while imprisoned that "an
unjust law is no law at all." I'd personally rather hold the opinion of
MLK and Rosa Parks, and John Brown, who did not accept slavery and
segregation as the "law," and every German who did not accept the "law"
as being meant to exterminate the Jews.
However, you will find that I have never stated you CANNOT hold the
opinions you hold, just as the Nazis could hold the opinion that it was
LAW, and they were performing a LEGAL, MORAL and HONORABLE
task in attempting to exterminate the Jews. You can hold the opinion
that "power is law," until the sun no longer shines. My only role here
is to insist that I will never accept such an argument as being my
opinion.
>I think he's making a fundamental
> mix-up between human laws and 'natural laws', i.e. 'law' and 'Law'.
>
I think you're the one mixing them up, and putting one with a capital
letter does not make sense in attempting to claim much of anything.
Natural law is what we have no ability to change... EVER. Only
nature herself can make those changes, and we rely upon those
natural laws to modify our existence as best we can to make life
better for us. Obviously, human law is not something that is as
totally inviolate as is nature's law. We can "disobey" the words
that someone put on paper and called "human law." When we do,
we can also insist that our mind refuses to accept those words as
"human law," because we are HUMANS, and those who put those
words on paper are not NATURE but OTHER HUMANS. We are
not capable of changing "natural law." While "human law" is
capable of change and violation and non-acceptance as meaning
human law to us. Obviously with "natural law" if we step in front of
a moving freight train we can be assured that nothing we do
can provide for our change or violation or non-acceptance of the
natural laws of physics.
> But my advice is to not bother arguing about it as you will get nowhere and will
> get pages and pages of rambling, directionless pseudo-philosophy, as you might
> have already noticed.
As opposed to your opinion that "human law" is as inviolate as
"natural law," simply because you say so. Insisting that you
don't need to show it is, you just need your mind to "think it
is." But my point is that your mind is capable of not accepting
"human law," while it must accept "natural law."
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"I know but one freedom and that is the freedom of the mind." --
Antoine De Saint-Exupery
Now, pardon me again, David, if I hold an opinion that the
freedom of my mind is not fettered as yours is to the
words of another... accepting his words as "law" that you
accept as your "law." Obviously I have no choice in the
matter in respect to accepting "natural law," but "human
law" is not "natural law."
Planet Visitor II
>
> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:XJOdnanHhKclZ57Z...@giganews.com...
>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
>> news:O6KdnTvCWKF3P57Z...@comcast.com...
>>> Please, answer me, as I assume you have never been where I have been,
>>> seen the things that I have seen, and yet you talk as if you know the
>>> workings of the profession which I am part of....
>>
>> Rubbish, I certainly don't need to justify my existence to you,
>> since you are an absolute non-entity as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Another example of your so called respect for all human life, Jimmy?
The poster I was responding to was arguing that he did not respect
human life, Darren. Do try to keep the players straight.
>> Nothing more than words posted to a computer.
>
> Thay all are Jimmy, yet you take them so seriously.
>
No proof offered, your claim fails. Although it is being demonstrated
that you are obsessed with hoping to destroy my human life, if
you think it exists here.
>>However; I
>> was raised in inner city Chicago, in a family that would now be
>> classified as poor, the son of a hard-working blue collar father.
>> I had five uncles and my father who all served in WW II (my mother
>> was one of 13 siblings of my maternal grandparents). My father
>> was too old to be drafted, and naturally had me as a child, but
>> the damn fool enlisted because his brother was drafted.
>
> Oh boy. He's off again.
Of course you're a bit jealous. Having a father who was employed
by the Nazis.
<clip jealousy and envy of Darren>
Planet Visitor
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"I think we have a moral obligation to our children that can be easily
summarized: number one, protect them from harm." -- Thomas H. Allen
My, how your family must have failed you, Darren.
Planet Visitor II
>
> "John Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:du0bg3$5um$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>>> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more
>>> you talk.
>>
>> Well bigdawg you've taken a somewhat shorter time to reach conclusions
>> that most of us here took years to fathom. Have you not noticed how
>> Planet Visitor's views are not responded to except by the sick and the
>> lame and now you. That's because most of us have him in our killfiles.
>> However, if you do continue to respond to his inane and increasingly
>> insulting posts please don't top post.
>
> Jimmy's number and is very entertaining to boot.
Poor Darren... was it your daddy who turned you into such a murderer
lover? Answer the question.
"shut up about the fucking holocaust you boring old fart." -- Darren
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/b303e10af5d9ac70
"Shut up about the fucking Holocaust, all you Jew lovers." -- David
Irving
Oh, my... two souls entwined with the same view about the Holocaust.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
> -
> Daz
Planet Visitor II
What you need to do is ask Donna if she'd stand by you and insist
that I have no right to mention the Holocaust in AADP. In your words --
"shut up about the fucking holocaust you boring old fart." -- Darren
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/b303e10af5d9ac70
Since you come across as making arrogant demands of me, you
sick son-of-a-bitch.
Darren
> "Darren" <dar...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:TsZMf.64535$Rw6....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Planet Visitor II" <nappy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:XJOdnanHhKclZ57Z...@giganews.com...
>>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
>>> news:O6KdnTvCWKF3P57Z...@comcast.com...
>>>> Please, answer me, as I assume you have never been where I have been,
>>>> seen the things that I have seen, and yet you talk as if you know the
>>>> workings of the profession which I am part of....
>>>
>>> Rubbish, I certainly don't need to justify my existence to you,
>>> since you are an absolute non-entity as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> Another example of your so called respect for all human life, Jimmy?
>
> The poster I was responding to was arguing that he did not respect
> human life, Darren.
That makes two of you then, Jimmy.
>Do try to keep the players straight.
I will if you will.
>
>>> Nothing more than words posted to a computer.
>>
>> Thay all are Jimmy, yet you take them so seriously.
>>
> No proof offered, your claim fails.
That blue vien throbbing on yout forehead is all the proof I need, old son.
>Although it is being demonstrated
> that you are obsessed with hoping to destroy my human life, if
> you think it exists here.
>
LOL. No proof offered, your claim fails.
>>>However; I
>>> was raised in inner city Chicago, in a family that would now be
>>> classified as poor, the son of a hard-working blue collar father.
>>> I had five uncles and my father who all served in WW II (my mother
>>> was one of 13 siblings of my maternal grandparents). My father
>>> was too old to be drafted, and naturally had me as a child, but
>>> the damn fool enlisted because his brother was drafted.
>>
>> Oh boy. He's off again.
>
> Of course you're a bit jealous.
LOL. No proof offered, your claim fails.
>Having a father who was employed
> by the Nazis.
>
LOL. No proof offered, your claim fails.
> <clip Darren's true words>
*courtesy of Darren's bullshit to truth translation service*
>
-
Daz
Darren
No thanks but thanks for asking.
>you'd stand by Hitler if he stood against me,
I doubt it; he's dead
>you moron.
LOL.
Pot, kettle black.
>
> What you need to do is ask Donna if she'd stand by you and insist
> that I have no right to mention the Holocaust in AADP. In your words --
> "shut up about the fucking holocaust you boring old fart."
Yeah, so?
-
Daz
Darren
> "Darren" <dar...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:9UPMf.19014$gB4....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "John Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:du0bg3$5um$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
>>> news:LMqdnaK8CZpgN57Z...@comcast.com...
>>>> Haha. The harder the questions, the more boring you get, and the more
>>>> you talk.
>>>
>>> Well bigdawg you've taken a somewhat shorter time to reach conclusions
>>> that most of us here took years to fathom. Have you not noticed how
>>> Planet Visitor's views are not responded to except by the sick and the
>>> lame and now you. That's because most of us have him in our killfiles.
>>> However, if you do continue to respond to his inane and increasingly
>>> insulting posts please don't top post.
>>
>> No doubt he'd done what most haven't and read ahead. He's certainly got
>> Jimmy's number and is very entertaining to boot.
>
> Poor Darren... was it your daddy who turned you into such a murderer
> lover? Answer the question.
Nope. did yours?
-
Daz