Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Innocent but this time, dead

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Euroguy

unread,
Jan 6, 2002, 5:57:32 AM1/6/02
to
True enough, I had promised postings of innocent people executed.

Well, how about this one? (still Texas, still George W. but he probably
needed to secure the votes of PV-like philistines in the paranoia around
security)

Gary Graham Texas Convicted 1981 Executed 2000

On June 23, 2000, Gary Graham was executed in Texas, despite claims that he
was innocent. Graham was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and
shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston supermarket. He was convicted
primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she
saw the killer's face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a
distance of 30 -40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who worked at the
grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham
was not the killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court appointed
attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of
the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would
have voted differently had all of the evidence been available.

Yours in abolition,

Euro

PS: one more Bushism (I love them a lot)

"The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I
have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've
looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty - I mean, innocent person to
death in the state of Texas" (National Public Radio, June 16th, 2000)

Let's go George! Heads, I execute, tails, I pardon!


Richard Jackson

unread,
Jan 6, 2002, 8:51:44 AM1/6/02
to
"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3c382...@news1.meganetnews.com>...

There are a few things about the Graham case which either are
distortions or factual omissions that directly bear on Graham's
character. Of course, abolitionists who found Graham cause celeb,
don't enjoy talking about them, so it is not surprizing.

The one eye witness who positively testified Graham did so because she
saw him for several seconds TWO times in the full headlights of her
car from a distance of perhaps twenty five feet. She saw him as he
crossed in front of her and again when he shot the victim and turned
to look at her again. The other four witnesses at the parking lot had
varying descriptions, but could not make postitive identifcation. The
ALL testified, however, for the prosecution.

The two "missing" witness supposedly never interviewed by the defense
did not come forward for twelve years, after the Graham case became a
big cause with the likes of Danny Glover, and others. Their testimony
was examined and found not creditable by the courts on a couple of
occasions in appeal.

Abolitionists also fail to mention that Graham was on a violent
robbery spree that weekend. Graham admitted robbing sever other
people at gunpoint, one of whom he shot twice in an attempt to kil.
You also forgot to mention the grandmother Graham raped that weekend
of violence.

I noticed you did not bring up the fact that the .22 caliber pistol
Graham was carrying when arrested was not the same one used to kill
the victim. Good thing. Otherwise someone might have mentioned the
other nine weapons Graham owned when his residence was searched for
evidence.

Boy! Another example of the poor innocent victims of the death
penalty. Wonderful child, an exceptional citizen unjustly put on
death row.

Damn, you guys are funny!

--
Richard Jackson

Euroguy

unread,
Jan 6, 2002, 9:02:40 AM1/6/02
to

"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net>
??????:8cb86b49.02010...@posting.google.com...

What I find very funny with you, Richard, is that each time you justify
someone's guilt, you never fail to mention that he had a criminal (but not
always capital) record. As regards the weapons... I don't believe any Texan
law declares illegal to have up to 9 weapons at home, but I'd be glad to see
that point solved with a tough arms legislation.

Anyway, your remarks don't proof anything on Graham's guilt on the precise
murder case, but it may feel you more comfortable. After all, that's all the
scapegoat logic consists in.

Yours in hopefully quick abolition,

Euro


A Planet Visitor

unread,
Jan 6, 2002, 5:35:47 PM1/6/02
to

"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message news:8cb86b49.02010...@posting.google.com...

No... that's the REAL tragedy, Richard. They are NOT
funny! Their ideas, if implemented, could be deadly
dangerous to many of us.

PV

> Richard Jackson
>

A Planet Visitor

unread,
Jan 6, 2002, 5:37:32 PM1/6/02
to

"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c385...@news1.meganetnews.com...
The fact is we execute hardly any who have not displayed
some vicious criminal past.

PV

John Rennie

unread,
Jan 6, 2002, 6:16:16 PM1/6/02
to

"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:8cb86b49.02010...@posting.google.com...

But then again Richard, you didn't bring up your opinion on this well
thrashed out case on this news group. I seem to recall that you were
against the DP in this case because there was only ONE eyewitness and you
are not in favour of the DP when one witness statement cannot be confirmed
by another?


Richard Jackson

unread,
Jan 6, 2002, 7:54:38 PM1/6/02
to
"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3c385...@news1.meganetnews.com>...

I was comfortable with the case before I learned the facts. You are
wrong about one thing, however. Teh one eye witness had a VERY good
look at Graham's face int he high beams of her headlights, something
that the other witnesses that night did not. She picked Graham from a
photo lineup, among others, but was not completely sure until he was
placed in a live lineup along with other of similar height, build, and
complection. Upon seeing Graham in such circumstances, she picked him
out without hesitation, making a positive ID.

On the stand she, of all the witnesses, never wavered in her
testimony, remaining rock solid. You are quite right when you said
she only saw him a few seconds, if you call half a minute of full face
viewing in bright lights a few seconde. It was sufficient, however,
for her to make and continue to this day to make, a full and very
positive identifcation of the murderer.

I've been in a situation to id someone with much less time and poorer
light tha that. I was not sure I could ID them until they drove past
me a second time while I was speaking to a cop. As soon as I saw
them, I knew the perp's ID, and they were apprehended, later making
full confession to their wrongdoing. A decent ID does not require
even as much time as this witness had, nor as good a lighting. She
had much more time and much better ful faced lighting than I did.
Under those circumstances, I believe her id.

The other crimes Graham committed that weekend point to a pattern of
criminal behavior. Man is a creature of habit, like all animals.
Like other animals, when a man starts displaying deviant behavior, he
usually displays a pattern to accompany it. Graham's other robberies
show just how violent and dangerous he really was. The behavior I
mention was a buildup to the act of murder and goes to future threat
to society. That's something which may not be used in the guilt phase
of a capital murder trial, but is admissable in the penalty phase
where future threat must be determined in order to assign the death
penalty in Texas.

Again, I find your choices of heros particularly amusing. This guy
was a street punk who killed, who raped, and who attempted to kill
another time but wasn't a good enough shot. If that's the type you
wish to grieve for, so be it. I much more prefer to grieve for his
victims.

--
Richard Jackson

Richard Jackson

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 12:24:31 AM1/7/02
to
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BV4_7.3095$6q2.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>...

> "Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
<snip>

That is true. The question here was not, however, one of death
penalty or not, but if this was an innocent person. While I do not
support the death penalty in this particular incident, I still firmly
believe Graham was guilty of the crime he was accused of. Evidently,
so did the jury in the original trial.

Had I been the prosecuting attorney in this case, I would not have
sought the death penalty, instead seeking life imprisonment. That and
I would have sought consecutive sentencing on the other six counts of
robbery, which, under state law could have accounted for at least four
more life sentences. That would have been possibly one or possibly
two second degree felonies with four more first degree felonies. Not
counting the rape, which would be a fifth first degree felony, Mr
Graham could have, if sentenced to serve all convictions
consecutively, given up to five consecutive life sentences and two
consecutive twenty year sentences. With forty years before parole
might be a possibility for life imprisonment, and seventeen years of
so on the twenty year sentences, that is a combined consecutive
sentencing of two hundred and thirty-four years. I reckon that might
have kept Graham where he belonged until his death.

I also find that a far more brutal sentencing and fitting punishment
for this creep. Let him go into the gen pop and also let it be known
he was a rapist. It would have been far easier, less time consuming,
and cheaper than the murder trial and subsequent execution. I figure
he may have lasted three or four years tops before some old con
shanked him. If he wasn't killed that way, perhaps fourteen to
seventeen years before he died of AIDS received from the abuse he
would have received in gen pop. That, too, would have been a fitting
end for this scum.

Life sentencing for some people is not always the kindest option.
Especially when they, as did this creep, admit to other crimes which
could have also triggered life sentences under Texas law. But then, I
always was an old softy.


--
Richard Jackson

Brian Henderson

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 4:56:15 AM1/7/02
to
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:57:32 +0800, "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>True enough, I had promised postings of innocent people executed.

You have to find the guilty party in order to declare the criminal
innocent. Just claiming they aren't guilty doesn't mean a thing.

Try again.

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 6:51:16 AM1/7/02
to
In article <25si3ukl5dih16eu5...@4ax.com>, Brian
Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:57:32 +0800, "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >True enough, I had promised postings of innocent people executed.
>
> You have to find the guilty party in order to declare the criminal
> innocent.

If we take your warped logic to its extreme then we can assume that we'd
have to find the guilty party in order to declare _anyone_ innocent.
Not even close, pal. The courts require guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. If a reasonable doubt can be raised then, as far as the legal
system is concerned, the accused is _innocent_, even if they are not
factually innocent.

A case in point of the justice system working was the OJ Simpson trial.
He was as guilty as sin as far as I was concerned but it was clear that
a reasonable doubt could be raised. The prosecution and police decided
to shoot themselves in the feet and the rest followed as part of the
normal judicial process.

There's someone who should have been rotting in a cell but for some
people's desire to "find the guilty party" regardless of the cost.
Justice was served. By virtue of the actions of the _prosecution_,
reasonable doubt was established [1].

> Just claiming they aren't guilty doesn't mean a thing.

Correctly following due process does. The key word is "correctly."

> Try again.

Perhaps it is you, my friend, that should be trying again.

Mr Q. Z. D.

[1] - Clever retentionists please note - this is a subtle trap. Please don't get caught in it. Remember - you have been warned. ((o))
---- ((O))
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be.
So I became a complete bastard."

Jürgen

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 4:05:45 PM1/7/02
to

A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...

<old snipped>

>> Anyway, your remarks don't proof anything on Graham's guilt on the
precise
>> murder case, but it may feel you more comfortable. After all, that's all
the
>> scapegoat logic consists in.
>>
>The fact is we execute hardly any who have not displayed
>some vicious criminal past.
>

I dunno where The Master finds his Facts. It is actually not too difficult
to find a respectable number of DR-inmates and executed without prior
criminal records.

J.

A Planet Visitor

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 6:05:08 PM1/7/02
to

"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:a1d26j$dha$05$1...@news.t-online.com...

Tell you what, dipshit... go to
http://www.smu.edu/~deathpen/victims.html

There you will find the name of EVERY executed
MURDERER and the names of their VICTIMS, up
to 12/12/01. Now you provide a name, and I'll
provide a VICTIM. Your concern for MURDERERS
is SICKENING to me.

PV

> J.


Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 7:23:23 PM1/7/02
to
In article <EQp_7.279548$oj3.53...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:

> Tell you what, dipshit...

Uncharacteristically extreme language from you, PV. I would have
expected "nitwit," which expresses a certain superiority. Has Jürgen
got your goat so badly?

Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))

John Rennie

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 6:49:29 PM1/7/02
to

"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-3BB5DE....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...

> In article <EQp_7.279548$oj3.53...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Tell you what, dipshit...
>
> Uncharacteristically extreme language from you, PV. I would have
> expected "nitwit," which expresses a certain superiority. Has Jürgen
> got your goat so badly?
>
> Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
> ---- ((O))


Jurgen has made some very silly statements recently, Mr D. Possibly
language difficulties hamper him and what he intends to write but if you can
bear to read through some of his statements, he appears to be growing more
and more arrogant. It may well be that PV has had a bad effect on him.


Eric Perlin

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 9:54:49 PM1/7/02
to
Euroguy <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote...

> On June 23, 2000, Gary Graham was executed in Texas,
> despite claims that he was innocent. Graham was 17
> when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and
> shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston
> supermarket. He was convicted primarily on the
> testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who
> said she saw the killer's face for a few seconds
> through her car windshield, from a distance of
> 30 -40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who
> worked at the grocery store and said they got a
> good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the
> killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court
> appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not
> called to testify at trial.

Failing to summon available witnesses on the defendant's behalf is a violation of the 6th
Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

| In all criminal prosecutions, the
| accused shall enjoy the right...to
| have compulsory process for obtaining
| witnesses in his favor; and to have
| the assistance of counsel for his
| defense.


Even if Graham's innocence is never conclusively "proven," his family should sue the state
on his behalf for violating Grahmam's Constitutional rights.

> Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham
> signed affidavits saying they would have voted
> differently had all of the evidence been
> available.

Those jurors ought to have understood that they're supposed to only convict a defendant if
there is strong, compelling evidence that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Maybe Graham's court-appointed lawyer was asleep during the jury selection process.


Eric Perlin

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 10:01:55 PM1/7/02
to
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote...

> Now you provide a name, and I'll provide a
> VICTIM. Your concern for MURDERERS is
> SICKENING to me.

Jürgen did not express any concern for murderers. Only one ACCUSED murderer who Jürgen
believes may have been innocent. There is a big difference.


A Planet Visitor

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 10:49:21 PM1/7/02
to

"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:diablo-3BB5DE....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <EQp_7.279548$oj3.53...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Tell you what, dipshit...
>
> Uncharacteristically extreme language from you, PV. I would have
> expected "nitwit," which expresses a certain superiority. Has Jürgen
> got your goat so badly?
>
I will admit that occasionally he does. I know I should
just chalk it up to his hysteria, but it's not always easy.
Think about how you can't leave 'f' alone, as well. Not
that I blame you..... :-)

PV

A Planet Visitor

unread,
Jan 7, 2002, 10:59:26 PM1/7/02
to

"Eric Perlin" <ericp...@SPAMSUCKSprodigy.net> wrote in message news:Dit_7.3672$Z74.69...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Don't be silly!! Ask Jürgen to name a murderer we
SHOULD execute. Good grief, I couldn't corner him
on Bundy or Frank... either one. And it certainly
isn't only one CONVICTED murderer. In point of
fact ALL accused murderers are INNOCENT. It
is when they are CONVICTED that their status
changes. Until then they are PRESUMED innocent.
You will NEVER get Jürgen to admit there is a
CONVICTED murderer we SHOULD execute, since
that would no longer make him an abolitionist, but
a 'selective' retentionist. Do YOU think there is
ANY CONVICTED murderer who SHOULD be
executed???

PV

Brian Henderson

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 4:13:05 AM1/8/02
to
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:18:05 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:

>Translation: any conviction will do to satisfy a vengeful electorate.

No, but you have to do a lot better than "I don't think he's guilty".
For every crime, there is a criminal. If you're convinced that person
A didn't do it, it rests on your shoulders to produce the real
criminal, or to provide person A with an airtight alibi and prove they
could not have committed the crime.

It's amazing that for all the "innocent people that have been put to
death", you can't come up with one single thing that would stand up in
a court of law to prove it.

Brian Henderson

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 4:16:27 AM1/8/02
to
On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:51:16 +1000, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:

>If we take your warped logic to its extreme then we can assume that we'd
>have to find the guilty party in order to declare _anyone_ innocent.
>Not even close, pal. The courts require guilt beyond a reasonable
>doubt. If a reasonable doubt can be raised then, as far as the legal
>system is concerned, the accused is _innocent_, even if they are not
>factually innocent.

And these people have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at
least twice, once at their original trial, and once at their manditory
appeal. No reasonable doubt has been raised, as no evidence clearing
them of the crime has been found and/or presented.

For all the people looking for proof that the DP kills innocents, it's
amazing that none of them can find the "smoking gun" that proves it.


EndlsRayne

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 8:13:43 AM1/8/02
to
Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr writes:

>All that is (in theory) required, is for the defence to show reasonable
>doubt of guilt, and juries are (in theory) required to acquit.

yeah but that means it's up to the *jury* to find a reasonable doubt, not the
word of a solitary, cop-hating bigot.


Euroguy

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 8:43:43 AM1/8/02
to

"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:Mk4_7.271484$oj3.51...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...

>
> "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c385...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> >
> >
> > Anyway, your remarks don't proof anything on Graham's guilt on the
precise
> > murder case, but it may feel you more comfortable. After all, that's all
the
> > scapegoat logic consists in.
> >
> The fact is we execute hardly any who have not displayed
> some vicious criminal past.
>
> PV

That's exactly what a scapegoat is for: paying for someone else's crimes,
for any external reason.

Euroguy

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 8:50:53 AM1/8/02
to

"Brian Henderson" <cep...@directvinternet.com>
??????:25si3ukl5dih16eu5...@4ax.com...

Seems to me you're reversing the charge of the proof.
You have to find the guilty party before to transform a convicted into a
criminal. Those who declared him guilty had no proof, and that's exactly the
problem.

Richard Jackson

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 9:24:50 AM1/8/02
to
Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:<d1el3uoa2uspvk9os...@4ax.com>...

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:51:16 +1000, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >If we take your warped logic to its extreme then we can assume that we'd
> >have to find the guilty party in order to declare _anyone_ innocent.
> >Not even close, pal. The courts require guilt beyond a reasonable
> >doubt. If a reasonable doubt can be raised then, as far as the legal
> >system is concerned, the accused is _innocent_, even if they are not
> >factually innocent.
>
> And these people have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at
> least twice, once at their original trial, and once at their manditory
> appeal. No reasonable doubt has been raised, as no evidence clearing
> them of the crime has been found and/or presented.

That's not quite the way it is, Brian. Appeals courts, especially the
first and mandatory appeal in a dp, do not look for evidence of
innocence or to raise a reasonable doubt. The appeals process is much
more concerned with the technical aspect of the original trial to
ensure all legal due process was followed.

In appeals proceedures, the burden of proof shifts as well. In the
criminal trial, the burden of proof rest with the prosecution. The
state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the criminal
is convicted, subsequent appeals trials actually require that the
burden of proof of innocence or wrongdoing rest with the defense.
They have to prove cause for overturning the original finding,
although that burden is less than the original procesution's it is
still substantial. At least that is my understanding of the
situation.

>
> For all the people looking for proof that the DP kills innocents, it's
> amazing that none of them can find the "smoking gun" that proves it.

That is one of the main problems abolitionists have, at least since
the reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1970's. There are
problems involved with such proof, however. The best hope for
abolitionists is to find DNA evidence which conclusively prove someone
was factually innocent of the crime for which they were executed.
There are several things working against this occurring. First and
foremost, most states do not keep evidence, once an accused murderer
has been executed. Few states see the need to do so since there is
little cause for appeal once the person is dead, so most such evidence
is either destroyed, discarded, or stored in very poor conditions and
in a manner which renders it useless for such testing. According to
abolitionists, it is not in the interest of the states to have such
disclosures made, so they remove any possibility of such disclosure
asap.

Add to that that around a decade usually passes between the comission
of a murder and the execution of a convicted murderer. In instances
where the murderer's guilt is in some question, that time can be
doubled and sometimes nearly trippled. Witnesses die during this
time. New witnesses come forward that no one knew about, and their
veracity must be examined. Investigators retire and grow old. Since
many lead detectives in homocide cases are more experienced to begin
with, many of them die, and with them, their files are often lost.

Considering these things, and other factors, it is not too surprizing
that no readily conclusive evidence of an "innocent" executed has been
forthcoming. Couple that to the fact that abolitionist, especially
European abolitionists, seem to choose some of the poorest examples of
humanity to be their "poster boys", and there is good cause for
statements like you make. Just as equally, there is cause for the
opposite claims.

Stil, the fact remains that there has, as yet, not been one case of a
person executed where the evidence proves innocence of the crime
conslusively. Until that happens, I believe the US will continue to
have the death penalty.

-
Richard Jackson

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 5:26:36 PM1/8/02
to
In article <slrna3mi9h.t3.p...@tortue.voute.net>,
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:

[snip]

Stop drinking now, Des, You'll regret it in the morning.

A Planet Visitor

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 7:30:54 PM1/8/02
to

"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:slrna3mkhf.95.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:06:13 +0000, Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@noos.fr> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Which, in the case of American jurors, isn't a problem, given the huge
> >> amount of free space around their arseholes ...
>
> > All that prime real estate going to waste ...
>
> I thought that was quite clever, really ...
>
What's clever? Talking to yourself? You should have
been here when we were visited by highimpact1000.
He'd ask the question, and then immediately post
again and answer his own question by calling himself
an idiot. :-)

PV
> Desmond Coughlan
> desmond @ noos.fr
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>

A Planet Visitor

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 7:31:46 PM1/8/02
to

"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:slrna3mkju.95.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:04:28 +0000, Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@noos.fr> a écrit :
>
> >> I'm not sure that juries 'find' anything. Indeed, my long years at the
> >> bar ('hic!') have taught me that the average couldn't find his arse if
> >> it were signposted in six languages ...

>
> > Which, in the case of American jurors, isn't a problem, given the huge
> > amount of free space around their arseholes ...
>
> Or, in a variation on that old favourite ... What do you call all that
> useless flesh around an anus ?
>
>
Ummm... France?...
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
> An American.
>
>
> --

A Planet Visitor

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 7:27:59 PM1/8/02
to

"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c3af...@news1.meganetnews.com...
That's argumentative claptrap. The reason we should
even CONSIDER execution is based on the fact that
someone has murdered, AND displays sufficient
criminal past to find a reasoning that the murderer is
also quite ready to commit another murder in the future.
I believe Santayana expressed that thought quite
succinctly. Were it not seen that criminal past is part
of the sentencing process, it would require no minimum
and maximum sentencing parameters, and we could
then sentence EVERY murderer to EXACTLY the same
penalty, whatever you would believe that penalty should
be. Eliminating the sentencing process completely.

Yours in logic,

PV

> Yours in hopefully quick abolition,

Don't hold your breath.

> Euro


Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 8:49:50 PM1/8/02
to
In article <2bM_7.3470$_p.14...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:

> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> news:slrna3mkhf.95.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> > Le Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:06:13 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
> > <pasdespa...@noos.fr> a écrit :
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > >> Which, in the case of American jurors, isn't a problem, given the
> > >> huge
> > >> amount of free space around their arseholes ...
> >
> > > All that prime real estate going to waste ...
> >
> > I thought that was quite clever, really ...
> >
> What's clever? Talking to yourself? You should have
> been here when we were visited by highimpact1000.
> He'd ask the question, and then immediately post
> again and answer his own question by calling himself
> an idiot. :-)

My guess is that Des will have the mother, father, uncle, aunt and
granparents of all hangovers when he wakes up tomorrow.

TexasSister Liz

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 9:43:32 PM1/8/02
to
Re: Innocent but this time, dead

Le Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:06:58 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> a écrit :

>I thought that was quite clever, really ...

Desmond, you always were so easily amused, especially while drinking..

Liz

Eric Perlin

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 10:59:32 PM1/8/02
to
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote...
> Don't be silly!!

I'll try.

> Ask Jürgen to name a murderer we SHOULD execute.
> Good grief, I couldn't corner him on Bundy or
> Frank... either one. And it certainly isn't
> only one CONVICTED murderer. In point of
> fact ALL accused murderers are INNOCENT. It
> is when they are CONVICTED that their status
> changes. Until then they are PRESUMED innocent.
> You will NEVER get Jürgen to admit there is a
> CONVICTED murderer we SHOULD execute, since
> that would no longer make him an abolitionist,
> but a 'selective' retentionist. Do YOU think
> there is ANY CONVICTED murderer who SHOULD be
> executed???

Yes.

I for one was stunned that there were protesters demonstrating against the execution of
Ted Bundy. I would never oppose executing ruthless, vicious murderers such as Bundy.
However, I believe that there have been many trials which were conducted unfairly, and in
cases where the cops or other individuals close to the case voice serious doubts as to
whether the right person was executed, then -and ONLY then, am I opposed to execution.

I've read about some cases in which DNA evidence exonerated people years after their
conviction. Were it not for the new DNA technology, many completely innocent people would
have been executed for murders they did not commit.

I am concerned that the system sometimes convicts innocent people, but I have no objection
to the death penalty being implemented in mass-murder cases where no one with any
credibility is questioning the convict's guilt.


Rev. Don Kool

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 11:12:49 PM1/8/02
to
Euroguy wrote:

> True enough, I had promised postings of innocent people executed.
>

> Well, how about this one?


Yes, how about him. Check the records my murderer loving eurotrash young
friend, the murderer Graham never received a posthumous pardon. To this
day, he remains guilty of murder just as surely as he remains burning in
Hell for all eternity.

Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Don


--
*********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"

Rev. Don Kool

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 11:14:49 PM1/8/02
to
Brian Henderson wrote:


That's because the bottom line is that there has not been even a single
case of an "innocent" man being mistakenly executed in the United States
(the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) since the just
Death Penalty was reinstated in the late 1970s.

Hope this helps,

Rev. Don Kool

unread,
Jan 8, 2002, 11:16:51 PM1/8/02
to
Desi Coughlan wrote:

> Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:

>>No, but you have to do a lot better than "I don't think he's guilty".
>>For every crime, there is a criminal. If you're convinced that person
>>A didn't do it, it rests on your shoulders to produce the real
>>criminal, or to provide person A with an airtight alibi and prove they
>>could not have committed the crime.
>>
>

> Incorrect. I'd say 'bullshit', but I'm too polite. Aww, what the hell
> ... bullshit.
>
> The defence (or anyone else for that matter) is not obliged to 'produce
> the real criminal' in order to secure an acquittal of the accused. Nor
> does an 'airtight alibi' have to be provided for a verdict of 'not
> guilty' to be returned.


>
> All that is (in theory) required, is for the defence to show reasonable
> doubt of guilt, and juries are (in theory) required to acquit.


Which (as we all know) never happened. Graham was guilty as charged, had
inordinate chances to file frivilous appeal after frivilous appeal and
was ultimately justly punished for his heinous crimes. Case closed, his
victims can now rest in peace. Amen.


Happy to have cleared things up for you,

Brian Henderson

unread,
Jan 9, 2002, 3:41:34 AM1/9/02
to
On 8 Jan 2002 06:24:50 -0800, ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) wrote:

>That's not quite the way it is, Brian. Appeals courts, especially the
>first and mandatory appeal in a dp, do not look for evidence of
>innocence or to raise a reasonable doubt. The appeals process is much
>more concerned with the technical aspect of the original trial to
>ensure all legal due process was followed.

Which is why procedural errors are caught at this point.

>In appeals proceedures, the burden of proof shifts as well. In the
>criminal trial, the burden of proof rest with the prosecution. The
>state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the criminal
>is convicted, subsequent appeals trials actually require that the
>burden of proof of innocence or wrongdoing rest with the defense.
>They have to prove cause for overturning the original finding,
>although that burden is less than the original procesution's it is
>still substantial. At least that is my understanding of the
>situation.

That really changes nothing. The majority of appeals are not done
because of the inaccuracy of the sentence, only because the criminal
doesn't like the sentence. For all these supposedly "innocent" people
on death row, none of them seem to be able to do anything at all in
their own defense.

>That is one of the main problems abolitionists have, at least since
>the reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1970's. There are
>problems involved with such proof, however. The best hope for
>abolitionists is to find DNA evidence which conclusively prove someone
>was factually innocent of the crime for which they were executed.
>There are several things working against this occurring. First and
>foremost, most states do not keep evidence, once an accused murderer
>has been executed. Few states see the need to do so since there is
>little cause for appeal once the person is dead, so most such evidence
>is either destroyed, discarded, or stored in very poor conditions and
>in a manner which renders it useless for such testing. According to
>abolitionists, it is not in the interest of the states to have such
>disclosures made, so they remove any possibility of such disclosure
>asap.

Most murderers are kept on death row for years upon years awaiting
their just reward. So what's stopping all these "innocent" people
from getting the DNA evidence proving the error now? Again, we're not
seeing a lot of people getting out of prison because they are
innocent, which demonstrates that the system works.

The anti-DPers are just blowing smoke. They know their entire case is
made of smoke and mirrors, they just have to construct some grand
conspiracy in order to point fingers away from the weakness of their
ideas. It's like the UFO nuts, really. Zero proof, zero rational
ideas, just a lot of finger-pointing and conspiracy theories.

>Stil, the fact remains that there has, as yet, not been one case of a
>person executed where the evidence proves innocence of the crime
>conslusively. Until that happens, I believe the US will continue to
>have the death penalty.

As it well should.

Brian Henderson

unread,
Jan 9, 2002, 3:45:04 AM1/9/02
to
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:26:23 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:

>The defence (or anyone else for that matter) is not obliged to 'produce
>the real criminal' in order to secure an acquittal of the accused. Nor
>does an 'airtight alibi' have to be provided for a verdict of 'not
>guilty' to be returned.

If *YOU* wish to demonstrate that the DP in the US is faulty, then
yes, *YOU* need to put up or shut up.

>All that is (in theory) required, is for the defence to show reasonable
>doubt of guilt, and juries are (in theory) required to acquit.

If there was a reasonable doubt of guilt, they wouldn't be on death
row to begin with, now would they? All you have is smoke and mirrors.

>As there is no procedure currently in place to 'prove' the innocence of
>those executed for capital murder, that should not surprise you.

What, you're not capable, with all the anti-DPers running around, all
the legal foundations and lawyers who want the DP ended, you can't do
your own legwork and find your own evidence? What's wrong with you?
If this is so important to you, get off your ass and DO SOMETHING!
PROVE THAT YOU'RE RIGHT.

Oh wait, that would require you to stop wasting our time with
groundless claims on Usenet. My mistake.

Brian Henderson

unread,
Jan 9, 2002, 3:47:33 AM1/9/02
to
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:50:53 +0800, "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Seems to me you're reversing the charge of the proof.
>You have to find the guilty party before to transform a convicted into a
>criminal. Those who declared him guilty had no proof, and that's exactly the
>problem.

Apparently the legal system disagrees with you, seeing as how he went
through a whole trial and all.

Oh wait, that was all a sham. Just like the US going to the moon was
done on a Hollywood soundstage. Forgot all about that.

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 9, 2002, 5:36:06 PM1/9/02
to
In article <slrna3nsgl.ei.p...@tortue.voute.net>,
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:

> Le Wed, 09 Jan 2002 11:49:50 +1000, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }


>
> > My guess is that Des will have the mother, father, uncle, aunt and
> > granparents of all hangovers when he wakes up tomorrow.
>

> No, in fact I don't get hangovers,

Nor I. Any early morning seediness is usually overcome by ingestion of
the Black Aspirin and a quick shower.

> as long as I stay away from spirits
> (which explains why I haven't drunk vodka since 1995, and whisky since
> 1998). Usually, after getting drunk, I'm up bright-eyed and
> bushy-tailed the next morning. Today is no exception.

It is now quite some time since then.

> Last night's little binge was combined with a network game of Age of
> Empires, and a few beers with my neighbour.

I've done that before. Just haven't attempted to post while doing so.

JIGSAW1695

unread,
Jan 10, 2002, 12:35:59 PM1/10/02
to
Subject: Re: Innocent but this time, dead
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr
Date: 1/9/02 5:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <slrna3phpa.82.p...@tortue.voute.net>

Le Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:36:06 +1000, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :

{ snip }

>> Last night's little binge was combined with a network game of Age of

>> Empires, and a few beers with my neighbour.

> I've done that before. Just haven't attempted to post while doing so.

The _really_ bad news, is that there's another one coming up on Thursday
night, with four other friends ... so expect some more rather strange
posts

===============================

Desi...Desi... come one Desi...... its us....your fellow NG partcipants.....
you know as well as we do that you dont have four friends.

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 10, 2002, 5:50:29 PM1/10/02
to
In article <20020110123559...@mb-mi.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:

A smiley might have been nice, Jiggy. Or are you being a grump as well?

JIGSAW1695

unread,
Jan 10, 2002, 5:44:00 PM1/10/02
to
Subject: Re: Innocent but this time, dead
From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au
Date: 1/10/02 5:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <diablo-498888....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>

In article <20020110123559...@mb-mi.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:

> Subject: Re: Innocent but this time, dead
> From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr
> Date: 1/9/02 5:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
> Message-id: <slrna3phpa.82.p...@tortue.voute.net>
>
> Le Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:36:06 +1000, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Last night's little binge was combined with a network game of Age of
> >> Empires, and a few beers with my neighbour.
>
> > I've done that before. Just haven't attempted to post while doing so.
>
> The _really_ bad news, is that there's another one coming up on Thursday
> night, with four other friends ... so expect some more rather strange
> posts
>
> ===============================
>
> Desi...Desi... come one Desi...... its us....your fellow NG
> partcipants.....
> you know as well as we do that you dont have four friends.

A smiley might have been nice, Jiggy. Or are you being a grump as well?


===============================

Hey, I just came back from Boston where the weather was in the <gasp> teens.
The plane arrived two hours late. The was a car fire on the Gandy Parkway
bridge which was another delay. My car wouldnt start this morning and I needed
a new few fuel filter and some other stuff I cant even pronounce. I havent even
started to pay bills yet.

No smiley faces here for the next few days. Sorry.

But let me try it again.... Desi...Desi...come one Desi...its us, your fellow
NG particpants. You know as well as we do that you dont have four friends.:-)
(With a Big Smile)

TexasSister Liz

unread,
Jan 11, 2002, 7:20:36 PM1/11/02
to
Le Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:45:12 +0000, Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@noos.fr
a écrit :

>
>Oh, all right, Jigsaw; you can come out. But it'll cost you ! You have
>to take out a lifetime membership of Amnesty International, promise to
>vote Democrat, and send that 16-year-old niece of yours around to give me
>a blowjob whenever I want one.
>
>Deal ?

Desmond! Isn't a 16 year old girl a bit young for you?

Then again, you are rather inexperienced. Carnal knowledge of Dolly doesn't
translate to human women.

Your sister,

Liz

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 13, 2002, 7:56:11 AM1/13/02
to
In article <slrna3ugcu.8n.p...@tortue.voute.net>,
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:

> Le Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:50:29 +1000, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>

> >> Desi...Desi... come one Desi...... its us....your fellow NG
> >> partcipants.....
> >> you know as well as we do that you dont have four friends.
>
> > A smiley might have been nice, Jiggy. Or are you being a grump as
> > well?
>

> Hmm, that little joke of Jigsaw's wasn't too bad ... it almost makes me
> wonder if he should still be in my killfile.

He shouldn't be. He says some very silly things but, when he's on form,
his funny asides generally make me laugh. Sometimes so hard that I
spray a large volume of whatever I'm drinking over a wide area.

> Oh, all right, Jigsaw; you can come out. But it'll cost you ! You have
> to take out a lifetime membership of Amnesty International, promise to
> vote Democrat, and send that 16-year-old niece of yours around to give me
> a blowjob whenever I want one.

Would you accept oral sex from a born and bred conservative, Des? You
ought to be ashamed of yourself!

Exador

unread,
Jan 14, 2002, 3:54:38 AM1/14/02
to
Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:

> In article <slrna3ugcu.8n.p...@tortue.voute.net>,
> pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
>
>
>>Le Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:50:29 +1000, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
>><dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>>
>>{ snip }
>>
>>
>>>>Desi...Desi... come one Desi...... its us....your fellow NG
>>>>partcipants.....
>>>>you know as well as we do that you dont have four friends.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>A smiley might have been nice, Jiggy. Or are you being a grump as
>>>well?
>>>
>>Hmm, that little joke of Jigsaw's wasn't too bad ... it almost makes me
>>wonder if he should still be in my killfile.
>>
>
> He shouldn't be. He says some very silly things but, when he's on form,
> his funny asides generally make me laugh. Sometimes so hard that I
> spray a large volume of whatever I'm drinking over a wide area.
>
>
>>Oh, all right, Jigsaw; you can come out. But it'll cost you ! You have
>>to take out a lifetime membership of Amnesty International, promise to
>>vote Democrat, and send that 16-year-old niece of yours around to give me
>>a blowjob whenever I want one.
>>
>
> Would you accept oral sex from a born and bred conservative, Des? You
> ought to be ashamed of yourself!


Not too old to be educated it would seem...

Cheers,
Craig

Rev. Don Kool

unread,
Jan 15, 2002, 7:31:58 PM1/15/02
to
Desi Coughlan wrote:

> Mr Q. Z. Diablo <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
> { snip }


>
>
>>My guess is that Des will have the mother, father, uncle, aunt and
>>granparents of all hangovers when he wakes up tomorrow.
>>
>

> No, in fact I don't get hangovers, as long as I stay away from spirits

> (which explains why I haven't drunk vodka since 1995, and whisky since
> 1998). Usually, after getting drunk, I'm up bright-eyed and
> bushy-tailed the next morning.


If only you could be on-topic. <sign>

> Today is no exception.


Sad, but true. :-(


[...remainder of Desi's off-topic and pathetic
details of his "life" snipped for bandwidth...]

Desi, the topic of this newsgroup is the just Death Penalty in the United
States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) not your
attempts to 12-step your way to sobriety.

In deference to the actual subject of this thread, it should be pointed
out that there has not been even a single case of an "innocent" man

being mistakenly executed in the United States (the greatest country on
the face of the Earth, BTW) since the just Death Penalty was reinstated
in the late 1970s.

Happy to have cleared things up for you,

dirtdog

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 8:58:21 PM1/28/02
to
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 07:29:11 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:

<snipped>
.

>
>Last night's little binge was combined with a network game of Age of
>Empires, and a few beers with my neighbour.

Do you play 'Shogun'?

w00f

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 9:47:59 PM1/28/02
to
In article <490c5uk3p8m1veng7...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
<dog.of.penet...@lovegod.cxm> wrote:

Do I detect a hint of a great war breaking out electronically across the
channel. Wouldn't be the first time England and France have been at
war...

William Robert

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 9:57:26 PM1/28/02
to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:47:59 GMT, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:

>In article <490c5uk3p8m1veng7...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
><dog.of.penet...@lovegod.cxm> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 07:29:11 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
>> <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>> .
>> >
>> >Last night's little binge was combined with a network game of Age of
>> >Empires, and a few beers with my neighbour.
>>
>> Do you play 'Shogun'?
>
>Do I detect a hint of a great war breaking out electronically across the
>channel. Wouldn't be the first time England and France have been at
>war...
>
>Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
>-- ((O))

Q.Z.D. why do you continue to post this off-topic gibberish?

Not only is it completely irrelevant here but it also fails completely
in its evident aim of not discrediting Desi.

William Robert

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

unread,
Jan 28, 2002, 10:48:55 PM1/28/02
to
In article <20020128215726...@mb-ch.aol.com>,
billy...@aol.comnotdonko (William Robert) wrote:

> Q.Z.D. why do you continue to post this off-topic gibberish?
>
> Not only is it completely irrelevant here but it also fails completely
> in its evident aim of not discrediting Desi.

Imitation is often the sincerest form of flattery but I'm afraid,
Donnie, that being imitated by a sad little printer ribbon changer like
yourself doesn't give me that warm, fuzzy feeling. :(

Give it up, Donnie. You've sunk to the level of a figure of fun,
impotently expressing your undoubted rage in the direction of your
betters.

Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
-- ((O))

John Rennie

unread,
Jan 29, 2002, 4:15:04 AM1/29/02
to

"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna5c1qp.h3.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:58:21 +0000, dirtdog
<dog.of.penet...@lovegod.cxm> a écrit :

>
> >>Last night's little binge was combined with a network game of Age of
> >>Empires, and a few beers with my neighbour.
>
> > Do you play 'Shogun'?
>
> Nope. I'm a happy wee bunny at the moment, 'cos I finally got my
> laptop (Pentium 800, 256 MB RAM, the works ...) fixed, and so am sitting
> here with Age of Empires running, plus two ssh sessions into my server,
> ICQ, four or five instances of IE5.0, and am listening to a CD at the same
> time. No swapping whatsoever ... Luvverly ... :-)
>
> So what's 'Shogun', then ?
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan

Is this a similar game to Universalis Europa?


dirtdog

unread,
Jan 30, 2002, 9:00:04 PM1/30/02
to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:17:49 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:

<snipped>

> four or five instances of IE5.0,

What?

I thought you were a self respecting *nix bod.

How dare you darken your system with that fucking evil piece of code?

<snipped>

>
>So what's 'Shogun', then ?

Shogun, although nearly two years old, is a fucking brilliant game,
widely recognised as being the most realistic real time war game
about.

Your playing AOE suggested that you might be a bit of a strategy buff,
and every self respecting gaming nerd knows about Shogun. Evidently, I
was wrong.

w00f


PS- My hopeful question to you was simply meant in the spirit of
cross-channel friendship, and was not at all aimed at my wish to boost
my self esteem by hopefully showing my strategic genius by beating a
fellow poster in this ng. This has nothing to do with the fact that I
am consistently whipped by 14 year old Yank children, and then goaded
on that fact. Nothing at all. In fact, it doesn't even bother me.

dirtdog

unread,
Jan 30, 2002, 8:50:40 PM1/30/02
to
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:45:12 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:

<to Jiggy>

>and send that 16-year-old niece of yours around to give me
>a blowjob whenever I want one.

She's been round the clock already, Desmond - courtesy of my good
self.

The terms 'drives like a 40 year old' and 'in need of a full valet'
spring to mind.

w00f


A Planet Visitor

unread,
Feb 2, 2002, 8:58:49 PM2/2/02
to

"dirtdog" <dog.of.penet...@lovegod.cxm> wrote in message
news:6o8h5uciuk8pjlvo1...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 02:17:49 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
> <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > four or five instances of IE5.0,
>
> What?
>
> I thought you were a self respecting *nix bod.
>
> How dare you darken your system with that ****ing evil piece of code?

>
> <snipped>
>
> >
> >So what's 'Shogun', then ?
>
> Shogun, although nearly two years old, is a ****ing brilliant game,

> widely recognised as being the most realistic real time war game
> about.
>
> Your playing AOE suggested that you might be a bit of a strategy buff,
> and every self respecting gaming nerd knows about Shogun. Evidently, I
> was wrong.
>
> w00f
>
>
> PS- My hopeful question to you was simply meant in the spirit of
> cross-channel friendship, and was not at all aimed at my wish to boost
> my self esteem by hopefully showing my strategic genius by beating a
> fellow poster in this ng. This has nothing to do with the fact that I
> am consistently whipped by 14 year old Yank children, and then goaded
> on that fact. Nothing at all. In fact, it doesn't even bother me.
>

Sorry, dirt, but this is *OFF TOPIC*.

The topic of this newsgroup is the just retention of the death penalty
for those murderers who have murdered in the most disgusting and
sickening manner. There are many alternative newsgroups in which you
and your fellow anal-retentives may discuss matters such as those you
raised here.

PV


dirtdog

unread,
Feb 3, 2002, 8:35:11 PM2/3/02
to
On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 01:58:49 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:

<snipped>

> who have murdered in the most disgusting and
>sickening manner.

You cant even resist inserting a bit of needless morality presented as
fact in a bit of pointless trolling, can you?

>
>PV


w00f


A Planet Visitor

unread,
Feb 4, 2002, 1:53:35 AM2/4/02
to

"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:j8pr5u0p7h8lcitrg...@4ax.com...
A little bit of morality is NEVER needless, my son. You
should realize how much you are in need of a 'great deal
of it' ... shouldn't you??? Pay attention during Don's next
sermon. Perhaps you'll learn something of 'irony.'

PV

John Rennie

unread,
Feb 4, 2002, 6:40:31 AM2/4/02
to

"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:Pdq78.203363$_w.33...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
ROTFLMAO


0 new messages