American Blacks and Drugs
Earl Evleth
While reading a book I recently furnished "Punishment in America" by
Michael Welch I ran into the following on page 43.
"Blacks represent 12% of the US population, 13% of the drug users,
35% of the arrests for possession, 55% percent of the convictions,
and 74% of the sentences for drug possession".
This claim is then backed up by 5 published academic studies.
This remark follows my own claim that in the USA, Blacks are
overarrested, overcharged and oversentenced for the same crimes
as Whites.
I have not read the primary studies but have run into figures
of this kind before.
What is clear if these numbers are correct, that if one stops 100 Black
drivers and search their vehicles, on the average one will get evidence
to arrest 13 of them. The figures for whites might be close to the same
but in not stopping them, one does not run the risk of having to arrest
them!
In fact, the following tables show how this is done. Blacks are
preferentially stopped. What is missing is the figures on
how many of the Blacks stopped were arrested for drug possession.
One might guess the progam was successful, all the more so
if the serious searches of Whites were neglected. Also what is
not generally mentioned is the legality of stopping and searching
without (authentic) probable cause. Judging from the comments
of a black friend subjected to a number of DWB stops, the cops
think up something. There are numerous "ain`t it awful" stories
and some of them are published in a recent book "Driving While
Black" by Kennethy Meeks, Broadway Books (2000).
If anybody wants an explication of why Blacks are currently singled
out for "special treatment" I have a couple of thousand words on that
subject.
Earl
**********
Minorities Stopped on Illinois Highways Based
on field reports filed from 1987-1997
District % of Blacks % of Blacks stopped
in the district for Drug Search;
4 23.8% 61.4%
5 8.4% 27.5%
6 4.1% 23.6%
7 5.3% 14.1%
9 1.2% 24.7% .
10 6.6% 30.9%
11 13.6% 23.3%
12 1.2% 12.5%
13 4.5% 18.9%
17 0.8% 11.4%
18 1.0% 14.0%
LMac
ivory tower and are no longer a racist.
*plonk*
Mac
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5o2nv$mbr$1...@neon.noos.net...
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
wrote:
> Not worth a bottom post either. Earl, let me know when you are out of the
> ivory tower and are no longer a racist.
Didn't seem like a racist post to me but there you have it...
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
John Rennie
"LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3c7fa233$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
> Not worth a bottom post either. Earl, let me know when you are out of the
> ivory tower and are no longer a racist.
>
> *plonk*
>
> Mac
You have me completely non-plussed, Mac.
Please clarify.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:52:29 -0600, LMac <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit :
>
> > Not worth a bottom post either. Earl, let me know when you are out of
> > the
> > ivory tower and are no longer a racist.
> >
> > *plonk*
>
> I join with QZD and John, in wondering if you perhaps mistook Earl for
> someone else, Mac.
>
> Earl isn't everyone's cup of tea, but killfiling him, whilst continuing
> to
> read trolls like Drewl, Jigsaw, and Jedro ... well, as John says, could
> you clarify ?
I like Jiggy. He's a troll, but generally a polite and amusing troll.
I'm still working on giving him some therapy to snap him out of the
worship of all things Kool.
LMac
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:YhOf8.28157$Hg1.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
[rant]
Earl has a problem with white people in the US, and I don't tolerate bigotry
in my discussions. He quotes statistics and book passages from sources who
have never seen the inner city and would probably shit their pants if they
had to climb down from academia and do some hands-on research. Criminals are
criminals, regardless of their color, and I have no intention of listening
to any more of his drivel.
[/rant]
On the saner side, John. You would not believe how many times I get hit with
"You're only doing this to me because I'm black". Utter nonsense, and
either: a) judgementalism of the lowest order; or b) a lame attempt to set
up some type of bullshit defense to prosecution. I have no doubt that
prejudice is alive and well in the US, but to label us all with the same
brush is tantamount to hypocrisy.
Mac
John Rennie
"LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:3c7fb...@newsa.ev1.net...
Earl's a boring silly old tick who, occasionally, posts something of
interest. I agree with you about his love of statistics which he can
screw up now and again. His view of America seems to be stuck roundabout
the mix-sixties when he left her and he cant help taking a cheap shot at his
birth country sometimes. However you surely must agree that not all
policemen are as fair and open minded as yourself and that blacks are often
singled out for suspicion before whites in lots of situations.
It happens that way in this country and policemen friends of mine actually
agree but also defend themselves vigorously. They point out, with some
force, that muggings in London are mostly carried out by blacks (85%?) so
they cant be blamed if they appear to show prejudice when handling street
crime. I do wish that the old PV would post on a thread like this. He
has more to say of value on this subject than most. (Oh yes - don't
killfile Earl.)
LMac
Believe it or not, John, the face of the average American policeman is
changing. The rookies now are better educated and get inundated with
sensitivity training. In most metro areas there are a large number (usually
disproportionately so) of minority officers. The fact that police often stop
people who look out of place is common knowledge. The problem is that the
white people who are stopped when they are out of place rarely say anything
about it and so it is not common knowledge.
Mac
A Planet Visitor
> ivory tower and are no longer a racist.
>
> *plonk*
>
> Mac
>
been examining Earl's posts that long. He has this
VERY condescending manner when addressing
Black/White issues. Presumably believing he holds
a liberal, racial understanding viewpoint. Yet he
refers to Blacks as 'Black folks,' in an archaic display
of patronizing that race.
But I would suggest you NOT *plonk* but continue
to CALL HIM when he enters the 'twilight zone.'
PV
>
> "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> news:a5o2nv$mbr$1...@neon.noos.net...
<krap klipped>
JIGSAW1695
>From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr
>Date: 3/1/2002 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrna7vgs5.d3t.p...@tortue.voute.net>
>
>Le Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:26:35 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>
>{ snip }
>
>> His view of America seems to be stuck roundabout
>> the mix-sixties when he left her
>
>John.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
==================
Jesus Dezi. Has any one ever told you that you are a real maroon!.
Er.....maybe I should make that...."Jesus Dezi. How many times have people told
you what a maroon you are"?
LMac
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:aDPf8.8899$TV4.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3c7fa233$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
> > Not worth a bottom post either. Earl, let me know when you are out of
the
> > ivory tower and are no longer a racist.
> >
> > *plonk*
> >
> > Mac
> >
> Good call, Mac. You picked up on that fact, yet haven't
> been examining Earl's posts that long. He has this
> VERY condescending manner when addressing
> Black/White issues. Presumably believing he holds
> a liberal, racial understanding viewpoint. Yet he
> refers to Blacks as 'Black folks,' in an archaic display
> of patronizing that race.
>
> But I would suggest you NOT *plonk* but continue
> to CALL HIM when he enters the 'twilight zone.'
>
Well, with both you and John speaking up about NOT plonking him, I suppose I
should 'unplonk' him.
*unplonk*
Mac
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrna7vd18.csm.p...@tortue.voute.net>
Le Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:52:29 -0600, LMac <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit :
> Not worth a bottom post either. Earl, let me know when you are out of the
> ivory tower and are no longer a racist.
>
> *plonk*
I join with QZD and John, in wondering if you perhaps mistook Earl for
someone else, Mac.
Earl isn't everyone's cup of tea, but killfiling him, whilst continuing to
read trolls like Drewl, Jigsaw, and Jedro ... well, as John says, could
you clarify ?
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
=============================
Troll? Moi?? Nonsense!!
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrna7vgqd.d3t.p...@tortue.voute.net>
Le Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:01:50 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
{ snip }
> I like Jiggy.
Yes, but you like everyone, for fuck's sake !! You're too bloody nice,
that's your problem, mate.
{ snip }
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
We can take from Dezi then... A little hate is good for the soul. What a
maroon.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 3/1/2002 9:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <diablo-F1B65E....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
In article <slrna7vd18.csm.p...@tortue.voute.net>,
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:52:29 -0600, LMac <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit :
>
> > Not worth a bottom post either. Earl, let me know when you are out of
> > the
> > ivory tower and are no longer a racist.
> >
> > *plonk*
>
> I join with QZD and John, in wondering if you perhaps mistook Earl for
> someone else, Mac.
>
> Earl isn't everyone's cup of tea, but killfiling him, whilst continuing
> to
> read trolls like Drewl, Jigsaw, and Jedro ... well, as John says, could
> you clarify ?
I like Jiggy. He's a troll, but generally a polite and amusing troll.
I'm still working on giving him some therapy to snap him out of the
worship of all things Kool.
Mr Q. Z. D.
===========================
I appreciate the help Q. However, my shrink told me that I should try to be a
little more agressive. It well help my co-dependence and layed back
personality.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 3/1/2002 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <3c7fc...@newsa.ev1.net>
*unplonk*
M
==============================
Thanks...Earl is a living link to the past, an artifact if you please. Though
we disagree with him because he is wrong, he is fine example of the old
Americal Liberal Guilt Sydrome.
Jigsaw
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <3c7fb...@newsa.ev1.net>, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit
> He quotes statistics and book passages from sources who
> have never seen the inner city and would probably shit their pants if they
> had to climb down from academia and do some hands-on research.
That is not true. For instance, Wacquant worked in the ghettos of Chicago
to collect his data. So this is not all working from Government statistics
in the office. Miller who wrote " Search and Destroy" was a prison
administrator several time, he has one of the top and best cited book in the
area. What in fact to you know about social scientists? Do you know any
of them? Yours was a cheap and uninformed shot.
On the other hand, of the people who communicate on this news group, does
anybody now have hands on activity with people in prison? In our
case we can say yes, but I think almost everybody that communicates
here is just sitting and typing on their machine.
Earl
LMac
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5oudn$bmu$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> Dans l'article <3c7fb...@newsa.ev1.net>, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> a
écrit
>
> > He quotes statistics and book passages from sources who
> > have never seen the inner city and would probably shit their pants if
they
> > had to climb down from academia and do some hands-on research.
>
> That is not true. For instance, Wacquant worked in the ghettos of Chicago
> to collect his data. So this is not all working from Government
statistics
> in the office. Miller who wrote " Search and Destroy" was a prison
> administrator several time, he has one of the top and best cited book in
the
> area. What in fact to you know about social scientists? Do you know any
> of them? Yours was a cheap and uninformed shot.
Prison administrators don't know squat except what's told to them by their
underlings, they are bureaucrats of the worst type. Spending a little time
in one ghetto in a country of 255 million, identified as a 'Social
Scientist' engaging in research to help the poor and downtrodden doesn't
_seem_ like the best way to gather objective data. If he was disguised as a
wino or something I might entertain the idea that his data was relevant.
> On the other hand, of the people who communicate on this news group, does
> anybody now have hands on activity with people in prison? In our
> case we can say yes, but I think almost everybody that communicates
> here is just sitting and typing on their machine.
>
> Earl
Actually I have over 20 years (and counting) experience putting them there
(in some cases over and over again). Put that in your briar pipe and smoke
it.
Mac
Exador
> Le Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:01:50 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
>
>>I like Jiggy.
>>
>
> Yes, but you like everyone, for fuck's sake !! You're too bloody nice,
> that's your problem, mate.
>
> { snip }
>
>
He _has_ to like everyone, he comes from Tasmania. Down there, being
"sent to Coventry" means being kicked out of the family :-).
Cheers,
Craig
EndlsRayne
>(in some cases over and over again)
I think this is also one of the factors that contribute to our high crime
rate. After a criminal has gotten away (or gotten a short sentence) with all
sorts of other crimes why wouldn't he expect to get away with murder?
ER
--------
"I hate (expletive) loaded guns and I will blow this building up!" - Johnny Ray
Gobin
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <3c800...@newsa.ev1.net>, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit
:
> Actually I have over 20 years (and counting) experience putting them there
> (in some cases over and over again). Put that in your briar pipe and smoke
> it.
Not specific, you are the one blowing smoke.
Americans generally bullshit, fake CVs, IDs, claims. You don`t even use a
real name, like PV and Jigsaw. But what you said about criminologists is
bullshit and speaks to a lack of your knowledge of the methodology employed.
Sounds like ex-cop talk.
Are you saying that a guy like Jerome Miller, who direction the juvenile
detention systems of Illinois and Massacusetts, and currently president
of the National Center on Insitutions and Alternatives is for naught?
You are using a typical "attack the messenger" technique and not dealing
with the data I published about drug arrests, conviction and sentencing.
You are just saying "it ain't true". If you have comparable data present
it. But there is intellectually dishonest to attack researchers and not
deal with their data.
I`ll cut my contribution to the debat off there. Nobody sofar has dealt
with the facts I presented, typically sending the discussion off
on a tangent which involves off the top of the head comments, no homework.
Earl
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <20020301175959...@mb-ml.aol.com>,
endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
> I think this is also one of the factors that contribute to our high crime
> rate. After a criminal has gotten away (or gotten a short sentence) with all
> sorts of other crimes why wouldn't he expect to get away with murder?
Simple, the arrest and conviction rates on murder are much higher than
on any other crime type. Closure rates are over 50% on murder.
Still many criminals have a poor sense of the future or probabilty of
getting caught at any crime. Americans are perpetual optimists, and
this overlaps onto American criminal culture. But it is general
in the case of "punk" level crimes, often spontaeneous, or poorly
planned and executed.
The facts are that those criminals who are "series" criminals, i.e; more
professional (example: pickpockets, burglars, car thieves), are eventually
caught. It is like Russian Roulette. They get away with their crimes and
yet most do not become murderers. They serve their time, get out and
try again.
Traditionally, professional burglars never even carried arms since the
charges against them went up if they were arrested also with arms.
Also, the chance that they might use them went up and they did not
want to end up with a murder charge. More over the practiced
professional criminal will stick to his line of "work". Those who
do armed robberies are more likely to find a situation which goes
bad and they end up shooting somebody.
An older book I found useful on classing different criminal types
was Charles Silberman's "Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice"
published in 1978 by Vintage Press. Although we seem to be focused
on punk type criminals now, professionals still exist. The TV
series Soprano is overdone but does point out the more professional
side of things.
Earl
JIGSAW1695
From: "Earl Evleth" dev...@noos.fr
Date: 3/2/2002 2:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <a5q5k0$f8l$1...@hadron.noos.net>
<< Snipped>>
I`ll cut my contribution to the debat off there. Nobody sofar has dealt
with the facts I presented, typically sending the discussion off
on a tangent which involves off the top of the head comments, no homework.
Earl
===============================
Thank God! Earl has finally seen the light and will no longer give us his long
winded speechs. (I hope thats what his comment means, anyway)
EndlsRayne
>Simple, the arrest and conviction rates on murder are much higher than
>on any other crime type. Closure rates are over 50% on murder.
Yes, but prior to that the criminal doesn't know what the court will do. You
have to consider if criminals were really good at planning and collecting
statistics then they probably wouldn't be into a life of crime.
>Americans are perpetual optimists, and
>this overlaps onto American criminal culture.
and into the juries and legal system
> But it is general
>in the case of "punk" level crimes, often spontaeneous, or poorly
>planned and executed.
exactly.
>The TV
>series Soprano is overdone but does point out the more professional
>side of things.
True, but it is a TV show, consider it to be as realistic as Star Trek.
John Rennie
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5q5k0$f8l$1...@hadron.noos.net...
>
> Dans l'article <3c800...@newsa.ev1.net>, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> a
écrit
> :
>
>
> > Actually I have over 20 years (and counting) experience putting them
there
> > (in some cases over and over again). Put that in your briar pipe and
smoke
> > it.
>
> Not specific, you are the one blowing smoke.
>
> Americans generally bullshit, fake CVs, IDs, claims. You don`t even use
a
> real name, like PV and Jigsaw.
Ignoring the fact that Planet Visitor and Jigsaw are not
real names, I would think it very unwise if Mac, a serving
cop, used his real name on Usenet.
yours_most_truly
>
> "Earl Evleth" wrote:
> >
> > Dans l'article "LMac" a ecrit:
> >
> > > Actually I have over 20 years (and counting) experience putting them
> there
> > > (in some cases over and over again). Put that in your briar pipe and
> smoke
> > > it.
> >
> > Not specific, you are the one blowing smoke.
> >
> > Americans generally bullshit, fake CVs, IDs, claims. You don`t even
use
> a
> > real name, like PV and Jigsaw.
>
> real names, I would think it very unwise if Mac, a serving
> cop, used his real name on Usenet.
>
incredible on matters which s/he asserts to be "personal knowledge" or
"experience." If "LMac" is a "serving cop" in an American law
enforcement agency, then: (a) His identity (as opposed to locators) is
already quite ascertainable to those whom he has arrested,
investigated, and/or who had cases in which he was a material and
percipient witness. So his only real concerns would be that his
opinions would put him at odds with his superiors or be used to
impeach his credibility in pending cases. (b) He would know that
assertions by anonymous and untested informants are probative of
nothing. They are at best merely investigative leads, at worst
disinformation and a waste of time.
In logic as well as law, the truth value of any given assertion is
*not* corroborated by assertions from the same source. Richard
Jackson freely relies on his own personal experiences in defending his
opinions. True, he often fails to discern the difference between the
usefulness of personal (as opposed to typical) experiences in making
generalizations, but since he identifies himself he neither affects as
a fool nor presumes that anybody who bothers to read his posts must be
one. The same cannot be said of "LMac," "Jigsaw," or "Planet
Visitor." Unless, of course, those *are* their real names!
A Planet Visitor
to a lesser degree. And I don't CARE what anyone thinks
about me. Since it's a strawman argument... TOTALLY and
FUNDAMENTALLY. There is NO hiding from the words,
regardless of any other perception. There is only an
EXCUSE that, because the author has preferred to remain
anonymous, one may hide FROM those words.
And I would think that Earl, in his professed belief in all
liberal causes, would be the LAST to argue that an
expression of a viewpoint must be dismissed because
the one presenting that viewpoint did not provide his
identity. Such a thought actually runs counter to the principle
of 'free speech.' The words, ideas and concepts presented
are what need to be examined. Not the rather intrusive
belief that the identify must be provided to obtain substance
to the truth. The WORDS stand independent from those
who say those words. I can argue my words, which I will
be the first to admit, can be difficult enough as it is... But
I need NOT argue my identity.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"yours_most_truly" <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:d9253152.02030...@posting.google.com...
PV
EndlsRayne
>And I don't CARE what anyone thinks
>about me. Since it's a strawman argument..
If this is about "you don't post under your real name" I agree. For all we
know, Despond is really someone who does not like the REAL Mr Coughlan and has
set out to make him look bad on the internet.
dirtdog
Phew, and you say that I am mad?
Cuckoo.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5q5k0$f8l$1...@hadron.noos.net...
>
> Dans l'article <3c800...@newsa.ev1.net>, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit
> :
>
>
> > Actually I have over 20 years (and counting) experience putting them there
> > (in some cases over and over again). Put that in your briar pipe and smoke
> > it.
>
> Not specific, you are the one blowing smoke.
>
Need I mention -- POT....KETTLE...BLACK.
<clipped>
> You are using a typical "attack the messenger" technique
OH MY GOD!!!! Earl claims SOMEONE ELSE uses
an 'attack the messenger' technique. Need I mention --
POT... KETTLE... BLACK.
<rest of unless argument clipped>
PV
> Earl
JIGSAW1695
From: asc...@zdnetonebox.com (yours_most_truly)
Date: 3/2/2002 9:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <d9253152.02030...@posting.google.com>
==============================
Sorry kid...cops and ex-cops are normaly a suspicious, slightly paranoid lot.
There are people out there who dont like them. Their tehier telephone numbers
are non-published and private.
When an officer testifys in court, he is not required to give his home address
or any personal information...thats the state law. When asked what his address
is, the correct reply is the address of the law enforcement agency he works out
of.
Jigsaw
William Robert
wrote:
>
>Very informative, Jigsaw. Just one thing, though: your telephone number
>could quite easily stay secret, and you could post your real name here.
>Also, that doesn't explain Jedro's desire not to use his real name. Or is
>the Agency also as careful about the security of its 'ex-spooks' ..?
Desi, I'll be at the Farnborough air show in July. See you there or if
necessary I can meet in in France. I have your address.
Tnx
William Robert
yours_most_truly
>
> "yours_most_truly" wrote
:
> > "John Rennie" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Earl Evleth" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dans l'article "LMac" a ecrit:
> > > >
> > > there
> > > > > (in some cases over and over again). Put that in your briar pipe and
> > > smoke
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Not specific, you are the one blowing smoke.
> > > >
> > > > Americans generally bullshit, fake CVs, IDs, claims. You don`t even
> > use
> > > a
> > > > real name, like PV and Jigsaw.
> > >
> > > Ignoring the fact that Planet Visitor and Jigsaw are not
> > > real names, I would think it very unwise if Mac, a serving
> > > cop, used his real name on Usenet.
> > >
> > incredible on matters which s/he asserts to be "personal knowledge" or
> > "experience." If "LMac" is a "serving cop" in an American law
> > enforcement agency, then: (a) His identity (as opposed to locators) is
> > already quite ascertainable to those whom he has arrested,
> > investigated, and/or who had cases in which he was a material and
> > percipient witness. So his only real concerns would be that his
> > opinions would put him at odds with his superiors or be used to
> > impeach his credibility in pending cases. (b) He would know that
> > assertions by anonymous and untested informants are probative of
> > nothing. They are at best merely investigative leads, at worst
> > disinformation and a waste of time.
> >
> > In logic as well as law, the truth value of any given assertion is
> > *not* corroborated by assertions from the same source. Richard
> > Jackson freely relies on his own personal experiences in defending his
> > opinions. True, he often fails to discern the difference between the
> > usefulness of personal (as opposed to typical) experiences in making
> > generalizations, but since he identifies himself he neither affects as
> > a fool nor presumes that anybody who bothers to read his posts must be
> > one. The same cannot be said of "LMac," "Jigsaw," or "Planet
> > Visitor." Unless, of course, those *are* their real names!
> >
>
> PV
>
post had nothing to do with pseudonyms per se, it had everything to do
with their *misuse,* which I have carefully avoided (although I did
enter an arguably gray area in one instance). And I distinctly
recall an exchange in this newsgroup awhile back where I contributed a
US Supreme Court citation which confirmed the constitutional right to
engage anonymously in political speech, and the reasons why. Most of
your posting shenanigans are "political" only in the sense that
*anything* a troll posts can be so styled, which obviously robs the
word "political" of all meaning.
If you believe the truism that "ideas are not responsible for those
who have them," why have you bothered to continuously and anonymously
post your personal history? It might or might not be true in whole or
part, but you've supplied nothing which negates the possibility that
you're just a layabout troll who's adopted the persona of an angry and
noisy grandpa or granduncle for your silly posturings. The only way to
negate that is for you to supply identifiers which can be
independently confirmed, and until you do you stay in the Bozo Zone.
yours_most_truly
<snipped>
>
> Sorry kid...cops and ex-cops are normaly a suspicious, slightly paranoid lot.
> There are people out there who dont like them. Their tehier telephone numbers
> are non-published and private.
>
> When an officer testifys in court, he is not required to give his home address
> or any personal information...thats the state law. When asked what his address
> is, the correct reply is the address of the law enforcement agency he works out
> of.
>
> Jigsaw
I don't know what you're "sorry" about since nothing you wrote
disagrees with what I posted, Jigsaurus. Unless you meant to imply
that in American courts cops can fake their names and testify wearing
paper bags over their heads.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) wrote:
> "A Planet Visitor" abc...@abcxyz.com writes:
>
> >And I don't CARE what anyone thinks
> >about me. Since it's a strawman argument..
>
> If this is about "you don't post under your real name" I agree. For all
> we
> know, Despond is really someone who does not like the REAL Mr Coughlan
> and has
> set out to make him look bad on the internet.
Des is who he says he is. I know that Earl, Donna and myself can
confirm that much. I'm fairly sure that John has almost
incontravertible proof, too.
One thing is for certain, matey, and that is that _you_ don't use a real
name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_ and, I
must observe, you do it so _well_.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
A Planet Visitor
"William Robert" <billy...@aol.comnotdonko> wrote in message
news:20020302164823...@mb-fc.aol.com...
Ouch!!!
PV
> Tnx
>
> William Robert
>
EndlsRayne
>One thing is for certain, matey, and that is that _you_ don't use a real
>name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_ and, I
>must observe, you do it so _well_.
More of that great Australian logic.
William Robert
wrote:
>Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:16:08 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
>>> >Very informative, Jigsaw. Just one thing, though: your telephone number
>>> >could quite easily stay secret, and you could post your real name here.
>>> >Also, that doesn't explain Jedro's desire not to use his real name. Or is
>>> >the Agency also as careful about the security of its 'ex-spooks' ..?
>
>>> Desi, I'll be at the Farnborough air show in July. See you there or if
>>> necessary I can meet in in France. I have your address.
>
>> Ouch!!!
>
>More like, 'Haaaahhhaaaaahaaaaa !!!!!!!!'
Desi, would you like me to bring you something?
BTW, you can invite the little dirt dog if you like. I'll bet you are a cute
couple.
William Robert
A Planet Visitor
"yours_most_truly" <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:d9253152.02030...@posting.google.com...
> >
> Surprise me and don't be childish for once. The entire thrust of my
> post had nothing to do with pseudonyms per se, it had everything to do
> with their *misuse,* which I have carefully avoided (although I did
> enter an arguably gray area in one instance). And I distinctly
> recall an exchange in this newsgroup awhile back where I contributed a
> US Supreme Court citation which confirmed the constitutional right to
> engage anonymously in political speech, and the reasons why. Most of
> your posting shenanigans are "political" only in the sense that
> *anything* a troll posts can be so styled, which obviously robs the
> word "political" of all meaning.
ROTFLMAO. Do you see how YOU have defined terms the
way YOU wish them to BE defined? No wonder I find you sorely
lacking in debating skills. Having none, actually. Relying only
on some trite phrases, insults, and a deep and abiding hatred
for the U.S., perhaps formed from the early abandonment by
your American Military Father.
> If you believe the truism that "ideas are not responsible for those
> who have them,"
That's hardly a 'truism' but an observation by Don Marquis.
"An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it." I
much prefer "An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of
being called an idea" Oscar Wilde.... Or "We do not HAVE
an idea... the idea has US.. and martyrs US... and scourges
US... and drives US... into the arena to fight and die for it,
whether we want to or not." Heinrich Heine.
> why have you bothered to continuously and anonymously
> post your personal history? It might or might not be true in whole or
> part, but you've supplied nothing which negates the possibility that
> you're just a layabout troll who's adopted the persona of an angry and
> noisy grandpa or granduncle for your silly posturings. The only way to
> negate that is for you to supply identifiers which can be
> independently confirmed, and until you do you stay in the Bozo Zone.
>
I have said this before... you may assume I am whoever you
wish I am. I do not need to justify WHAT I say, to ANYONE
here, by offering WHO I am. It adds NOTHING to it, and
I even believe it detracts from objectivity. Believe what you
will about me, because it's intrusive, rude and ill-bred to
remark that words demand the person behind the words.
Thus I can see why you would bring it up.
We don't ask that of a dead philosopher... his words speak
FOR him. Whether you see me in that light is completely
immaterial to the point. WHY -- Is the question that needs
to be asked. What PURPOSE would it serve to just give
you a name? Suppose I said my name is Paul Visconti.
And that's why I've taken the handle PV. What does that do
for you? Are you about to cream in your jeans? Can you
find more substance to a first name and a last name?
TRUTH is I may well be a monk finding a diversion,
or a pimp waiting for his whore to return. Truth is I may
well be an abolitionist trying to find substance to my
argument by playing the devil's advocate. You must feel
quite impotent to believe you cannot win an argument with
someone who actually believes as you do, but just wants to
see if YOU know what you're talking about. The WORDS, you
moron... deal with the WORDS. Something you are obviously
unable to do, thus needing to find an ephemeral crutch to
hang on to.
It would perhaps be different if what I relate could
lend any more 'majesty' to my presence, as Earl always
tries to do. But, I do not pose my past in pompous terms.
Quite the opposite, I am of the proletariat, a very ordinary
blue-collar background, not overly intelligent, but believe
I've been very fortunate in the choices I've made with the
limitations I know I have. I have been utterly destroyed
in arguments at points in my life. Fortunately, you do not
possess the ability to do so. I certainly do not consider
myself an 'elitist,' as you and others I see from the other
side of the pond have tried to posture yourselves.
What is so SPECIAL about who I am, to you, that you've
become so involved in it? What SPECIFIC point about what
I've said causes you disbelief? That I speak three languages
quite fluently, and a fourth rather well? Assume I don't ... who
gives a rat's ass. I certainly don't think it's any great
accomplishment considering how and where I spent my youth,
and decades of my life. That I served 20 years in the military?
Get real... what advantage does that gain for me here?
Mostly it gains only ridicule. That I'm conservative and
more Republican in nature? Right... think about it, moron.
That I was a double E, in real life? And spent a major portion
of my life working with the military? Gee.. why wouldn't I just
claim to be an anonymous professor, and refuse to prove that
as well? That I'm now 68 years-old? What advantage does
THAT provide me? Age is universally laughed at by the young
(immature). The same goes for all my other remarks that
I've made. Whether you ACCEPT my image is entirely up to you.
You've obviously rejected it, which bothers me not at all.
You may well take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, for all
I care.
Nonetheless, when I state some form of a connection to my
REAL self, it is to present an IMAGE which relates to the argument.
Whether you accept that I am who I am, you need to realize
that regardless, the POINT IS THE WORDS. Who I am
adds no validity to those words, but only a mental image
to THINK about those words. Unlike Earl and your good self
who present an image preening yourself before us all REGARDLESS
of the argument, while Earl seems to have an obsessive need to
learn my name as well. Perhaps I'll begin posting under Paul
Visconti. Would THAT make you happy? Generally, when one
posts for an extensive time, certain flaws can be detected in
what they claim. Find one... since I posted in other groups
using this SAME identity. In fact, I first drifted into this group
because I recognized Desmond to be a moron. The more things
change.... the more they stay the same. But the name doesn't
prove anything one way or the other. IT'S THE WORDS. All
the way down.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-F315A8....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <20020302143752...@mb-fb.aol.com>,
> endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) wrote:
>
> > "A Planet Visitor" abc...@abcxyz.com writes:
> >
> > >And I don't CARE what anyone thinks
> > >about me. Since it's a strawman argument..
> >
> > If this is about "you don't post under your real name" I agree. For all
> > we
> > know, Despond is really someone who does not like the REAL Mr Coughlan
> > and has
> > set out to make him look bad on the internet.
>
> Des is who he says he is. I know that Earl, Donna and myself can
> confirm that much. I'm fairly sure that John has almost
> incontravertible proof, too.
>
> One thing is for certain, matey, and that is that _you_ don't use a real
> name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_ and, I
> must observe, you do it so _well_.
ROTFLMAO... ummm.... pot... kettle... black.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:5ub28u8g2k3ka812n...@4ax.com...
Scotty? ****wit?
> Cuckoo.
>
Yes.. you truly ARE.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna82s1v.g3s.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:28:16 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Des is who he says he is. I know that Earl, Donna and myself can
> > confirm that much. I'm fairly sure that John has almost
> > incontravertible proof, too.
>
>
Ho hum. The new argument in AADP from abolitionists... Who
IS that guy? Shades of Butch Cassidy. Your arguments
(all of you) are becoming very feeble, if you ALL begin obsessing
about someone who is demolishing your arguments in respect
to the subject of this group. Not an original thought among all
of you, and deadly determined that none will be allowed here.
PV
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |BONEHEAD#1
A Planet Visitor
> Le 02 Mar 2002 21:19:14 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Sorry kid...cops and ex-cops are normaly a suspicious, slightly paranoid
lot.
> > There are people out there who dont like them. Their tehier telephone
numbers
> > are non-published and private.
> >
> > When an officer testifys in court, he is not required to give his home
address
> > or any personal information...thats the state law. When asked what his
address
> > is, the correct reply is the address of the law enforcement agency he works
out
> > of.
>
> could quite easily stay secret, and you could post your real name here.
> Also, that doesn't explain Jedro's desire not to use his real name. Or is
> the Agency also as careful about the security of its 'ex-spooks' ..?
>
than abolitionists, are slightly off-kilter. Certainly that's been
shown by the hate generated in MY direction. People who
devote so much time to creating WEB PAGES in the honor
of someone who exists only as a handle, can hardly be
described as 'evenly-balanced.' You haven't found me to
engage in such immature behavior. And who needs the
hassle? I do not wish to provide the feathers for the arrows
which some might presume to aim at me. I catch enough
here, without my e-mail, telephone, and regular mail being
flooded with insult. dirt, for example, would CERTAINLY
not be above such behavior... he has ALREADY proven that
with his behavior in another group uk.rec.body-building
under the name Quejul the vile, where he bothered a poster
in that group, who actually scared the shit out of dirt by calling
him out. This is the reply to dirt (who had assumed the handle
Quejul the vile)
---------------------------------------
MattMR2 <mr2t...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:coKn7.17300$iD.26...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Quejul, you are all mouth no action you fucking whore.
>
> I'll give you my number, no fucking problem.
> 01443 229898
> 07813 603 047
>
> Call me you fucking whore...let's get it on.
>
> cheers
> Matt (I love taking the bait)
----------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, dirt is STILL locking his door at night.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |BONEHEAD#1
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:16:08 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> >Very informative, Jigsaw. Just one thing, though: your telephone number
> >> >could quite easily stay secret, and you could post your real name here.
> >> >Also, that doesn't explain Jedro's desire not to use his real name. Or is
> >> >the Agency also as careful about the security of its 'ex-spooks' ..?
>
> >> Desi, I'll be at the Farnborough air show in July. See you there or if
> >> necessary I can meet in in France. I have your address.
>
> > Ouch!!!
>
>
Don't forget to lock your flat...
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>where he bothered a poster
>in that group, who actually scared the shit out of dirt by calling
>him out. This is the reply to dirt (who had assumed the handle
>Quejul the vile)
Desmond, I really would advise you to phone the number below. You will
find at the end of the phone a retarded Welsh boy whom PV now
idiolises because he was stupid enough to post his (real) phone number
on Usenet.
Go on, do it. Claim to be "Quejul the Vile", tell him that you want to
knock him out - listen to him make some stupid noises, flap and put
the phone down.
Then watch him post a made up version of the conversation on the above
newsgroup to try and look hard in front of his friends.
>
>---------------------------------------
>MattMR2 <mr2t...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:coKn7.17300$iD.26...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> Quejul, you are all mouth no action you fucking whore.
>>
>> I'll give you my number, no fucking problem.
>> 01443 229898
>> 07813 603 047
>>
>> Call me you fucking whore...let's get it on.
>>
>> cheers
>> Matt (I love taking the bait)
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Needless to say, dirt is STILL locking his door at night.
>
>
>PV
>
>> --
>> Desmond Coughlan |BONEHEAD#1
Thanks for posting that number again, PV. I'd lost it.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>Scotty?
Waaaaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Mummmmmppppphhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
It really is a shame that those involved in the backchannel
shenanegins that you're paranoia precludes you from know how far your
head's up your bum, PV.
Scott
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
>news:slrna82uuv.g75.p...@tortue.voute.net...
>> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:16:08 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
>écrit :
>>
>> >> >Very informative, Jigsaw. Just one thing, though: your telephone number
>> >> >could quite easily stay secret, and you could post your real name here.
>> >> >Also, that doesn't explain Jedro's desire not to use his real name. Or is
>> >> >the Agency also as careful about the security of its 'ex-spooks' ..?
>>
>> >> Desi, I'll be at the Farnborough air show in July. See you there or if
>> >> necessary I can meet in in France. I have your address.
>>
>> > Ouch!!!
>>
>> More like, 'Haaaahhhaaaaahaaaaa !!!!!!!!'
>>
>Don't forget to lock your flat...
>
Tell me, PV.
Are you alligning yourself with Don?
Are you condoning his stalking of Desmond, which always resorts in
silly physical threats when he realises that his trolling is of such
low quality that no-one even feels a desire to respond to it?
I hope not. Your credibility is low, but it can always get worse.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
believes that you'd take a chance on him having 'caller id' now?
You're a troll, dirt. An impotent troll now. Having lost any
advantage you might have presumed you had. You've been
spanked so badly in arguments related to the subject of this
group, that you've had to revert to form. Unfortunately, you
now longer have the fine edge of obscenity you had before.
Now you just look rather pathetically sick.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
Gotcha!!!!
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 03:54:45 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> >news:slrna82uuv.g75.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> >> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:16:08 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
> >écrit :
> >>
> >> >> >Very informative, Jigsaw. Just one thing, though: your telephone
number
> >> >> >could quite easily stay secret, and you could post your real name here.
> >> >> >Also, that doesn't explain Jedro's desire not to use his real name. Or
is
> >> >> >the Agency also as careful about the security of its 'ex-spooks' ..?
> >>
> >> >> Desi, I'll be at the Farnborough air show in July. See you there or if
> >> >> necessary I can meet in in France. I have your address.
> >>
> >> > Ouch!!!
> >>
> >> More like, 'Haaaahhhaaaaahaaaaa !!!!!!!!'
> >>
> >Don't forget to lock your flat...
> >
>
> Tell me, PV.
>
> Are you alligning yourself with Don?
Are YOU aligning yourself with desilu?
Obviously YOU ARE.
>
> Are you condoning his stalking of Desmond, which always resorts in
> silly physical threats when he realises that his trolling is of such
> low quality that no-one even feels a desire to respond to it?
>
> I hope not. Your credibility is low, but it can always get worse.
>
ROTFLMAO. You stupid shit.
PV
> w00f
>
>
EndlsRayne
>> One thing is for certain, matey, and that is that _you_ don't use a real
>> name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_ and, I
>> must observe, you do it so _well_.
>
>ROTFLMAO... ummm.... pot... kettle... black.
>
you know I'm still laughing about this line :
> _you_ don't use a real
>> name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_
I will admit, I didn't expect some of you to get so defensive over this
comment, which was more of a joke than a serious remark. In fact, I figured
Desi would get a laugh out of me reffering to him as "Mr. Coughlan"
EndlsRayne
> The new argument in AADP from abolitionists... Who
>IS that guy?
yes it is a bad argument, because this is the Internet and some people will
want to be anonymous. What the anti DP folks don't seem to realize is that they
have that same privilege but many of them have decided to give it up. And of
course like many of their other beliefs , once they decide to do it, it should
apply to everyone.
John Rennie
> That could very well be. But the fact is retentionists, more
> than abolitionists, are slightly off-kilter.
I agree.
EndlsRayne
>You figured wrong, trollboy. Try again.
Yeah I guess so , extending such a foul creature as you any charity of
character was a mistake.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
You daft, forgetful old man.
I understand what the ravages of time can do to the body and mind, PV,
but I thought that you'd remember what you said only 4 or so months
ago.
You see, last time we discussed this, you accepted that I had rang
him, and babbled about how that this conclusively proves he is a hero
because the number he posted really was his own. I think you even went
off and had a wank over that picture of the fat twat on that web site.
Isn't it wonderful how a pompous old pseudo intellectual like you can
idiolise a Taffy simpleton?
Yet now, I haven't rang him at all. Spooky.
So, did I ring him, or didn't I? Could you make your mind up, please?
<PV having the bare faced cheek to accuse another of trolling snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
news:20020303065322...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" abc...@abcxyz.com writes:
>
> > The new argument in AADP from abolitionists... Who
> >IS that guy?
>
> yes it is a bad argument, because this is the Internet and some people will
> want to be anonymous. What the anti DP folks don't seem to realize is that
they
> have that same privilege but many of them have decided to give it up. And of
> course like many of their other beliefs , once they decide to do it, it should
> apply to everyone.
>
be considered what is EXACTLY what I intend it to be
considered as --
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority... It thus
exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First
Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from
retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of
an intolerant society."
--- U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
I see much tyranny in the majority in this group, who are
mostly from foreign countries, and totally intolerant of
different viewpoints. When will they look in the mirror
and recognize that what they're doing is the SAME THING
that they criticize the U.S. of doing?
>
PV
PS -- I also see them becoming a mite more hysterical with
the arguments presented by you and Mac.
A Planet Visitor
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
> "A Planet Visitor" abc...@abcxyz.com writes:
>
>
>
> >> One thing is for certain, matey, and that is that _you_ don't use a real
> >> name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_ and, I
> >> must observe, you do it so _well_.
> >
> >ROTFLMAO... ummm.... pot... kettle... black.
> >
>
> you know I'm still laughing about this line :
>
> > _you_ don't use a real
> >> name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_
>
> I will admit, I didn't expect some of you to get so defensive over this
> comment, which was more of a joke than a serious remark. In fact, I figured
> Desi would get a laugh out of me reffering to him as "Mr. Coughlan"
>
points that he doesn't recognize what he ACTUALLY is saying.
PV
dirtdog
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:
>Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 18:35:47 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> I will admit, I didn't expect some of you to get so defensive over this
>>> comment, which was more of a joke than a serious remark. In fact, I figured
>>> Desi would get a laugh out of me reffering to him as "Mr. Coughlan"
>
>> Mr. D. sometimes become so emotional about meaningless
>> points that he doesn't recognize what he ACTUALLY is saying.
>
>Which isn't all that surprising, Jed, bearing in mind that I'm not
>'saying', I am typing. Not all of us need to say the letters out loud,
>as we write (or type).
LOL!
You can imagine him doing it, can't you?
Do you think he says the letter louder when it's capitalised, or does
he just raise the pitch of his voice?
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> Le 03 Mar 2002 11:42:34 GMT, EndlsRayne <endls...@aol.combustion> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> _you_ don't use a real
> >>> name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_
>
> > I will admit, I didn't expect some of you to get so defensive over this
> > comment, which was more of a joke than a serious remark. In fact, I figured
> > Desi would get a laugh out of me reffering to him as "Mr. Coughlan"
>
>
someday come to an understanding of that. In the meantime
I'll be praying for your soul. This responsibility obviously
lasts lifelong. Be at peace, my son.
A Planet Visitor
>
> > That could very well be. But the fact is retentionists, more
> > than abolitionists, are slightly off-kilter.
>
> I agree.
>
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 05:02:38 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Of course... give him a ring... you silly shit... You think ANYBODY
> > believes that you'd take a chance on him having 'caller id' now?
>
>
> AFAIK, of course.
>
They are both living in the U.K.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
going to a pay phone, or blocking 'caller ID.'
> <PV having the bare faced cheek to accuse another of trolling snipped>
>
ROTFLMAO. How totally pathetic you've become. Imagine
having to defend yourself about a threat you obviously shit
in your pants over.
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 03:19:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Very informative, Jigsaw. Just one thing, though: your telephone number
> >> could quite easily stay secret, and you could post your real name here.
> >> Also, that doesn't explain Jedro's desire not to use his real name. Or is
> >> the Agency also as careful about the security of its 'ex-spooks' ..?
>
> > That could very well be. But the fact is retentionists, more
> > than abolitionists, are slightly off-kilter.
>
>
Obviously, caught out in transposing the terms. John
Rennie has already pointed it out, and at first I had no
idea even what he was talking about, until I saw your
reply to my post. Nonetheless, the meaning is quite
clear, unless you believe I'm an abolitionist. Which
would make YOU a retentionist.
> > Certainly that's been
> > shown by the hate generated in MY direction. People who
> > devote so much time to creating WEB PAGES in the honor
> > of someone who exists only as a handle, can hardly be
> > described as 'evenly-balanced.' You haven't found me to
> > engage in such immature behavior. And who needs the
> > hassle? I do not wish to provide the feathers for the arrows
> > which some might presume to aim at me. I catch enough
> > here, without my e-mail, telephone, and regular mail being
> > flooded with insult. dirt, for example, would CERTAINLY
> > not be above such behavior... he has ALREADY proven that
> > with his behavior in another group uk.rec.body-building
> > under the name Quejul the vile, where he bothered a poster
> > in that group, who actually scared the shit out of dirt by calling
> > him out. This is the reply to dirt (who had assumed the handle
> > Quejul the vile)
>
> I can't speak for what dirt would or would not do, PV;
Of course you can.... you're both spawned from the same
seed.
> but I can assure
> you that in all my time on AADP, I have not yet seen one single example of
> an abolitionist acting in a threatening manner, towards a retentionist.
That's because you don't pay attention. A threatening
manner would be obsessing enough to create a web page
for my handle (what a joke -- and OBVIOUSLY obsessive).
I find you, dirt and another abolitionist (maybe even two
I've lost track of counting you obsessive nitwits who
can't argue the issues), having done so in the past. That's
OBSESSING. That's THREATENING if I were to presume
to provide my name. It's STALKING. Outside of the
arguments that we offer in this group. I don't do it, and I know
of no reasonable retentionist who does it. But you and
dirt obviously claim to be reasonable abolitionists, yet
YOU DO IT. Further, I don't for one moment believe your
bullshit about your firebombed flat. Can you provide a police
report of the incident and if anyone was investigated by the
police, since you believe in such openness here?
Perhaps I can have my brother-in-law who is a police
commissar in Paris look into it further. Shit... but that
would mean my identify would be revealed to you, and
you seem somewhat threatening to me. Never mind...
keep your silly argument going.
> Not one. By 'threatening', I mean posting private information to this
> forum, urging others to 'pay [the abolitionist or a member of his family]
> a visit', threatening to have former members of the armed forces 'teach a
> lesson' to the abolitionist in question, contact the poster's employer ...
>
In other words YOU presume to DEFINE 'threatening.'
> Do I need to remind you of how often such behaviour has been exhibited by
> retentionists ?
>
You'll need to be more specific. I can't remember the last
time someone posted the identity and address of a member
here, but I believe it was either an abolitionist, or one of those
who hold no opinion on it, but are anti-Semitic bastards
who infest BOTH sides of this argument.
> Irrespective of how much this amuses you, irrespective of how much you
> deem that certain abolitionists 'deserve' such invasions of their privacy,
> irrespective of how much you excuse behaviour on the part of your fellow
> retentionists that you would condemn roundly, were it exchibited by
> abolitionists, the fact remains that _all_ abuse on this forum, comes from
> the mouth of retentionists (by 'abuse', I discount the little flamefest
> that you, dirt, Craig, and I have been having of late).
>
What the hell are you raving about??? you say "irrespective of how much
you deem that certain abolitionists 'deserve' such invasions of their privacy "
That is a fucking out and out lie. I believe that BOTH abolitionists and
retentionists DESERVE their privacy. You presume it should be
invaded by stating that my arguments have no validity because I
have preferred to remain anonymous! Hell, I wish EVERYONE here
would remain anonymous. I think it would lead to a much more
lively dialog. I have no desire whatsoever to know ANYTHING about
anyone. If they provide their names, it doesn't bother me, but I
think they are stupid for doing so. If they don't provide their
names, it makes absolutely no difference to me. Nor have I ever
commented on someone having lost validity because they refused
to post under anything more than a handle. As you've done.
> I personally hold the private addresses of eight of the retentionists who
> either post, or have posted, to this forum. I also have Drewl's address.
> I have not posted any of this information, and I never will. I would
> trust my address to few retentionists (you're one of them, incidentally).
>
Totally immaterial to the argument. Do not pander to me,
because I have no interest in ANYTHING about you, except
the persona you present here.
> So, tell me again ... what exactly are you afraid of, that makes you hide
> behind a _nom de plume_ ?
>
Well, well, well... can you read you comment above where you
state it is ME who claims "abolitionists 'deserve' such invasions
of their privacy"? It would seem that YOU feel deserving of an
invasion of MY privacy. And you wonder why I call you a hypocrite.
dirtdog
Nope.
I believe it should be s'urprise.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
picked up on that.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> >> comment, which was more of a joke than a serious remark. In fact, I figured
> >> Desi would get a laugh out of me reffering to him as "Mr. Coughlan"
>
> > Mr. D. sometimes become so emotional about meaningless
> > points that he doesn't recognize what he ACTUALLY is saying.
>
> 'saying', I am typing. Not all of us need to say the letters out loud,
> as we write (or type).
>
thought to paper (or the net) you are offering your thoughts.
You are 'saying' what you mean. In fact, it is clear that in a
sense of definition of the word you ARE 'saying.' From the
OED again, because you are a pedantic prick --
SAY --
1. words as compared with actions;
You cannot ignore that you are offering 'words' instead of
'actions.'
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |BONEHEAD#1
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:28:16 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Des is who he says he is. I know that Earl, Donna and myself can
> > confirm that much. I'm fairly sure that John has almost
> > incontravertible proof, too.
>
> As do John Spragge, and Randy Lerch.
And I wasn't even pulled up for misspelling "incontrovertible."
Shocking.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 20:43:11 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> >> _you_ don't use a real
> >> >>> name so the only person that you make a fool of is _yourself_
>
> >> > I will admit, I didn't expect some of you to get so defensive over this
> >> > comment, which was more of a joke than a serious remark. In fact, I
figured
> >> > Desi would get a laugh out of me reffering to him as "Mr. Coughlan"
>
> >> You figured wrong, trollboy. Try again.
>
> > You have a deep and abiding sickness, desilu... I hope you
> > someday come to an understanding of that. In the meantime
> > I'll be praying for your soul. This responsibility obviously
> > lasts lifelong. Be at peace, my son.
>
> I'm sure that few on AADP would deny that what we have just witnessed, is
> Jedro's white flag.
>
Did I mention that you're delusional as well???
You are SOOOOO ****ING STUPID. Take a
look at the next to the last sentence in my post.
Let me REPEAT IT, you naive little shit.
T his
R esponsibilty
O bviously
L asts
L ifelong
Geeee... it looks as if you've been TROLLED. you clumsy
ignorant moron. (all terms fully applicable).
White flag indeed. Spank... spank....spank.
And a big ROTFLMAO as well.
dirtdog
Oooooh. Well done, PV.
Unfortunately, you haven't finished every other stupid outburst you've
made today with that little witticism.
Presumably, therefore, you meant them.
<PV descending into insane obscurity snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:36:26 +0000, dirtdog
<dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> a écrit :
>
> >>>> I will admit, I didn't expect some of you to get so defensive over this
> >>>> comment, which was more of a joke than a serious remark. In fact, I
figured
> >>>> Desi would get a laugh out of me reffering to him as "Mr. Coughlan"
>
> >>> Mr. D. sometimes become so emotional about meaningless
> >>> points that he doesn't recognize what he ACTUALLY is saying.
>
> >>Which isn't all that surprising, Jed, bearing in mind that I'm not
> >>'saying', I am typing. Not all of us need to say the letters out loud,
> >>as we write (or type).
>
> > LOL!
> >
> > You can imagine him doing it, can't you?
> >
> > Do you think he says the letter louder when it's capitalised, or does
> > he just raise the pitch of his voice?
>
>
> I can, yes, but in all seriousness dirt, I really think we should lay off
> him a bit. He used to be much better than this, and I can only assume
> that his being reduced to posting the same troll to everyone who kicks his
> arse (which right now, equates to around 90% of AADP), is due to some
> 'trouble' at home.
>
> Maybe his other half has gone on strike, and Dwight the altar-boy from
> Wisconsin (or was he from Tampa ? Can't remember. So many young boys, so
> little time, eh, Jed ?) is playing hard-to-get.
>
> AADP has not seen such a bloody rout, since I cast Drewl down in the late
> nineties, and the newsgroup first heard the cry, 'Des, leave me alone !'
You just keep digging yourself deeper. Ho ho ho
T his
R esponsibility
O bviously
L asts
L ifelong.
You have been HAD!!!! Tell me again about the white flag.
I just love it.
dirtdog
Question, PV:
What has this got to do with this post?
One trick pony?
Oh yes.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
have really.. as I've done with you before. fallen into the
stupidity trap, it's just a matter of SNAP...SNAP.
In any case, proving you to be a naive little shit,
is an exercise in overkill. Since you manage to do
such a good job on your own.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
should know, having it twisted by me so often in the
past. And I'll do it as long as it pleases me. Certainly
as long as desilu proclaims SG Seminal Observation 6), as
you once pathetically found yourself doing over and
over.
>
> Oh yes.
> One trick pony?
You and desilu may bray like some donkeys back and
forth, and think you've given yourselves high-five, but
you've both been run into the ground. desilu by showing
his true colors in hiding his posting history and showing
himself to be absurdly naive, and you..... well, you're
just YOU... that's enough to prove my point. But, have
a nice day.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 22:14:25 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Which isn't all that surprising, Jed, bearing in mind that I'm not
> >> 'saying', I am typing. Not all of us need to say the letters out loud,
> >> as we write (or type).
>
> > Pedantic shithead.
>
>
Ummm... desilu... you're getting a bit weaker. And more
pitiful. Is that the BEST you can do? I always knew your
posts had no claim to form, no basic philosophy, and absolutely
no lucidity. But it seems you've been outdoing yourself with
each post, presenting more and more pretentious gibberish,
without even an attempt to import some importance to them.
Really childish, sport... You're becoming more and more like
dirt, by the moment. Finding comfort in the one-word
pseudo-philosophical response of a childish insult to all posts.
How does that make you feel... hero worship or something like
that?
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:27:09 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > You have a deep and abiding sickness, desilu... I hope you
> >> > someday come to an understanding of that. In the meantime
> >> > I'll be praying for your soul. This responsibility obviously
> >> > lasts lifelong. Be at peace, my son.
>
> >> Insofar as usenet is capable of acknowledging 'victories' or 'defeats',
> >> I'm sure that few on AADP would deny that what we have just witnessed, is
> >> Jedro's white flag.
>
> > Did I mention that you're delusional as well???
> > You are SOOOOO ****ING STUPID.
>
> ... 'Lulu, <beep!>damnit, when the <beep!> are you gonna <beep!> my
> <beep!>, you <beep!> !!'
>
> *guffaw*
>
Oh... life is good..
T his
R esponsibility
O bviously
L asts
L ifelong.
You need to run and hide, desilu.
> { snip remainder of Jedro's pathetic attempts to claim 'intentional'
> defeat }
No... desipoo.. you did that to YOURSELF. I just led you
to making a fool of yourself. I didn't step in it FOR you.
You need to get some balls, and fess up that you've been
paddled...paddled...paddled... and pretty badly at that.
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |BONEHEAD#1
Gaston
>
> Thanks...Earl is a living link to the past, an artifact if you please. Though
> we disagree with him because he is wrong, he is fine example of the old
> Americal Liberal Guilt Sydrome.
>
> Jigsaw
The original post, which you forgot was on American Blacks and
Drugs, history showing that they have been overarrested, overcharged
and oversentenced. Nobody challenged my claim citing literature
showing the opposite. Right off, the first poster attacks
the social scientists who came up with these results and then me.
That is what you are doing, now unless you are getting too old
return to the subject of the post. Not me.
Earl
JIGSAW1695
From: dev...@noos.fr (Gaston)
Date: 3/4/2002 3:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <87cf7cf7.02030...@posting.google.com>
Earl
===============================
At last, Earl writes a simple, declaritive statement less than five hundred
words long.
Or did Gaston write it?
EndlsRayne
>I can imagine him with his wife
>... 'Lulu, <beep!>damnit, when the <beep!> are you gonna <beep!> my
><beep!>, you <beep!> !!'
This is probably why your wife left.
EndlsRayne
>American Blacks and
>Drugs, history showing that they have been overarrested, overcharged
>and oversentenced.
And I pretty much agree with this statement. MHO, it will never be ended
either. People like nazi tactics when they percieve themselves to be the
beneficiaries of said tactics. As long as we have people wanting to declare war
on inanimate objects, like drugs or guns, and not deal with the social issues
that are the real cause of the problems, these high crime rates and high arrest
rates will continue. In fact, going after drugs/guns allows the politicans to
ignore the real problems and pretend they have done something, which is the way
goverment 'works'.
yours_most_truly
>
> "yours_most_truly" wrote:
>
> > "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
>
> > >
> > Surprise me and don't be childish for once. The entire thrust of my
> > post had nothing to do with pseudonyms per se, it had everything to do
> > with their *misuse,* which I have carefully avoided (although I did
> > enter an arguably gray area in one instance). And I distinctly
> > recall an exchange in this newsgroup awhile back where I contributed a
> > US Supreme Court citation which confirmed the constitutional right to
> > engage anonymously in political speech, and the reasons why. Most of
> > your posting shenanigans are "political" only in the sense that
> > *anything* a troll posts can be so styled, which obviously robs the
> > word "political" of all meaning.
>
> ROTFLMAO. Do you see how YOU have defined terms the
> way YOU wish them to BE defined?
No. I have used words with settled definitions to express some
thoughts. You might want to try that some time.
> No wonder I find you sorely
> lacking in debating skills. Having none, actually. Relying only
> on some trite phrases, insults, and a deep and abiding hatred
> for the U.S., perhaps formed from the early abandonment by
> your American Military Father.
The psychiatric terms "transference" and "confabulation"come to mind
here.
>
> > If you believe the truism that "ideas are not responsible for those
> > who have them,"
>
> That's hardly a 'truism'
Wrong again.
> but an observation by Don Marquis.
> "An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it." I
> much prefer "An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of
> being called an idea" Oscar Wilde.... Or "We do not HAVE
> an idea... the idea has US.. and martyrs US... and scourges
> US... and drives US... into the arena to fight and die for it,
> whether we want to or not." Heinrich Heine.
And capitalise at random too? A truism can be an observation, an
observation can be a truism.
>
> > why have you bothered to continuously and anonymously
> > post your personal history? It might or might not be true in whole or
> > part, but you've supplied nothing which negates the possibility that
> > you're just a layabout troll who's adopted the persona of an angry and
> > noisy grandpa or granduncle for your silly posturings. The only way to
> > negate that is for you to supply identifiers which can be
> > independently confirmed, and until you do you stay in the Bozo Zone.
> >
> I have said this before... you may assume I am whoever you
> wish I am. I do not need to justify WHAT I say, to ANYONE
> here, by offering WHO I am. It adds NOTHING to it, and
> I even believe it detracts from objectivity.
So stop posting about yourself.
> Believe what you will about me,
I don't need your permission for that. What you say about yourself in
the subtext is more believable than your direct and unverified
representations anyway, since you aren't even aware when you do it.
> because it's intrusive, rude and ill-bred to
> remark that words demand the person behind the words.
> Thus I can see why you would bring it up.
Not when that "person" injects his or her personal life into
discussions where it doesn't belong.
>
> We don't ask that of a dead philosopher... his words speak
> FOR him.
You're no philosopher, and you're only dead from the neck up.
> Whether you see me in that light is completely
> immaterial to the point. WHY -- Is the question that needs
> to be asked. What PURPOSE would it serve to just give
> you a name? Suppose I said my name is Paul Visconti.
> And that's why I've taken the handle PV.
I wouldn't believe it unless it could be confirmed from a reliable
independent source. You are simply not credible. I suspect, given
your lack of creativity, that you actually lifted your *nom de plume*
from reruns of an old American TV show ("Superman! Strange visitor
from another planet..."), which is also consistent with your
self-absorbtion.
> What does that do
> for you? Are you about to cream in your jeans? Can you
> find more substance to a first name and a last name?
> TRUTH is I may well be a monk finding a diversion,
> or a pimp waiting for his whore to return. Truth is I may
> well be an abolitionist trying to find substance to my
> argument by playing the devil's advocate.
The truth is that 95% of what you post in this newsgroup has
absolutely nothing to do with it while having everything to do with
you.
> You must feel
> quite impotent to believe you cannot win an argument with
> someone who actually believes as you do, but just wants to
> see if YOU know what you're talking about.
You don't believe as I do, your newgroup antics leave no doubt about
that.
The WORDS, you
> moron... deal with the WORDS. Something you are obviously
> unable to do, thus needing to find an ephemeral crutch to
> hang on to.
Thoughts are more than the definitions of those words used to
express them.
>
> It would perhaps be different if what I relate could
> lend any more 'majesty' to my presence, as Earl always
> tries to do.
Earl can post about himself all he wants. He uses his real name, so
his personal data can be confirmed.
> But, I do not pose my past in pompous terms.
That would depend on what your past *really* is.
> Quite the opposite, I am of the proletariat, a very ordinary
> blue-collar background, not overly intelligent, but believe
> I've been very fortunate in the choices I've made with the
> limitations I know I have.
There you go again...
> I have been utterly destroyed
> in arguments at points in my life. Fortunately, you do not
> possess the ability to do so. I certainly do not consider
> myself an 'elitist,' as you and others I see from the other
> side of the pond have tried to posture yourselves.
As inaccurate as simplistic.
>
> What is so SPECIAL about who I am, to you, that you've
> become so involved in it?
I can't killfile you using google, that's all. The real question is
why *you* think you're so special that you keep injecting your
purported and irrelevant personal history into death penalty
discussions and while refusing to identify yourself. You can't have
your cake and eat it too.
> What SPECIFIC point about what
> I've said causes you disbelief? That I speak three languages
> quite fluently, and a fourth rather well? Assume I don't ... who
> gives a rat's ass. I certainly don't think it's any great
> accomplishment considering how and where I spent my youth,
> and decades of my life. That I served 20 years in the military?
> Get real... what advantage does that gain for me here?
> Mostly it gains only ridicule. That I'm conservative and
> more Republican in nature? Right... think about it, moron.
> That I was a double E, in real life? And spent a major portion
> of my life working with the military? Gee.. why wouldn't I just
> claim to be an anonymous professor, and refuse to prove that
> as well? That I'm now 68 years-old? What advantage does
> THAT provide me? Age is universally laughed at by the young
> (immature).
There you go again. You really don't get it, do you?
The same goes for all my other remarks that
> I've made.
True.
> Whether you ACCEPT my image is entirely up to you.
> You've obviously rejected it, which bothers me not at all.
Which is why you devoted an 8KB post to it, right?
> You may well take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, for all
> I care.
But you're crunchier and have a bigger hole.
>
<snipped>
Do make an effort not to repeat yourself. It doesn't improve things
for you.
Exador
Excellent, a sensible comment from 'Endlesslyinane'. Well done, it
appears you're learning; stay around the group for a while longer and
you might even be able to join the adults at the big table ;-)
Cheers,
Craig
John Rennie
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C83E3ED...@hotmail.com...
Do you agree with his comment on guns? Although I have said banning is out
of the question some controls are necessary. However, I too agree with
the thrust of Rayne's remarks. (Any chance of a decent signature, Rayne or
whatever?)
Exador
I can see the point he's trying to make with the comment, which is what
I congratulated him on. Where we would probably part ways is that I see
guns and the general US attitude to them as being a very substantial
part of the problem for which the death penalty is seen as the solution.
As you know, I disagree that banning is impossible, although I concede
it would certainly not be politically palatable and hence unlikely for
some time to come.
Cheers,
Craig
John Rennie
Believe it, it's impossible.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>> >
>> >T his
>> >R esponsibility
>> >O bviously
>> >L asts
>> >L ifelong.
>> >
>> >You have been HAD!!!! Tell me again about the white flag.
>> >I just love it.
>> >
>> >PV
>>
>> Question, PV:
>>
>> What has this got to do with this post?
>>
>Hurts... doesn't it?
No. See below.
> It's called 'twisting the knife.'
If that is what you wish to call it, so be it. However the "knife" in
question is nowhere near me. It seems that in your shamefully
hysterical, completely thrashed state, you have forgotten already who
you were talking to
> You
>should know, having it twisted by me so often in the
>past.
And the present. And the future. Long may it continue!
<purile waffle expelled by a man wishing he had the bollocks to make
physical threats and post private information to Usenet like his new
mate Don snipped>
w00f
EndlsRayne
>As you know, I disagree that banning is impossible, although I concede
>it would certainly not be politically palatable and hence unlikely for
>some time to come.
The logistics of it would make it impossible if nothing else.
Number of firearms in USA : 240 million
Ok, I used 10 years because I thought it would be a reasonable number. So
over 10 years, there would have to be :
24 million guns per year, either confiscated or turned in.
that means 2 million guns per month.....
so each state would have to pick up 40,000 guns per month.
Every day, the state(s) would have to take in 1333 guns.
And in a 24 hour period, that works out to 55 guns per hour - almost 1 per
minute!
Rev. Don Kool
> Exador mister...@hotmail.com writes:
>>As you know, I disagree that banning is impossible, although I concede
>>it would certainly not be politically palatable and hence unlikely for
>>some time to come.
> The logistics of it would make it impossible if nothing else.
> Number of firearms in USA : 240 million
Thank merciful God in Heaven above for that!
Yours in 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"
LMac
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5q5k0$f8l$1...@hadron.noos.net...
>
> Dans l'article <3c800...@newsa.ev1.net>, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> a
écrit
> :
>
>
> > Actually I have over 20 years (and counting) experience putting them
there
> > (in some cases over and over again). Put that in your briar pipe and
smoke
> > it.
>
> Not specific, you are the one blowing smoke.
>
> Americans generally bullshit, fake CVs, IDs, claims. You don`t even use
a
> real name, like PV and Jigsaw. But what you said about criminologists is
> bullshit and speaks to a lack of your knowledge of the methodology
employed.
> Sounds like ex-cop talk.
>
> Are you saying that a guy like Jerome Miller, who direction the juvenile
> detention systems of Illinois and Massacusetts, and currently president
> of the National Center on Insitutions and Alternatives is for naught?
>
> You are using a typical "attack the messenger" technique and not dealing
> with the data I published about drug arrests, conviction and sentencing.
> You are just saying "it ain't true". If you have comparable data present
> it. But there is intellectually dishonest to attack researchers and not
> deal with their data.
>
> I`ll cut my contribution to the debat off there. Nobody sofar has dealt
> with the facts I presented, typically sending the discussion off
> on a tangent which involves off the top of the head comments, no homework.
>
> Earl
That's laughable, Earl. I have made no effort whatsoever to conceal my
identity. I do not use anonymous remailers or other spoofing methods on this
NG (as some do) and my email address is right there for everyone to see and
use (it's not like my last name is 'smith'). I am quite capable of employing
those tactics but I choose not to here. In fact, unless you are a complete
simpleton you should be able to locate news articles about a number of my
arrests on the Internet. I have already been contacted offline by two people
on this NG. One of them was a nut.
Data you published? I only see you quoting the work of others, which you
take at face value because their agenda happens to agree with yours. Typical
of most socialists, you question only that with which you disagree.
In response to your pandering of the facts as you've been _told_ them, I
will give you my assessment of the situation from my experience; it is a
relatively simple equation and I will give it to you - free of charge -
because it is blatantly obvious to anyone who is in touch with reality.
Blacks and Hispanics in this country make up a substantially
disproportionate number of the poor. Poor people tend to commit more crimes,
regardless of their skin color, especially in urban areas. Therefore, blacks
and Hispanics are arrested at a higher rate. The reasons for their
'poorness' are even simpler. White people in the US have had generations of
passing on wealth through inheritance. White families have shrunk in size,
therefore the redistribution of the parents wealth results in a larger
portion for each child. Blacks and Hispanics have not had the same
advantage. They do not have this history of inheritance due to their
oppression in the PAST. Furthermore, they tend to have larger families (or,
unfortunately, split families) and the opportunity for an individual child
to get a leg up is minimal. This is thankfully changing, albeit slowly, as
more blacks and Hispanics join the middle class.
And yes, I'm saying that Jerome Miller is a bureaucrat and as such is
probably out of touch with reality. I find it amazing that as a socialist
you can't see that.
Like you I will end the debate here, since our positions appear to be
inflexible.
Mac
LMac
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
news:20020305000452...@mb-fn.aol.com...
etc.. All in all a conservative estimate.
Mac
EndlsRayne
>And that doesn't even take into account rearming, black market acquisition,
>etc.. All in all a conservative estimate.
Thanks. I used a low estimate just so I couldn't get accused of stacking the
results. I've seen guesstimates that there are about 310 million guns now, with
maybe 105 million of them being handguns.
If you use the 240 million guns number , 80 million are handguns, so roughly
around 1/3 are handguns.
ER
John Rennie
"LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3c84ee42$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
> >
snip
> Data you published? I only see you quoting the work of others, which you
> take at face value because their agenda happens to agree with yours.
Typical
> of most socialists, you question only that with which you disagree.
Fighting talk, young man, and anyway don't most of
us only question that with which we disagree?
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:37:58 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> but I can assure
> >> you that in all my time on AADP, I have not yet seen one single example of
> >> an abolitionist acting in a threatening manner, towards a retentionist.
>
> > That's because you don't pay attention. A threatening
> > manner would be obsessing enough to create a web page
> > for my handle (what a joke -- and OBVIOUSLY obsessive).
> > I find you, dirt and another abolitionist (maybe even two
> > I've lost track of counting you obsessive nitwits who
> > can't argue the issues), having done so in the past.
>
> I have no recollection of ever having created a webpage bearing the name
> 'PV', or any variant thereof, Jedro. Could you remind us of when this
> was, and (if possible) a URL. Or was there never such a website, and this
> is another example of 'positive connections' ? Is that crystal ball of
> yours malfunctioning again, Jedro ..?
>
Your memory is very short then. Extending not more than
a few days ago, and since it will eventually fall into your no-archive
scheme, you perhaps believe others will forget. Allow me
to repeat a post which still exists in this newsgroup from you --
Subject:
{OT} Why do I think of PV when I see this ,,? 2/27/2002
-----------------------------------------------
http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/dp/PV.gif
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
---------------------------------------------------
Now it would seem a reasonable person could draw a
connection to a post from you, to a web page with
your name, and a gif image of my handle, to the
presumption that you are rather obsessed. This has
become rather a ritual from abolitionists who cannot
argue the ISSUES.
>
> > But you and
> > dirt obviously claim to be reasonable abolitionists, yet
> > YOU DO IT.
>
> Remind me of the last time I posted anyone's private address here, Jedro.
> Remind me of the last time I created an alias to impersonate someone,
> Jedro.
>
> You can't, can you ? You can't, because I have never done so. Obsession
> is, as I said, the domain of the deathie. Only deathies behave as such.
>
Only obsessives give those particular names to a
specific group. It's called bigotry in almost every
case. And certainly in this case.
> > Further, I don't for one moment believe your
> > bullshit about your firebombed flat.
>
> Whether or not _you_ believe me, is irrelevant, Jedro.
>
I never said it WAS relevant.. I simply said 'I don't believe
it' as you've said about my speaking French. I found that
to be irrelevant as well, but I assumed we already understood
that. While you seem to believe I find some 'factual' relevance
to an opinion. That's part of your problem, desilu. You believe
your statements are 'factual' and 'relevant,' while those of
others, regardless of an opinion such as 'I believe...' must
be irrelevant. Whether 'opinion' is relevant or irrelevant is
not something that the one presenting that opinion can resolve
for others... it remains a subjective opinion. Whether it has
'relevance' or not, cannot be claimed by the one stating any
opinion. It becomes relevant ONLY to those who FIND IT
RELEVANT.
> > Can you provide a police report of the incident
>
> Police reports are not made public in France, Jedro.
>
Un huh... Good shot... So ACTUALLY, you could claim
ANYTHING, and not have to provide ANY support for
that claim... is that about it? And before you go off,
let me say that I 'agree' with that here in Usenet. We
need to DECIDE for ourselves the validity of what someone
claims. Quite honesty, I could be a boy-scout working for
a merit badge in 'internet deception.' I am reminded of
Lucas very perceptive post that both you and don were
one and the same person working on a thesis project.
It JUST DOESN'T MATTER. Which has been my point
and I believe Lucas' point as well, all along. What
MATTERS is how we perceive the WORDS in respect
to the argument. No claim of WHO I AM, can lend
greater or lesser credence to WHAT I SAY. WHAT I
SAY is what should be examined, not WHO I AM.
> > and if anyone was
> > investigated by the
> > police, since you believe in such openness here?
>
> Where is 'here', Jedro ? If 'here' is France, then we have a law (the Law
> on 'Informatique et Libertés' of 1978), which forbids the publication or
> release of any data said to be 'nominative', from which a person's
> identity may be deduced.
>
I'm trying hard not to overuse the word 'idiot,' so often. But
you really make it difficult for me, when you come out with
some of the things you say. I was referring to the "openness
HERE" that you profess we should have in POSTING to this
newsgroup. The 'openness' that you would DEMAND of
others to release their ACTUAL names, while you hide
behind turning off your archive, which can only be seen
as not normal, if one has nothing to be in fear of having
said in the past. We all realize how totally ineffective such
a methodology actually is, but you used it anyway. I
realize my refusing to divulge my full name is also an
ineffective methodology. Anyone DETERMINED could
ultimately get a 'name.' But I do not find hypocrisy in
that, because I don't care whether you provide your name
or not, while you seem obsessed in my doing so, yet
engage in the same form of 'hiding' yourself.
> > Perhaps I can have my brother-in-law who is a police
> > commissar in Paris look into it further.
>
> You could, yes, but your brother-in-law would lose his job if he revealed
> any details of the case to you.
>
You really are dense. Sarcasm just flies right over your
head. But then we've known that for some time.
> > Shit... but that
> > would mean my identify would be revealed to you,
>
> Oh, really ? How ?
>
You have some troubles with joining connections, don't
you? You see the 'A' dot, connects to the 'B' dot, connects
to the 'C' dot, connects to the 'PV' dot.
> { snip }
<endlessly immaterial argument clipped>
> Desmond Coughlan |BONEHEAD#1
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 04 Mar 2002 06:17:22 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> >> Which isn't all that surprising, Jed, bearing in mind that I'm not
> >> >> 'saying', I am typing. Not all of us need to say the letters out loud,
> >> >> as we write (or type).
>
> >> > Pedantic shithead.
>
> >> When wearing his testicles as a necklace, Jedro copies and pastes.
>
> > Ummm... desilu... you're getting a bit weaker. And more
> > pitiful. Is that the BEST you can do? I always knew your
> > posts had no claim to form, no basic philosophy, and absolutely
> > no lucidity. But it seems you've been outdoing yourself with
> > each post, presenting more and more pretentious gibberish,
> > without even an attempt to import some importance to them.
> > Really childish, sport... You're becoming more and more like
> > dirt, by the moment. Finding comfort in the one-word
> > pseudo-philosophical response of a childish insult to all posts.
> > How does that make you feel... hero worship or something like
> > that?
>
>
> Insert a couple of 'The Greatest Country on the Face of the Earth BTW,'
> and the above gobshite could have been written by Drewl.
>
Insert nothing and we already know who had just written
the above. We now need to examine WHAT the intent of
the comment is.
> What's up, Jed ? Trying to become a one-man band on AADP, or just tired
> of being beaten senseless, and casting around for some new material ?
This is a troll.... right? Both you and dirt have ceased to bother
me. We gain our reputation in two disparate ways. We can be
admired by honest men, or be insulted by dishonest men. I find
you and dirt only make me look better than I actually am.
So thank you.... for just ---- being 'you.'
> Desmond Coughlan |BONEHEAD#1
LMac
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:D49h8.104568$Ah1.14...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Only people with closed minds don't question their own beliefs now and then,
John. If I didn't possess the ability to see a different viewpoint and (if
necessary) reconsider my position, this NG would just be a non-productive
series of contradictions for me. Of course, there is always the
entertainment value...
Mac
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
wrote:
> That's laughable, Earl. I have made no effort whatsoever to conceal my
> identity.
After all, _all_ cops are called "Mac."
> I do not use anonymous remailers or other spoofing methods on
> this
> NG (as some do) and my email address is right there for everyone to see
> and
> use (it's not like my last name is 'smith'). I am quite capable of
> employing
> those tactics but I choose not to here. In fact, unless you are a
> complete
> simpleton you should be able to locate news articles about a number of my
> arrests on the Internet.
Hmmmm...
> I have already been contacted offline by two
> people
> on this NG. One of them was a nut.
Unlucky. In all the time that I've posted here I've only been contacted
by one nutter and that is amongst quite a few nice people. The nutter
was harmless enough and had only mailed me in order to attempt to insult
me without getting his bottom spanked in public.
> Typical
> of most socialists, you question only that with which you disagree.
That's a stereotype, if you ask me. At least you have the balls to call
Earl a socialist.
> In response to your pandering of the facts as you've been _told_ them, I
> will give you my assessment of the situation from my experience; it is a
> relatively simple equation and I will give it to you - free of charge -
> because it is blatantly obvious to anyone who is in touch with reality.
> Blacks and Hispanics in this country make up a substantially
> disproportionate number of the poor. Poor people tend to commit more
> crimes,
> regardless of their skin color, especially in urban areas. Therefore,
> blacks
> and Hispanics are arrested at a higher rate. The reasons for their
> 'poorness' are even simpler. White people in the US have had generations
> of
> passing on wealth through inheritance. White families have shrunk in
> size,
> therefore the redistribution of the parents wealth results in a larger
> portion for each child. Blacks and Hispanics have not had the same
> advantage. They do not have this history of inheritance due to their
> oppression in the PAST. Furthermore, they tend to have larger families
> (or,
> unfortunately, split families) and the opportunity for an individual
> child
> to get a leg up is minimal. This is thankfully changing, albeit slowly,
> as
> more blacks and Hispanics join the middle class.
I _said_ that you were a bleeding-heart liberal.
> And yes, I'm saying that Jerome Miller is a bureaucrat and as such is
> probably out of touch with reality. I find it amazing that as a socialist
> you can't see that.
>
> Like you I will end the debate here, since our positions appear to be
> inflexible.
Only Earl's. You make a whole heap of sense here.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
A Planet Visitor
> Le 4 Mar 2002 11:07:23 -0800, yours_most_truly <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip Jedro getting his rectum stretched by a size-10 boot }
>
> >> We don't ask that of a dead philosopher... his words speak
> >> FOR him.
>
> > You're no philosopher, and you're only dead from the neck up.
>
>
You should instead weep for someone who would claim I
have called MYSELF a 'dead philosopher,' when I am neither
'dead' nor 'a philosopher.' Nor did I presume to be.
> Bwaaaahahahahaa !!!!
Slow down, desilu... the rutting season wil be upon us shortly.
PV
> Desmond Coughlan |BONEHEAD#1
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 04 Mar 2002 06:23:50 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> >> > You have a deep and abiding sickness, desilu... I hope you
> >> >> > someday come to an understanding of that. In the meantime
> >> >> > I'll be praying for your soul. This responsibility obviously
> >> >> > lasts lifelong. Be at peace, my son.
>
> >> >> Insofar as usenet is capable of acknowledging 'victories' or 'defeats',
> >> >> I'm sure that few on AADP would deny that what we have just witnessed,
is
> >> >> Jedro's white flag.
>
> >> > Did I mention that you're delusional as well???
> >> > You are SOOOOO ****ING STUPID.
>
> >> Heh ... he even censors his own posts !! I can imagine him with his wife
> >> ... 'Lulu, <beep!>damnit, when the <beep!> are you gonna <beep!> my
> >> <beep!>, you <beep!> !!'
> >>
> >> *guffaw*
>
> > Oh... life is good..
> >
> > T his
> > R esponsibility
> > O bviously
> > L asts
> > L ifelong.
>
> cassock slung across his knee, what does Jedro do ? He backs off, and
> claims, 'I was only trolling, and I caught you, Nah ! Nah! Nah-Nah !
> Nah!'
>
Claims???? I just love that.. let's take a look at the mathematics
behind it. With 26 letter in the alphabet, to have ACCIDENTALLY
not actually been trolling it would have required 26 to the 5th
power of possibilities, PLUS recognition of this unlikely occurrence
after desilu responded. Likely? I think not. 11,881,376 to 1
the possibility it being accidentally. Think about it, you ignoramous.
And I can ALWAYS tell when your argument or dirt's argument
become futile even by your own standards. It generally revolves
around the claim of perversion by those who have totally shattered
your self-esteem.
> Tell us again how you really 'knew' that I didn't really believe the
> following site to be the official White House website, Jedro ... I'm sure
> that as many people will believe you this time, as did last time. None.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp
>
Tell us again, about how you bgan frantically searching for the
source of my claim that the President had declared France to
be in the 'Axis of Evil'?
> { snip ... this is getting almost _embarrassingly_ easy to spank you,
> Jed ... }
The possibility of you doing that, is a bit more unlikely than
the possibility of my troll being an accident.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |BRAINDEAD#1
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 02:51:56 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >> >
> >> >T his
> >> >R esponsibility
> >> >O bviously
> >> >L asts
> >> >L ifelong.
> >> >
> >> >You have been HAD!!!! Tell me again about the white flag.
> >> >I just love it.
> >> >
> >> >PV
> >>
> >> Question, PV:
> >>
> >> What has this got to do with this post?
> >>
> >Hurts... doesn't it?
>
> No. See below.
>
> > It's called 'twisting the knife.'
>
> If that is what you wish to call it, so be it. However the "knife" in
> question is nowhere near me. It seems that in your shamefully
> hysterical, completely thrashed state, you have forgotten already who
> you were talking to
>
trolled you EXACTLY the same way in a thread, regarding
the 'intent' within murder. Hysteria, was what I believe I
suggested had overcome YOU.
> > You
> >should know, having it twisted by me so often in the
> >past.
>
> And the present. And the future. Long may it continue!
>
> <purile waffle expelled by a man wishing he had the bollocks to make
> physical threats and post private information to Usenet like his new
> mate Don snipped>
>
What the hell are you talking about... except desperation on
your part, in making false accusations? Are you presuming that
recognizing the fact that desilu had turned his archive off was
'private information'? I already was aware of the fact, having seen
nothing from him in google. And if ANYONE was digging for
'private information,' is was desilu, rather perfidious in his own
deception while doing so. You know of course that everyone
here recognizes you for lying scum.. so it hardly matters WHAT
you say. But it's particularly offensive to me to see the dregs
of humanity displayed before my eyes.
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
news:20020305000452...@mb-fn.aol.com...
This could well be done, using the methods employed in
Europe not so long ago... Simply deploying black-shirted
thug among the population and dragging them by their
hair into the street, should they protest that their rights
are being violated. It's a source of continued amazement
to me, how Europeans can believe they are better off by
REMOVING certain rights from normal citizens, while
are the same moment, PROVIDING certain rights to those
who would do them harm. Go figure...
PV
A Planet Visitor
"yours_most_truly" <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:d9253152.02030...@posting.google.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> >
> > "yours_most_truly" wrote:
> >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > Surprise me and don't be childish for once. The entire thrust of my
> > > post had nothing to do with pseudonyms per se, it had everything to do
> > > with their *misuse,* which I have carefully avoided (although I did
> > > enter an arguably gray area in one instance). And I distinctly
> > > recall an exchange in this newsgroup awhile back where I contributed a
> > > US Supreme Court citation which confirmed the constitutional right to
> > > engage anonymously in political speech, and the reasons why. Most of
> > > your posting shenanigans are "political" only in the sense that
> > > *anything* a troll posts can be so styled, which obviously robs the
> > > word "political" of all meaning.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO. Do you see how YOU have defined terms the
> > way YOU wish them to BE defined?
>
> No. I have used words with settled definitions to express some
> thoughts. You might want to try that some time.
>
them out of your opinion, but attempted to place a definition to
my postings.
> > No wonder I find you sorely
> > lacking in debating skills. Having none, actually. Relying only
> > on some trite phrases, insults, and a deep and abiding hatred
> > for the U.S., perhaps formed from the early abandonment by
> > your American Military Father.
>
> The psychiatric terms "transference" and "confabulation"come to mind
> here.
The general term 'issue avoidance' comes to my mind.
> >
> > > If you believe the truism that "ideas are not responsible for those
> > > who have them,"
> >
> > That's hardly a 'truism'
>
> Wrong again.
>
Hardly, sport. In fact you couldn't even get the quote right.
> > but an observation by Don Marquis.
> > "An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it." I
> > much prefer "An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of
> > being called an idea" Oscar Wilde.... Or "We do not HAVE
> > an idea... the idea has US.. and martyrs US... and scourges
> > US... and drives US... into the arena to fight and die for it,
> > whether we want to or not." Heinrich Heine.
>
> And capitalise at random too? A truism can be an observation, an
> observation can be a truism.
Of course a truism CAN be an observation. That in itself
is a truism. But not ALL observations are truisms. The first
consideration is that they be TRUE. An observation cannot
MAKE it true. And when we observe them we recognize they
are. An 'observation' that 'black' is 'white' can hardly be called
a truism. Opinions are, by definition, not truisms.
> >
> > > why have you bothered to continuously and anonymously
> > > post your personal history? It might or might not be true in whole or
> > > part, but you've supplied nothing which negates the possibility that
> > > you're just a layabout troll who's adopted the persona of an angry and
> > > noisy grandpa or granduncle for your silly posturings. The only way to
> > > negate that is for you to supply identifiers which can be
> > > independently confirmed, and until you do you stay in the Bozo Zone.
> > >
> > I have said this before... you may assume I am whoever you
> > wish I am. I do not need to justify WHAT I say, to ANYONE
> > here, by offering WHO I am. It adds NOTHING to it, and
> > I even believe it detracts from objectivity.
>
> So stop posting about yourself.
No.. you stop telling me what I must do.
>
> > Believe what you will about me,
>
> I don't need your permission for that. What you say about yourself in
> the subtext is more believable than your direct and unverified
> representations anyway, since you aren't even aware when you do it.
>
That's MY point, you idiot (I am trying to reduce my use of this
word, but you and some others make it extremely difficult).
I don't need YOUR permission for whatever I do, but you seem
to imply that I do.
>
> > because it's intrusive, rude and ill-bred to
> > remark that words demand the person behind the words.
> > Thus I can see why you would bring it up.
>
> Not when that "person" injects his or her personal life into
> discussions where it doesn't belong.
When it seems appropriate to the thread, based on the
examples I offer, it certainly belongs there. As I've said,
one does not necessarily HAVE TO accept those perceptions,
nor even believe they actually exist. You would presume
that YOU can decide what can and cannot be entered here,
which is obviously unacceptable to me.
> >
> > We don't ask that of a dead philosopher... his words speak
> > FOR him.
>
> You're no philosopher, and you're only dead from the neck up.
>
And that's supposed to mean??? Since I was NOT speaking
for me as a dead philosopher, because obviously I am neither dead
nor a philosopher.
> > Whether you see me in that light is completely
> > immaterial to the point. WHY -- Is the question that needs
> > to be asked. What PURPOSE would it serve to just give
> > you a name? Suppose I said my name is Paul Visconti.
> > And that's why I've taken the handle PV.
>
> I wouldn't believe it unless it could be confirmed from a reliable
> independent source. You are simply not credible. I suspect, given
> your lack of creativity, that you actually lifted your *nom de plume*
> from reruns of an old American TV show ("Superman! Strange visitor
> from another planet..."), which is also consistent with your
> self-absorbtion.
>
But again, that's the point.... I don't CARE whether you believe
it or not. It has no substance in respect to the WORDS that
exist here. We should all be imaginary here, which would give
some independence to our thoughts. I wish EVERYONE posted
with only a handle, so we could discuss ISSUES and relate
those ISSUES to what the poster CLAIMS is
1) his life-experience or
2) his opinion or
3) what is obvious fact.
Because nothing, except what is OBVIOUS fact, is fact.
> > What does that do
> > for you? Are you about to cream in your jeans? Can you
> > find more substance to a first name and a last name?
> > TRUTH is I may well be a monk finding a diversion,
> > or a pimp waiting for his whore to return. Truth is I may
> > well be an abolitionist trying to find substance to my
> > argument by playing the devil's advocate.
>
> The truth is that 95% of what you post in this newsgroup has
> absolutely nothing to do with it while having everything to do with
> you.
>
Rubbish. Look at Earl, or Desmond.
> > You must feel
> > quite impotent to believe you cannot win an argument with
> > someone who actually believes as you do, but just wants to
> > see if YOU know what you're talking about.
>
> You don't believe as I do, your newgroup antics leave no doubt about
> that.
>
You've apparently decided for yourself, now you SHOULD leave
the other deciding to others, rather than presume you can tell
ME to be quiet. I certainly don't tell you to be quiet. In fact,
the MORE you talk, the more my argument becomes valid.
You're certainly an asset to me, and I wouldn't have it any
other way.
>
> The WORDS, you
> > moron... deal with the WORDS. Something you are obviously
> > unable to do, thus needing to find an ephemeral crutch to
> > hang on to.
>
> Thoughts are more than the definitions of those words used to
> express them.
What the hell does that MEAN??? We use words,
which obviously must be DEFINED, to extend our thoughts
and perceptions to others. It's called communication.
Separating us from others in the animal kingdom, in the
sense of conceptual thought processes. If we don't use
the words as they are defined we are obviously not
communicating.
> >
> > It would perhaps be different if what I relate could
> > lend any more 'majesty' to my presence, as Earl always
> > tries to do.
>
> Earl can post about himself all he wants. He uses his real name, so
> his personal data can be confirmed.
>
Who cares? Obviously, you do. But so what?
> > But, I do not pose my past in pompous terms.
>
> That would depend on what your past *really* is.
>
It is what it IS. You may assume whatever you like.
> > Quite the opposite, I am of the proletariat, a very ordinary
> > blue-collar background, not overly intelligent, but believe
> > I've been very fortunate in the choices I've made with the
> > limitations I know I have.
>
> There you go again...
>
I do believe the entire argument here revolves SPECIFICALLY
about what you see is my claim to my 'being.' Thus it
seems reasonable to put it into the context of what I've
said. I think the point is what special characteristic do
you find in what I claim to be which lends further PROOF
to my argument?
> > I have been utterly destroyed
> > in arguments at points in my life. Fortunately, you do not
> > possess the ability to do so. I certainly do not consider
> > myself an 'elitist,' as you and others I see from the other
> > side of the pond have tried to posture yourselves.
>
> As inaccurate as simplistic.
Actually, rather devastatingly accurate. The 'elitist'
mentality from European sources pervades this newsgroup
like stink off cheese.
> >
> > What is so SPECIAL about who I am, to you, that you've
> > become so involved in it?
>
> I can't killfile you using google, that's all. The real question is
> why *you* think you're so special that you keep injecting your
> purported and irrelevant personal history into death penalty
> discussions and while refusing to identify yourself. You can't have
> your cake and eat it too.
>
You don't have to killfile me. You simply don't have to read
my posts. You can do WHATEVER you want, EXCEPT
tell ME what to do. At that point you've invaded MY space.
I don't presume to tell YOU what to post. Nor do you have
to accept whatever I've said at its face value (you've already
decided not to do that - which bothers me not at all).
Obviously it is YOU who wishes your cake and eating it
too, by saying I MUST either not post, or provide proof of
who I am. That's silly, by definition.
> > What SPECIFIC point about what
> > I've said causes you disbelief? That I speak three languages
> > quite fluently, and a fourth rather well? Assume I don't ... who
> > gives a rat's ass. I certainly don't think it's any great
> > accomplishment considering how and where I spent my youth,
> > and decades of my life. That I served 20 years in the military?
> > Get real... what advantage does that gain for me here?
> > Mostly it gains only ridicule. That I'm conservative and
> > more Republican in nature? Right... think about it, moron.
> > That I was a double E, in real life? And spent a major portion
> > of my life working with the military? Gee.. why wouldn't I just
> > claim to be an anonymous professor, and refuse to prove that
> > as well? That I'm now 68 years-old? What advantage does
> > THAT provide me? Age is universally laughed at by the young
> > (immature).
>
> There you go again. You really don't get it, do you?
Oh... I get it all right. You want me to shut up, because you
find your argument threatened. Too bad for you. Tell you
what... the next time I offer an observation based on my
personal experience you pretend as if I'm speaking in the
third person, because in fact, in Usenet, we are ALL
speaking in the third person. Pretend I am speaking of
'someone I know,' rather than 'who I am.' Whatever makes
you happy, short of you dictating WHAT I CAN SAY.
> The same goes for all my other remarks that
> > I've made.
>
> True.
>
Seeing as how you haven't been able to identify what
'true' ACTUALLY is, it's hardly believable that you can
now expect us to accept what is 'true,' using YOUR
definition.
> > Whether you ACCEPT my image is entirely up to you.
> > You've obviously rejected it, which bothers me not at all.
>
> Which is why you devoted an 8KB post to it, right?
>
It beats letting you prattle on, and my not remarking on
your general ignorance of how things go in Usenet.
> > You may well take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, for all
> > I care.
>
> But you're crunchier and have a bigger hole.
?????????????????????
> <snipped>
>
> Do make an effort not to repeat yourself. It doesn't improve things
> for you.
Do make an effort to make a point the next time you post.
Since you obviously did not make one in this entire thread.
PV