The Murky Past of A Planet Visitor #3
dirtdog
PV WRESTLES WITH DEFAMATION
------------------------------------------------------------------
PV is a legal heavyweight.
Witness his recent foray into the world of legal debate. He has
successfully done that which has troubled judges for decades and
removed any problems in applying the intent required in attempt
statutes to the element of recklessness inherent in rape. How has he
done this? Why, by simply ignoring the issue and pretending it doesn't
exist. Who needs a precise definition of requisite actus reus and mens
rea anyway? It is much easier to talk bullshit and go on his IMHO
instinct.
Witness PV here further showing his legal might by successfully
erradicating that tricky distinction between the two possible types of
defamation. His solution? 'Fuck it, let's do away with this libel
nonsense and call it all slander!'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A Planet Visitor (nob...@nowhere.com)
Search Result 15
Subject: Re: planet visitor?
Newsgroups: alt.military.retired
View complete thread (12 articles)
Date: 2000/02/08
Since you addressed your post directly to me, I guess I'll
have to break my vow that I would only post to those
others who respond to your sick, slanderous drivel.
You don't post directly to me, Markie, and I won't post
directly to you. But since you asked: First: You're a mindless
lunatic. Second: Seems like
every time responses to your slander increase, you
decide to stop for awhile, because of health reasons,
you mindless lunatic. Third: Seems like a little later
you resume your sick, slanderous drivel, as if no one
has said anything, you mindless lunatic.
<snipped many more wholly inaccurate references to 'slander'>
---------------------------------------------
Aside from the fact that PV would have not had any sort of case even
under the broader heading of libel, we can see him here getting a bit
confused with his terminology.
(He seems to be getting a little angry again, also)
Ho ho ho. PV is a fuckwit.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
news:fg59otst4b3vie0oj...@4ax.com...
>
> PV WRESTLES WITH DEFAMATION
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> PV is a legal heavyweight.
PV is a legal layman... who's has totally demolished all
arguments from a sham who claims to be a lawyer. That's
you, BTW. Of course, you'll ALWAYS be able to 'push
those buttons,' better than I, dirt. If that gives you any
consolation.
>
> Witness his recent foray into the world of legal debate. He has
> successfully done that which has troubled judges for decades and
> removed any problems in applying the intent required in attempt
> statutes to the element of recklessness inherent in rape.
Not to mention having put your pseudo-legal abilities in serious
question. But go ahead, dirt. A new thread, a new dirt, a
new claim to victory. PG seminal observation (6). What a load
of horse manure you can spread.
>How has he
> done this? Why, by simply ignoring the issue and pretending it doesn't
> exist. Who needs a precise definition of requisite actus reus and mens
> rea anyway? It is much easier to talk bullshit and go on his IMHO
> instinct.
>
When the statute clearly explains that 'attempt' of a criminal
act is an 'intent' of such an act... it doesn't take a brain
surgeon to show you for the moron you are. And if ANYONE
is trying to pass off bullshit for fact... we know who THAT
ONE is.
> Witness PV here further showing his legal might by successfully
> erradicating that tricky distinction between the two possible types of>
defamation. His solution? XXXX it, let's do away with this libel
I've never claimed that I NEVER get angry. Quite often I have
been angry with you, and I certainly have acknowledged that
I hate you, because I'm not a hypocrite, as you are. Nonetheless,
you will NEVER anger me again.... you've just proved yourself
too stupid to let me become angry at you. As you feel pity and
sympathy for MURDERERS, so I feel pity and sympathy for
you, old boy. I'll save my anger for those with a meaningful
argument, that can raise such anger, and reserve my laughter
for your postings. I Hope you can find some more interesting
reading by devoting every waking hour to perusing my past posts.
As with your creation of a web page in my honor, your
obsession (which you now even no longer deny or try to
hide), is simply making YOU look the fool... not me. Perhaps
you can find some support in your efforts from hi1000 and
keith. What a team!!!! That football is getting quite a
workout.
> Ho ho ho. PV is a XXXXwit.
Ho ho ho. Dirt is still obsessing as he hunches over his keyboard
in desperation. IF I had anything to hide about my past comments,
I would do as dirt does. Simply create various new persona, and
HIDE my tracks. Lord only knows HOW MANY he has
created in the past. And recently, I smell his urine markings on
much of the various posts of new names here. Dirt just doesn't see
how doing that places his ENTIRE argument in the same
characterization as someone who would casually lie about the
most trivial of posts. I stand by EVERY post I've ever made,
perceived flaws and all. And I NEVER post under any handle
but this one. Yes, as Mr. D. pointed out... dirt can 'push
those buttons.' Unfortunately, that's ALL he knows how to do,
and when faced with a rational argument (even from FRANK),
he finds it necessary to fall back on 'pushing those buttons,'
instead of presenting a rational argument in contrast to the
rational argument placed before him. Another case which
illustrates this was his recent retort to Larry... immediately
finding it necessary to 'push those buttons,' rather than
respond. When, oh when... will dirt's followers see him for
the lackluster talent he REALLY is? I think every
day, the realization of those followers becomes more apparent.
Dirt is a very sick man... trust me... as sick as hi1000, who
suggests killing executioners and using bazookas on those
who disagree with him. Dig away, dirt. Anything you find
only demonstrates how truly obsessive you have become in
reading the bible, as written by PV. But don't DARE
address any relevant issues again, because you get your
behind reddened every time you do.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<nonsense snipped>
>When the statute clearly explains that 'attempt' of a criminal
>act is an 'intent' of such an act... it doesn't take a brain
>surgeon to show you for the moron you are. And if ANYONE
>is trying to pass off bullshit for fact... we know who THAT
>ONE is.
Silly boy. PV.
Legally you do not know your arsehole from your elbow.
Once more, you show how incompetent you are. 'The statutes' do not
state that an attempt _is_ an intent to commit a specific offence.
They quite clearly state that attempt _requires_ intent to commit an
offence.
Let's have a look at one of your own quotes:
>http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/.
>You can the click on 'statutes' in the lower left this
>page. And from that page then do a search in
>the lower left to statute 939.32(3).
>"939.32(3)
>(3) An attempt to commit a crime requires that the actor have
>an intent to perform acts and attain a result which, if accomplished,
>would constitute such crime and that the actor does acts toward
>the commission of the crime which demonstrate unequivocally,
>under all the circumstances, that the actor formed that intent and
>would commit the crime except for the intervention of another
>person or some other extraneous factor."
Is it any wonder you are wrong all the time when you make such _basic_
errors? When interpreting a statute, PV, one must understand
completely what it is saying.
Now what you need to do is:
1- Admit you are talking shit and submit to my superior legal
knowledge.
2- Hysterically search through your previous quotes in this and other
threads to find a state specific statute which says that 'attempt'
_is_ 'intent' (I doubt you will find one, but I can't be arsed to
check), or one which is ambiguous, then using your skills of
verbosity, you must sufficiently muddy the waters with some silly
drivel which disguises the fact that your legal ignorance is displayed
more completely every time you attempt to prove some form of ability.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you will opt for [2].
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.k...@w00f.net> wrote in message news:jffgotcllv6uq4v1d...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:07:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <nonsense snipped>
>
> >When the statute clearly explains that 'attempt' of a criminal
> >act is an 'intent' of such an act... it doesn't take a brain
> >surgeon to show you for the moron you are. And if ANYONE
> >is trying to pass off bullshit for fact... we know who THAT
> >ONE is.
>
> Silly boy. PV.
>
> Legally you do not know your arsehole from your elbow.
>
Sorry, old boy... that's MY line.
> Once more, you show how incompetent you are. 'The statutes' do not
> state that an attempt _is_ an intent to commit a specific offence.
> They quite clearly state that attempt _requires_ intent to commit an
> offence.
>
> Let's have a look at one of your own quotes:
>
>
> >http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/.
> >You can the click on 'statutes' in the lower left this
> >page. And from that page then do a search in
> >the lower left to statute 939.32(3).
>
> >"939.32(3)
> >(3) An attempt to commit a crime requires that the actor have
> >an intent to perform acts and attain a result which, if accomplished,
> >would constitute such crime and that the actor does acts toward
> >the commission of the crime which demonstrate unequivocally,
> >under all the circumstances, that the actor formed that intent and
> >would commit the crime except for the intervention of another
> >person or some other extraneous factor."
>
> Is it any wonder you are wrong all the time when you make such _basic_
> errors? When interpreting a statute, PV, one must understand
> completely what it is saying.
>
This is what IS said -- "An attempt to commit a crime requires that the
actor have an intent to perform acts and attain a result which, if
accomplished, would constitute such crime..."
So since attempted 'rape' is the crime in question, let's just substitute
THAT for the statutes reference to 'crime,' and we have "An attempt to
commit 'rape' requires that the actor have an intent to perform acts and
attain a result which, if accomplished, would constitute such 'rape'..."
And we clearly have "An attempt to rape is an intent to rape."
> Now what you need to do is:
>
> 1- Admit you are talking shit and submit to my superior legal
> knowledge.
>
That would be nice... FOR YOU. Unfortunately, you have nothing
other than your begging me to do so, to support your claim to
such knowledge. Argue, boy... quit begging me and others to
see things your way... which is the way of ignorance, BTW. And
try to control that rage.
> 2- Hysterically search through your previous quotes in this and other
> threads to find a state specific statute which says that 'attempt'
> _is_ 'intent' (I doubt you will find one, but I can't be arsed to
> check), or one which is ambiguous, then using your skills of
> verbosity, you must sufficiently muddy the waters with some silly
> drivel which disguises the fact that your legal ignorance is displayed
> more completely every time you attempt to prove some form of ability.
>
The one I found will do... Of course, I've also found four other State
Statutes which show the same... you just keep trying to lie your way
out of it.
> I have no doubt whatsoever that you will opt for [2].
>
>
Let's look at two specific statements of dirt --
1) "Sexual intercourse without consent IS RAPE."
2) "I am not saying that rape is sexual intercourse"
So we are left with the insightful legal analysis of dirt, which claims that
Rape IS sexual intercourse... but Rape is also NOT sexual intercourse.
Oh, yes... that PRECISE legal mind at work.
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.k...@w00f.net> wrote in message news:jffgotcllv6uq4v1d...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:07:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <nonsense snipped>
>>
>> >When the statute clearly explains that 'attempt' of a criminal
>> >act is an 'intent' of such an act... it doesn't take a brain
>> >surgeon to show you for the moron you are. And if ANYONE
>> >is trying to pass off bullshit for fact... we know who THAT
>> >ONE is.
>>
>> Silly boy. PV.
>>
>> Legally you do not know your arsehole from your elbow.
>>
>
>Sorry, old boy... that's MY line.
>
Oh, PV, go fuck yourself.
If you are trying to claim ownership of the widely used term 'assholes
and elbows' you are truly more arrogant than I ever imagined.
But we shall apply you logic. I claim sole and exclusive use of the
words 'it', 'and', 'you are wrong', etc etc.
Fuckwit.
This, PV, as you well know arises legal difficulties. You know this
anyway and are clearly trolling.
>And we clearly have "An attempt to rape is an intent to rape."
Nope, we are still left with what I said we had before, an attempt to
rape occurs when a person intends to have sex, coupled the the other
requisite elements of rape, both mens rea and actus reus.
You _still_ haven't read Khan, have you?
>> Now what you need to do is:
>>
>> 1- Admit you are talking shit and submit to my superior legal
>> knowledge.
>>
>That would be nice... FOR YOU. Unfortunately, you have nothing
>other than your begging me to do so, to support your claim to
>such knowledge. Argue, boy... quit begging me and others to
>see things your way... which is the way of ignorance, BTW. And
>try to control that rage.
>
>> 2- Hysterically search through your previous quotes in this and other
>> threads to find a state specific statute which says that 'attempt'
>> _is_ 'intent' (I doubt you will find one, but I can't be arsed to
>> check), or one which is ambiguous, then using your skills of
>> verbosity, you must sufficiently muddy the waters with some silly
>> drivel which disguises the fact that your legal ignorance is displayed
>> more completely every time you attempt to prove some form of ability.
>>
>The one I found will do... Of course, I've also found four other State
>Statutes which show the same... you just keep trying to lie your way
>out of it.
You have found four other state statutes which show absolutely _sod_
all other than providing definitions of rape, or definitions of
attempt in isolation, and ignoring the problems of combining the two.
(other than Utah, where it appears the entire legal definition of rape
is anomalous).
But that is irrelevant anyway, unfunny troll boy.
>
>> I have no doubt whatsoever that you will opt for [2].
>>
>>
>Let's look at two specific statements of dirt --
>
>1) "Sexual intercourse without consent IS RAPE."
>2) "I am not saying that rape is sexual intercourse"
>
>So we are left with the insightful legal analysis of dirt, which claims that
>Rape IS sexual intercourse... but Rape is also NOT sexual intercourse.
>Oh, yes... that PRECISE legal mind at work.
Once again, PV, selective quoting with a clear intent of
disinformation, missing off words which clearly change the entire
meaning of my sentences.
This means that you are nothing more than a fucking _liar_, and one of
the most untrustworthy kind.
This type of behaviour got you killfiled by St George in the past, and
it shows to me that you have abandoned any self image you may have had
that you are an upstanding 'serious poster'.
No, PV, you are a troll. And a very unfunny one at that. Anyone can
tell lies, and claim some form of self victory if the subject of the
lies attempts to defend himself. That takes no skill at all.
You may consider yourself a skilled troll, PV, when you have
successfully turned a prolific 'serious poster' into a gibbering,
lying lunatic, forced him to throw numerous tantrums alienating his
former friends, and caused him to threaten on several occasions to
leave the group if people are not nicer to him.
w00f
>
>PV
>
>
>
>> w00f
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of...@w00f.net> wrote:
> If you are trying to claim ownership of the widely used term 'assholes
> and elbows' you are truly more arrogant than I ever imagined.
Yeah, PV, if you think that we're going to sit here on our elbows while
you take ownership of that expression then you've got another think
coming.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"If chance supplied a loaf of white bread,
Two casks of wine and a leg of mutton,
In the corner of a garden with a tulip-cheeked girl
There'd be enjoyment no Sultan could outdo." - Omar Khayyam.
A Planet Visitor
This seems to be an interesting post from dirt, that I apparently missed
during my absence. Relying on his vast array of legal knowledge he
attempts to define for us the difference between 'libel' and slander.'
Of course, EVERYONE knows that there IS no difference. Looking
at BOTH terms, it's obvious that they BOTH mean the same thing.
Limping along under the constraints of his 'classical education,'
and his pompous ego, however; I do believe that dirt is trying to
claim there is a difference.
What a jerk....
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of...@w00f.net> wrote in message news:m22lot0b52bjco7uc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:42:52 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.k...@w00f.net> wrote in message news:jffgotcllv6uq4v1d...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:07:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <nonsense snipped>
> >>
> >> >When the statute clearly explains that 'attempt' of a criminal
> >> >act is an 'intent' of such an act... it doesn't take a brain
> >> >surgeon to show you for the moron you are. And if ANYONE
> >> >is trying to pass off bullshit for fact... we know who THAT
> >> >ONE is.
> >>
> >> Silly boy. PV.
> >>
> >> Legally you do not know your arsehole from your elbow.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry, old boy... that's MY line.
> >
>
Now, now, dirt --- trying to 'push my button?' You need to get a handle
on that rage, old boy.
> If you are trying to claim ownership of the widely used term 'assholes
> and elbows' you are truly more arrogant than I ever imagined.
>
Seeing as how I used the term quite recently in posts to YOU, of
11 Aug and 12 Aug. The meaning is clear that you've simply copied
my usage. Try to be ORIGINAL dirt. Not in use of the two words
asshole (which you use with abandon) and elbow, but in the
CONNECTION I have made between them in your behavior here.
You've actually become somewhat of a trite, empty, smelly shell of
your previous vulgar self.
> But we shall apply you logic. I claim sole and exclusive use of the
> words 'it', 'and', 'you are wrong', etc etc.
>
You may do whatever you wish.
> xxxxwit.
>
Ah, that fury being expressed by you again. You need to chill out,
pardner.
Rubbish. Pure rubbish. Certainly not containing any meaning from
you, except your claim that 'legal difficulties arise.' The Statutes
are CLEAR. The only legal difficulties are those who would create
in your haste to disprove a relatively simple factual statement. Which
is ---
> >And we clearly have "An attempt to rape is an intent to rape."
>
> Nope, we are still left with what I said we had before, an attempt to
> rape occurs when a person intends to have sex, coupled the the other
> requisite elements of rape, both mens rea and actus reus.
>
No... the Statute is clear. An attempt to commit 'rape' requires that
the actor have an intent to perform acts and attain a result which, if
accomplished, would constitute such 'rape'..." Now if RAPE is
defined as you state, then 'attempted' rape is an 'intent' to rape
(under that SAME definition). The proof is in the CONVICTION of
an 'attempt.'
> You _still_ haven't read Khan, have you?
>
I've read it... YOU still don't UNDERSTAND it. It smells, dirt.
Smells to high heaven... and you KNOW it does.
>
> >> Now what you need to do is:
> >>
> >> 1- Admit you are talking shit and submit to my superior legal
> >> knowledge.
> >>
> >That would be nice... FOR YOU. Unfortunately, you have nothing
> >other than your begging me to do so, to support your claim to
> >such knowledge. Argue, boy... quit begging me and others to
> >see things your way... which is the way of ignorance, BTW. And
> >try to control that rage.
> >
> >> 2- Hysterically search through your previous quotes in this and other
> >> threads to find a state specific statute which says that 'attempt'
> >> _is_ 'intent' (I doubt you will find one, but I can't be arsed to
> >> check), or one which is ambiguous, then using your skills of
> >> verbosity, you must sufficiently muddy the waters with some silly
> >> drivel which disguises the fact that your legal ignorance is displayed
> >> more completely every time you attempt to prove some form of ability.
> >>
> >The one I found will do... Of course, I've also found four other State
> >Statutes which show the same... you just keep trying to lie your way
> >out of it.
>
> You have found four other state statutes which show absolutely _sod_
> all other than providing definitions of rape, or definitions of
> attempt in isolation, and ignoring the problems of combining the two.
> (other than Utah, where it appears the entire legal definition of rape
> is anomalous).
>
I do NOT NEED to define RAPE. I need ONLY define 'attempt'
to incorporate 'intent,' under the definition that RAPE is incorporated
under. You could well substitute 'car theft' for rape, in my statement,
IF the State Statutes provide that 'attempt' constitutes 'intent' to
commit the SAME crime. This is the point that you hope to obscure
with your smoke and mirrors legal mumbo-jumbo. But the MEANING
in LEGAL terms is ALSO clear, in the State Criminal Statutes I
have provided.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska
"AS 11.31.100. Attempt.
(a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with intent to
commit a crime, the person engages in conduct which constitutes a
substantial step toward the commission of that crime."
Clearly, conviction of 'attempt' provides PROOF of 'intent.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon
"161.405 "Attempt" described. (1) A person is guilty of an attempt to
commit a crime when the person intentionally engages in conduct
which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime."
Conviction of 'Attempt' proves intentional... conduct...
toward commission of the crime. "Attempt' to rape,
proves 'intention' toward commission of the crime (rape).
-----------------------------------------------
Alabama
"Section 13A-4-2
Attempt.
(a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with the
intent to commit a specific offense, he does any overt act towards
the commission of such offense."
Ho ho ho. Guilt of attempt to commit a crime (rape) if with
the 'intent' to commit the crime (rape).
> But that is irrelevant anyway, unfunny troll boy.
You're simply beginning to spit in the wind now, funny man. If that's
the extent of your argument, you should return to vulgar abuse.
Because your argument is beginning to look rather rancid.
> >
> >> I have no doubt whatsoever that you will opt for [2].
> >>
> >>
> >Let's look at two specific statements of dirt --
> >
> >1) "Sexual intercourse without consent IS RAPE."
>
> >2) "I am not saying that rape is sexual intercourse"
>
> >
> >So we are left with the insightful legal analysis of dirt, which claims that
> >Rape IS sexual intercourse... but Rape is also NOT sexual intercourse.
> >Oh, yes... that PRECISE legal mind at work.
>
> Once again, PV, selective quoting with a clear intent of
> disinformation, missing off words which clearly change the entire
> meaning of my sentences.
>
Oh.... 'selective quoting' is it? Yes, I left off your 'you tit,' comment.
Do not deny what you've clearly said, by calling it 'selective quoting.'
It's a weak and ineffective argument, which casts doubt on ALL your
other arguments. Best to fess up, and simply acknowledge that you
misspoke.
> This means that you are nothing more than a xxxxxx _liar_, and one of
> the most untrustworthy kind.
>
Actually, have I MISQUOTED you? Shall I provide the two references
to your EXACT words? You know -- MISQUOTES are when YOU claim
I exhibit racist tendencies without anything other than calling me 'david,'
to substantiate such claims.
> This type of behaviour got you killfiled by St George in the past, and
> it shows to me that you have abandoned any self image you may have had
> that you are an upstanding 'serious poster'.
>
Rattle on, dirt. You've just managed to dig yourself deeper and
deeper into that stinky sinkhole of ignorance. You have the
utmost nerve to question the 'seriousness' of ANY poster here...
including FRANK. You make HIM look like Mother Teresa.
If EVER there was a poster who should not be taken seriously,
that's you, buddy. And for you to even USE the words 'self image'
casts a distinctive, and smelly odor over the very words.
> No, PV, you are a troll. And a very unfunny one at that. Anyone can
> tell lies, and claim some form of self victory if the subject of the
> lies attempts to defend himself. That takes no skill at all.
>
Yes... know thyself, dirt. Know thyself, and recognize how often
you use SG Seminal Observation (6), as you apparently are
trying in another role reversal in your persona of 'opposite man.'
It takes NO SKILL at all, to simply decide to 'push the buttons,'
rather than argue with substance, when you obviously lack such
substance. But you ARE so good at 'pushing those buttons.'
It's just unfortunate for you that they've trained chimpanzees to do
the same.
> You may consider yourself a skilled troll, PV, when you have
> successfully turned a prolific 'serious poster' into a gibbering,
> lying lunatic, forced him to throw numerous tantrums alienating his
> former friends, and caused him to threaten on several occasions to
> leave the group if people are not nicer to him.
>
Hello??? Have you TOTALLY lost your mind? I've turned a
prolific 'serious poster' into a gibbering, lying lunatic? You need to
practice some sentence construction here, dirt. I presume that
you're referring to your view that 'I' have changed, rather than
'I' have changed another. I believe you should have used 'from'
in place of 'a.' Although that's really not that clear that such is
your 'intent.' Perhaps you should 'attempt' a more coherent
sentence, if your 'intent' is to convey any rational information.
But then -- YOU'RE the lawyer. If you ARE referring to me, I think
you're still spitting in the wind. I HAVE no friends here... without
exception ALL are adversarial to my opinion. Certainly, I have
less adversarial conflict with most retentionists... finding much
to agree with in their view. But let me be clear here.... as I have
stated before. NO ONE here agrees with my EXACT moral
feelings concerning the DP. But perhaps I misunderstand your
sentence construction, and you WERE referring to yourself as a
prolific 'serious poster,' that I've successfully turned into a
gibbering, lying lunatic. If that's the case, I have to say that I
NEVER considered you prolific or serious, but certainly agree
that you're a gibbering, lying lunatic. And some of your more
recent statements are proving this to be more and more certain
of being the facts.
PV
> w00f
>
Dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
snipped
>>
>
>This seems to be an interesting post from dirt, that I apparently missed
>during my absence. Relying on his vast array of legal knowledge he
>attempts to define for us the difference between 'libel' and slander.'
>Of course, EVERYONE knows that there IS no difference. Looking
>at BOTH terms, it's obvious that they BOTH mean the same thing.
>Limping along under the constraints of his 'classical education,'
>and his pompous ego, however; I do believe that dirt is trying to
>claim there is a difference.
>What a jerk....
>
>PV
>
Troll spotted and duly discarded into the bin of PV related tosh.
A reasonably clever attempt, I feel to try and turn your recent legal
thraping into a 'just trolling' escapade, but one which unfortunately
met with failure.
Twat.
w00f
Dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of...@w00f.net> wrote in message news:m22lot0b52bjco7uc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:42:52 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.k...@w00f.net> wrote in message news:jffgotcllv6uq4v1d...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:07:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>> >>
<gibberish and childish attempt to claim property in widely used
terminology snipped>
<denial of existence of legal intricacies snipped>
>> >And we clearly have "An attempt to rape is an intent to rape."
>>
>> Nope, we are still left with what I said we had before, an attempt to
>> rape occurs when a person intends to have sex, coupled the the other
>> requisite elements of rape, both mens rea and actus reus.
>>
>No... the Statute is clear. An attempt to commit 'rape' requires that
>the actor have an intent to perform acts and attain a result which, if
>accomplished, would constitute such 'rape'..." Now if RAPE is
>defined as you state, then 'attempted' rape is an 'intent' to rape
>(under that SAME definition). The proof is in the CONVICTION of
>an 'attempt.'
>
>> You _still_ haven't read Khan, have you?
>>
>I've read it... YOU still don't UNDERSTAND it. It smells, dirt.
>Smells to high heaven... and you KNOW it does.
>
Ding dong.
Fuckwit alert.
If I remember rightly, PV, you claim to be 68. I may be wrong.
What I am correct in is the assertion that the last time I heard
someone dismiss something which showed they were wrong because it
'smells' I was in primary school.
Perhaps you could clarify what 'smells' means.
<snipped various clueless quotes of statutes>
>
>Ho ho ho. Guilt of attempt to commit a crime (rape) if with
>the 'intent' to commit the crime (rape).
You may post as many definitions of general intent as you wish PV. I
agreed on the almost universal definition with you from the start.
You ignore, as ever, any guidelines, regulation or caselaw which will
undoubtedly exist in the US to clarify how such definition should be
applied to crimes which might be based on recklessness, such as rape,
where applying a concept of intent to the full offence is a nonsense.
If you can find a US equivalent of Khan which rules in favour of your
ridiculous legal nonsense about how this issue should be dealt with, I
shall listen. At the moment, I retain my position that I am right, and
you are very, very wrong.
>
>> But that is irrelevant anyway, unfunny troll boy.
>
>You're simply beginning to spit in the wind now, funny man. If that's
>the extent of your argument, you should return to vulgar abuse.
>Because your argument is beginning to look rather rancid.
Says the troll. Been caught with your pants down recently, PV? Try a
few minutes ago.
>
>> >
>> >> I have no doubt whatsoever that you will opt for [2].
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Let's look at two specific statements of dirt --
>> >
>> >1) "Sexual intercourse without consent IS RAPE."
>>
>> >2) "I am not saying that rape is sexual intercourse"
>>
>> >
>> >So we are left with the insightful legal analysis of dirt, which claims that
>> >Rape IS sexual intercourse... but Rape is also NOT sexual intercourse.
>> >Oh, yes... that PRECISE legal mind at work.
>>
>> Once again, PV, selective quoting with a clear intent of
>> disinformation, missing off words which clearly change the entire
>> meaning of my sentences.
>>
>Oh.... 'selective quoting' is it? Yes, I left off your 'you tit,' comment.
>Do not deny what you've clearly said, by calling it 'selective quoting.'
>It's a weak and ineffective argument, which casts doubt on ALL your
>other arguments. Best to fess up, and simply acknowledge that you
>misspoke.
>
>> This means that you are nothing more than a xxxxxx _liar_, and one of
>> the most untrustworthy kind.
>>
>Actually, have I MISQUOTED you? Shall I provide the two references
>to your EXACT words? You know -- MISQUOTES are when YOU claim
>I exhibit racist tendencies without anything other than calling me 'david,'
>to substantiate such claims.
Yes please. Could you? make sure you are very careful what you select,
your image is already one of a person who willfully misleads, and we
wouldn't want to soil it further, do we?
<requisite reference to hole digging and three hundred word
explanation as to why what I say doesn't bother PV snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:diablo-617161....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <m22lot0b52bjco7uc...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
> <dog.of...@w00f.net> wrote:
>
> > If you are trying to claim ownership of the widely used term 'assholes
> > and elbows' you are truly more arrogant than I ever imagined.
>
> Yeah, PV, if you think that we're going to sit here on our elbows while
> you take ownership of that expression then you've got another think
> coming.
>
QUITE a long time ago, in this newsgroup. If someone can show
usage prior to mine, then can HAVE the words. Until then, those who
do use it are just plain ol' 'copy-cats.'
___|___
|
^
Now the ABOVE 'sarcasm' sign IS the property of Earl. But I've
rightly stolen it, and he'll NEVER get it back. :-)
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Dirtdog" <dog.of.lu...@w00f.b4ark.h0wl.net> wrote in message news:bpslotcmsbmh2m2nj...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:36:25 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of...@w00f.net> wrote in message news:m22lot0b52bjco7uc...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:42:52 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.k...@w00f.net> wrote in message news:jffgotcllv6uq4v1d...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:07:39 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> >> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> <gibberish and childish attempt to claim property in widely used
> terminology snipped>
>
short days ago, it would have gone unnoticed. But clearly you
are simply at a loss for an original thought, and needed to refer
to MY comments to form an insult. Pathetic, dirt... really pathetic.
> <denial of existence of legal intricacies snipped>
>
Oh yeah... those 'legal intricacies.'
> >> >And we clearly have "An attempt to rape is an intent to rape."
> >>
> >> Nope, we are still left with what I said we had before, an attempt to
> >> rape occurs when a person intends to have sex, coupled the the other
> >> requisite elements of rape, both mens rea and actus reus.
> >>
> >No... the Statute is clear. An attempt to commit 'rape' requires that
> >the actor have an intent to perform acts and attain a result which, if
> >accomplished, would constitute such 'rape'..." Now if RAPE is
> >defined as you state, then 'attempted' rape is an 'intent' to rape
> >(under that SAME definition). The proof is in the CONVICTION of
> >an 'attempt.'
> >
> >> You _still_ haven't read Khan, have you?
> >>
> >I've read it... YOU still don't UNDERSTAND it. It smells, dirt.
> >Smells to high heaven... and you KNOW it does.
> >
>
> Ding dong.
>
> ****wit alert.
>
> If I remember rightly, PV, you claim to be 68. I may be wrong.
>
You usually are, dirt. In this case, you simply followed all the clues
which I provided and arrived at the conclusion that I've already
given.
> What I am correct in is the assertion that the last time I heard
> someone dismiss something which showed they were wrong because it
> 'smells' I was in primary school.
>
Was that such a 'short' time ago???
> Perhaps you could clarify what 'smells' means.
>
>
Stinks to high heaven... as a caseload of overripe Stilton. Quite
bringing gasps of demands for fresh air. Is that more clear?
> <snipped various clueless quotes of statutes>
> >
> >Ho ho ho. Guilt of attempt to commit a crime (rape) if with
> >the 'intent' to commit the crime (rape).
>
> You may post as many definitions of general intent as you wish PV. I
> agreed on the almost universal definition with you from the start.
>
Hardly.. you're simply backtracking.
> You ignore, as ever, any guidelines, regulation or caselaw which will
> undoubtedly exist in the US to clarify how such definition should be
> applied to crimes which might be based on recklessness, such as rape,
> where applying a concept of intent to the full offence is a nonsense.
>
If the STATUTE is there, ALL is interpretation, you moron. The
Statute provides the DEFINITION, not case-law.... which changes
at the whim of the courts. Certainly many decisions of the Supreme
Court corroborate that point. If we are looking for the underlying
truth of the statement in question, it hinges on the DEFINITION
provided in the Statutes.
> If you can find a US equivalent of Khan which rules in favour of your
> ridiculous legal nonsense about how this issue should be dealt with, I
> shall listen. At the moment, I retain my position that I am right, and
> you are very, very wrong.
>
I do NOT need to, nor do I have access to case-law. My layman's
limitations rest on U.S. Statutes. It's all smoke and mirrors on your part,
to claim that an obscure case-law argument from a strange, distant,
rather provincial outback land can prove YOUR argument, when
confronted by the Statutes which exist in many of these glorious
U.S. States. Are you perhaps presuming that English law holds
some superiority over U.S. Law? If so, your delusion is even greater
than I first believed it to be. We decided THAT particular issues more
than 200 years ago.
> >
> >> But that is irrelevant anyway, unfunny troll boy.
> >
> >You're simply beginning to spit in the wind now, funny man. If that's
> >the extent of your argument, you should return to vulgar abuse.
> >Because your argument is beginning to look rather rancid.
>
> Says the troll. Been caught with your pants down recently, PV? Try a
> few minutes ago.
SG Seminal observation (6). Simply make an accusation and
move on to a new thread, claiming victory in the old one. It's just
getting sooooo old, dirt. You need a new vulgarity... otherwise,
you're doomed to be forgotten. You should remember the
words that "There are those who when they no longer shock
us, begin to bore us." You've become VERY boring, and very
trite. Lacking even the ability to come up with original insults,
finding it necessary to steal mine.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> I have no doubt whatsoever that you will opt for [2].
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Let's look at two specific statements of dirt --
> >> >
> >> >1) "Sexual intercourse without consent IS RAPE."
> >>
> >> >2) "I am not saying that rape is sexual intercourse"
> >>
> >> >
> >> >So we are left with the insightful legal analysis of dirt, which claims that
> >> >Rape IS sexual intercourse... but Rape is also NOT sexual intercourse.
> >> >Oh, yes... that PRECISE legal mind at work.
> >>
> >> Once again, PV, selective quoting with a clear intent of
> >> disinformation, missing off words which clearly change the entire
> >> meaning of my sentences.
> >>
> >Oh.... 'selective quoting' is it? Yes, I left off your 'you tit,' comment.
> >Do not deny what you've clearly said, by calling it 'selective quoting.'
> >It's a weak and ineffective argument, which casts doubt on ALL your
> >other arguments. Best to fess up, and simply acknowledge that you
> >misspoke.
> >
> >> This means that you are nothing more than a xxxxxx _liar_, and one of
> >> the most untrustworthy kind.
> >>
> >Actually, have I MISQUOTED you? Shall I provide the two references
> >to your EXACT words? You know -- MISQUOTES are when YOU claim
> >I exhibit racist tendencies without anything other than calling me 'david,'
> >to substantiate such claims.
>
> Yes please. Could you? make sure you are very careful what you select,
> your image is already one of a person who willfully misleads, and we
> wouldn't want to soil it further, do we?
>
Yes, the first statement arose from the thread "A Planet Visitor - soft
on sex offenders" The second statement was only a few days ago in
the same thread in posting to Van Voordturen.
> <requisite reference to hole digging and three hundred word
> explanation as to why what I say doesn't bother PV snipped>
>
And an exquisite attempt by dirt to hide the facts. Trust me, dirt.
Clipping out comments without reply doesn't REALLY constitute
any meaning... it's simply an attempt to 'push my buttons,' which
no longer has any effect on me, having realized that's ALL you're
good at.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Dirtdog" <dog.of.lu...@w00f.b4ark.h0wl.net> wrote in message news:q4slot0unof0upnnr...@4ax.com...
>
Damn... and I REALLY thought I'd have you going here, dirt. I guess
I've mentioned your bloated ego so often that you've become wary of
my every mention of it... AS WELL YOU SHOULD. Be afraid, dirt...
be very afraid.. because my next troll might not be so obvious.
PV
> w00f
>
>