This nonsense is WRONG!
WTJ
passion,
I understand emotional need for retribution when someone hurts you
or your own,
BUT I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND SLOW, STUDIED
DELIBERATION OF EXECUTION
BY "IMPARTIAL"
JURORS AND JUDGES,
AND EMOTIONAL PLEAS
BY POLITICALY MOTIVATED
PROSECUTERS.
HOW FUCKIN' ARROGANT!
An alternate on a similar trial,
who begged off before phase 2,
because of DISGUST!
A Planet Visitor
"WTJ" <SendN...@ThisTime.com> wrote in message news:dyTT6.69038$4f7.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
PV
Fr@nkie
Fred L. Wellman
"WTJ" <SendN...@ThisTime.com> wrote in message
news:dyTT6.69038$4f7.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
maximus decimus meridius
that excuse for years. What about holding people accountable for their
actions? I think not doing so is the single thing most wrong with society
today.
"WTJ" <SendN...@ThisTime.com> wrote in message
news:dyTT6.69038$4f7.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Highimpact1000
> Murder in the heat of passion? What a load of shit! People have been using
> that excuse for years. What about holding people accountable for their
> actions? I think not doing so is the single thing most wrong with society
> today.
The death penalty is worse then murder in the heat of passion. It is
100% premeditated, and completely avoidable. It is the killing of a
defenseles person by "we the people," and we should hold ourselves to
a higher standard of morality collectively than we do individually.
Once we have apprehended and imprisoned murderers they are no threat
to us. If you can show that a murderer may give orders from prison,
or you want to protect other prisoners from him, then you can make a
reasonable argument for killing in self defense. Otherwise, the death
penalty sinks to the same wanton level as murder.
Mike
'passion provoked manslaughter' which basically downgrade a crime's
sentence from 30 years no parole to 15 years with parole eligibility in 7
years. New Jersey is the greatest police state in America. Mike.
"Highimpact1000" <highimp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:373df39a.01060...@posting.google.com...
Fred L. Wellman
> 100% premeditated, and completely avoidable. It is the killing of a
> defenseles person by "we the people," and we should hold ourselves to
> a higher standard of morality collectively than we do individually.
>
> Once we have apprehended and imprisoned murderers they are no threat
> to us. If you can show that a murderer may give orders from prison,
> or you want to protect other prisoners from him, then you can make a
> reasonable argument for killing in self defense. Otherwise, the death
> penalty sinks to the same wanton level as murder.
You are correct when you stated "It is "100% premeditated, and completely
avoidable".
If the murderer did not kill he would avoid the DP. In Philadelphia we have
a "Mafia" trail going on. Part of the testimony as has been that murders
are ordered from the crime boss in prison. Almost every type of crime is.
If we reduce the prisoners "Right's" it is cruel and unusual punishment. So
how do we stop this? Fred
Smith@nowhere.com John Smith
J.
"Highimpact1000" <highimp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:373df39a.01060...@posting.google.com...
A Planet Visitor
"John Smith" <John Sm...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:9ftfui$gp0$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> Hear, hear!!... you become what you hate.
> J.
>
So hating racism makes you a racist???
> "Highimpact1000" <highimp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:373df39a.01060...@posting.google.com...
> > "maximus decimus meridius" <dice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<ti2tsnl...@corp.supernews.com>...
<rest of crap clipped>
A Planet Visitor
"Highimpact1000" <highimp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:373df39a.01060...@posting.google.com...
> > Murder in the heat of passion? What a load of shit! People have been using
> > that excuse for years. What about holding people accountable for their
> > actions? I think not doing so is the single thing most wrong with society
> > today.
>
>
> The death penalty is worse then murder in the heat of passion. It is
> 100% premeditated, and completely avoidable. It is the killing of a
> defenseles person by "we the people," and we should hold ourselves to
> a higher standard of morality collectively than we do individually.
>
standard of morality.' Clearly you can't. Nothing is worse that murder.
Murder is an act of killing an INNOCENT. Certainly there are degrees
of depravity evident in every murder. But the murder containing the
least depravity is infinitely worse than the lawful execution of one who
murders.
> Once we have apprehended and imprisoned murderers they are no threat
> to us. If you can show that a murderer may give orders from prison,
> or you want to protect other prisoners from him, then you can make a
> reasonable argument for killing in self defense. Otherwise, the death
> penalty sinks to the same wanton level as murder.
>
You asked for it: No longer a threat, eh??
Dwain Little, Oregon. Raped/Stabbed 16-year-old girl. Life
term 1966. Paroled 1974. Returned as Parole Violator 1975.
Again Released 1977. Then shot family of 4. Three
consecutive life terms for rape and murder 1980.
John McRae, Michigan/Florida. Life for murder of 8-year-old
boy. Pedophile. Paroled 1971. Convicted of another murder
of a boy after parole, in Michigan 1998. Charges pending
on 2 other counts in Florida.
John Miller, California. Killed an infant 1957, convicted of murder,
1958. Paroled 1975. Killed his parents 1975. Life term 1975.
Michael Lawrence, Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term,
1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990.
Randolph Dial, Oklahoma. Life for murder 1986. Escaped from
prison with deputy warden's wife as kidnap victim. 1989. Still
at large. Warden's wife never found.
Donald Dillbeck, Florida. Killed policeman in 1979. Escaped
from prison in 1990, kidnapped and killed female motorist after
escape. Condemned 1991.
Edward Kennedy, Florida. Killed motel clerk. Sentenced to
Life. Escaped 1981. Killed policeman and male civilian after
prison break. Executed 1992.
Dawud Mu'Min, Virginia. Killed cab driver in holdup. Sentenced
1973. Escaped 1988. Raped/killed woman 1988. Condemned
1989. Executed 1997.
Viva Nash, Utah/Arizona. Two terms of life for murder in Utah,
1978. Escaped in 1982. Murdered again. Condemned in
Arizona, 1983.
Randy Greenawalt - Escaped from Prison in 1978, while serving
a life sentence for a 1974 murder. He then murdered a family of
4 people, shotgunning them to death, including a toddler.
Norman Parker, Florida/D.C. Life term in Florida for murder,
1966. Escaped 1978. Life on another count of murder in
1979.
Winford Stokes, Missouri. Ruled insane on two counts of
murder 1969. Escaped from asylum, 1978. Murdered
again. Executed for this murder, 1990.
Charles Crawford, Missouri. Life term in 1965 for
murder. Paroled 1990. Convicted of murder again in 1994.
Jack Ferrell, Florida. Murdered 1981. 15 years to life, 1982.
Paroled 1987. Murdered again 1992. Condemned 1993.
Timothy Buss - Killed five-year-old girl. Sentenced to 25 years
in 1981. Paroled 1993. Murdered 10-year-old boy. Condemned
1996.
Martsay Bolder, Missouri. Sentenced to Life, 1973. Murdered
prison cellmate 1980.
Henry Brisbon, Illinois. Killed 2 in robbery. Sentenced to 1000-
3000 years. Killed inmate in prison 1982.
Kenneth McDuff - Need I say more.
Melvin Geary - served 13 years of a life sentence for the stabbing death
of a Las Vegas woman in 1973, with a boning knife. He was freed after
the state Parole Board commuted his sentence from L wop to
life with parole. (How a 'Parole' Board may commute a
sentence of 'without parole,' remains a mystery). Nevertheless,
it happened, thus categorically providing proof that L wop DOES
NOT mean L wop in EVERY instance, even when one is guilty.
After his release,Geary was subsequently convicted of murdering
71-year-old Edward Colvin of Sparks, again with a boning knife
after Colvin took him in.
Samuel D. Smith was in prison for murdering Zita Casey, 79, during a
burglary in St. Louis in 1978. While encarcerated he murdered
inmate Marlin May in a knife fight in 1987.
Jarmarr Arnold - who, while on DR, murdered another
DR inmate by stabbing him in the forehead with a sharpen
spike. Proving that not even a death sentence can
prevent murder until the sentence is carried out.
Theodore Frank - Abducted 24-MONTH-old Amy Sue Seitz,
from her own living room, while relatives were in the house.
Only thirty-two inches tall and weighing a mere 32 pounds
her body was found by two dogs. She had been raped,
and strangled. Her skin had been peeled from her body
with pliers while she was still alive. Frank had an extensive
history of prior arrests for the same type of molestation. He
had previously spent 14 years in hospitals and prisons. While
incarcerated, he wrote this in a notebook; "Why do I want to
degrade and humiliate children? Sadism...I enjoy the humiliation.
Defile the innocent. Make them scared of sex. It's dirty."
The recent Texas 7 - Escaped from prison. Recaptured,
and accused of murdering a law enforcement officer while
in escape status. An avowed abolitionist in this newsgroup,
Desmond, called for them to be under the protection of
God, in their travels to Mexico, if they faced the DP.
~300 post-Furman DP sentenced murderers who had their
sentences commuted to alternate prison sentences as a
result of Furman, murdered 6 more while still in prison.
Bundy - Gacy - Daumer - All upstanding individuals responsible
for probably up to 100 murders of innocents.
Rebuttal????
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"John Smith" <John Sm...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:9ftfui$gp0$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
>> Hear, hear!!... you become what you hate.
>> J.
>>
>
>So hating racism makes you a racist???
>
Not necessarily, but using a hate of killers to justify the DP makes
you a killer.
d0g
Highimpact1000
Good point in favor of the death penalty. If it can be proven that
the mafia crime boss gave orders from prison then he can be found
guilty of murder. We could concievably write into our laws that only
those who kill after being aprehended get the death penalty. But it
seems unlikely that it would ever be law. The reason the death
penalty is a controversial issue is because there are arguments for
and against it. We need to look at all the arguments for and against
the death penalty, and through reason try to determine if having it or
not having it will lead to the most desirable outcome. Most of the
arguments against the death penalty seem to me to be based on revenge.
Revenge is not reasonable and until people realize that they will
keep hurting themselves. Forgiveness is the answer. I become more
and more against the death penalty as I see that it is mostly
unreasonable. But I am always willing to listen to reason.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
snipped
>>
>Once again.. YOU are supposing that YOU can define that 'higher
>standard of morality.' Clearly you can't. Nothing is worse that murder.
>Murder is an act of killing an INNOCENT. Certainly there are degrees
>of depravity evident in every murder. But the murder containing the
>least depravity is infinitely worse than the lawful execution of one who
>murders.
This is clearly incorrect. Murder is certainly not the act of killing
and innocent. It is an act of unlawful killing that is of a
premeditated nature with intent (v. broad def to incorporate as large
an amount of national definitions as possible). Consider the person
who plans and carries out the killing of a convicted murderer whilst
they are in custody. Such an inmate would be guilty of murder, but
could not be accused of killing an innocent
snipped
>
>You asked for it: No longer a threat, eh??
>
>Dwain Little, Oregon. Raped/Stabbed 16-year-old girl. Life
>term 1966. Paroled 1974. Returned as Parole Violator 1975.
>Again Released 1977. Then shot family of 4. Three
>consecutive life terms for rape and murder 1980.
snip
Prison system of parole assessment failed. Could have been kept in
prison.No need to execute
>
>John McRae, Michigan/Florida. Life for murder of 8-year-old
>boy. Pedophile. Paroled 1971. Convicted of another murder
>of a boy after parole, in Michigan 1998. Charges pending
>on 2 other counts in Florida.
snip
Prison system of parole assessment failed. Could have been kept in
prison.No need to execute
>
>John Miller, California. Killed an infant 1957, convicted of murder,
>1958. Paroled 1975. Killed his parents 1975. Life term 1975.
snip
Prison system of parole assessment failed. Could have been kept in
prison.No need to execute
>
>Michael Lawrence, Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term,
>1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990.
>snip
Prison system of parole assessment failed. Could have been kept in
prison.No need to execute
>
>Randolph Dial, Oklahoma. Life for murder 1986. Escaped from
>prison with deputy warden's wife as kidnap victim. 1989. Still
>at large. Warden's wife never found.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>Donald Dillbeck, Florida. Killed policeman in 1979. Escaped
>from prison in 1990, kidnapped and killed female motorist after
>escape. Condemned 1991.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>Edward Kennedy, Florida. Killed motel clerk. Sentenced to
>Life. Escaped 1981. Killed policeman and male civilian after
>prison break. Executed 1992.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>Dawud Mu'Min, Virginia. Killed cab driver in holdup. Sentenced
>1973. Escaped 1988. Raped/killed woman 1988. Condemned
>1989. Executed 1997.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>Viva Nash, Utah/Arizona. Two terms of life for murder in Utah,
>1978. Escaped in 1982. Murdered again. Condemned in
>Arizona, 1983.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>Randy Greenawalt - Escaped from Prison in 1978, while serving
>a life sentence for a 1974 murder. He then murdered a family of
>4 people, shotgunning them to death, including a toddler.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
I particularly like the emphasis on the death of a toddler in order to
attempt to provoke a reaction of disgust and thus justify a vulgar
retributionist reaction.
>Norman Parker, Florida/D.C. Life term in Florida for murder,
>1966. Escaped 1978. Life on another count of murder in
>1979.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>Winford Stokes, Missouri. Ruled insane on two counts of
>murder 1969. Escaped from asylum, 1978. Murdered
>again. Executed for this murder, 1990.
snip
THE MAN WAS FOUND INSANE BY THE COURTS. WHAT FUCKING RELEVANCE HAS
THIS????? WHY THE FUCK WAS HE EXECUTED FOR THE SECOND MURDER? WAS HE
AT THAT POINT NO LONGER INSANE? FUCKING YANKS....
Oh, and a clear failing of that particular asylum's security. I dare
say that even slack jawed southern mental institutions could make a
secure environment were they not too busy buggering the patients and
shouting 'HELL YEAH'. No need to execute.
>Charles Crawford, Missouri. Life term in 1965 for
>murder. Paroled 1990. Convicted of murder again in 1994
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>
>Jack Ferrell, Florida. Murdered 1981. 15 years to life, 1982.
>Paroled 1987. Murdered again 1992. Condemned 1993.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>Timothy Buss - Killed five-year-old girl. Sentenced to 25 years
>in 1981. Paroled 1993. Murdered 10-year-old boy. Condemned
>1996.
snip
Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
execute.
>Martsay Bolder, Missouri. Sentenced to Life, 1973. Murdered
>prison cellmate 1980.
snip
Failing of protection offered by penal institutions to inmates.
Failing of any attempts at rehabilitation offered by criminal justice
system. No need to execute.
>Henry Brisbon, Illinois. Killed 2 in robbery. Sentenced to 1000-
>3000 years. Killed inmate in prison 1982.
snip
Failing of protection offered by penal institutions to inmates.
Failing of any attempts at rehabilitation offered by criminal justice
system. No need to execute.
snipped blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
>
>Rebuttal????
>
>PV
To kill them is the easy way out, isn't it? Just because our system
has not developed adequate methods of dealing with offenders, it
doesn't mean we've got to kill them. How the hell can any message be
put accross that violence doesn't solve anything when the reaction of
the wise and noble state to problems it cannot handle is one so
physically extreme?
d0g
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dogofg...@woof.com> wrote in message news:u145itc4btnq133pj...@4ax.com...
Then the original thought from John Smith was not accurate... right?
That was my point.
Do you hate murder, dirtdog? Can you tell me how it is possible to
hate murder, but not hate a murderer? Do you even know what 'hate'
means? Hate for any crime justifies a belief in a penalty for that crime.
Do you hate crime, dirtdog? Do you hate that we 'punish' those who
commit crimes? Do you hate rapists? Do you think rapists should
be punished?
PV
> d0g
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dogofg...@woof.com> wrote in message news:ui45it0b8v3nefr1f...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:07:48 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> snipped
>
> >>
> >Once again.. YOU are supposing that YOU can define that 'higher
> >standard of morality.' Clearly you can't. Nothing is worse that murder.
> >Murder is an act of killing an INNOCENT. Certainly there are degrees
> >of depravity evident in every murder. But the murder containing the
> >least depravity is infinitely worse than the lawful execution of one who
> >murders.
> This is clearly incorrect. Murder is certainly not the act of killing
> and innocent. It is an act of unlawful killing that is of a
> premeditated nature with intent (v. broad def to incorporate as large
> an amount of national definitions as possible). Consider the person
> who plans and carries out the killing of a convicted murderer whilst
> they are in custody. Such an inmate would be guilty of murder, but
> could not be accused of killing an innocent
>
fact is ALL murder is clearly murder. There is no distinction at murder's lower
level. Everyone is INNOCENT of DESERVING to be murdered. Even
Jeffrey Daumer. I could see a retentionist trying to argue this point
with me (and of course, losing). But it's hard to believe that an
abolitionist would see a MURDER of one person by another to not
be a murder of an innocent. You do know what 'innocent' means, don't you?
Who would you claim is 'guilty' of 'being' qualified to be murdered?
Obviously if you claim a murderer is 'guilty,' and not innocent
of 'being' murdered, then you can have no objection to the DP, even
if you were to call it 'murder.'
PV
> snipped
>
> >
> >You asked for it: No longer a threat, eh??
> >
> Prison system of parole assessment failed. Could have been kept in
> prison.No need to execute
> Prison system of parole assessment failed. Could have been kept in
> prison.No need to execute
> Prison system of parole assessment failed. Could have been kept in
> prison.No need to execute
> Prison system of parole assessment failed. Could have been kept in
> prison.No need to execute
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> I particularly like the emphasis on the death of a toddler in order to
> attempt to provoke a reaction of disgust and thus justify a vulgar
> retributionist reaction.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> THE MAN WAS FOUND INSANE BY THE COURTS. WHAT FUCKING RELEVANCE HAS
> THIS????? WHY THE FUCK WAS HE EXECUTED FOR THE SECOND MURDER? WAS HE
> AT THAT POINT NO LONGER INSANE? FUCKING YANKS....
> Oh, and a clear failing of that particular asylum's security. I dare
> say that even slack jawed southern mental institutions could make a
> secure environment were they not too busy buggering the patients and
> shouting 'HELL YEAH'. No need to execute.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> Failing of prison security. I dare say even slack jawed southern yank
> screws could implement a very secure high risk 'penitentiary' were
> they not too busy drinking moonshine and shootin' rabbits. No need to
> execute.
> Failing of protection offered by penal institutions to inmates.
> Failing of any attempts at rehabilitation offered by criminal justice
> system. No need to execute.
> Failing of protection offered by penal institutions to inmates.
> Failing of any attempts at rehabilitation offered by criminal justice
> system. No need to execute.
>
> snipped blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> To kill them is the easy way out, isn't it? Just because our system
> has not developed adequate methods of dealing with offenders, it
> doesn't mean we've got to kill them. How the hell can any message be
> put accross that violence doesn't solve anything when the reaction of
> the wise and noble state to problems it cannot handle is one so
> physically extreme?
I've extracted the crimes and left only your response to the MURDERS.
Apparently you believe murder can ALWAYS be excused as the fault
of someone else. Like the murderer... you can always find an excuse for
WHY and HOW they murdered. It's always the fault of someone else.
They let him out... he escaped... slack-jawed incarceration.
But of course... When rosy fingered abolition, clad in her robe of saffron,
begins to suffuse light over the earth... we can expect perfection in our
incarceration of murderers and a swift elimination of ALL murders.
Dream on, dirtdog... dream on.
>
>
> d0g
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
snipped
>
>Then the original thought from John Smith was not accurate... right?
>That was my point.
>Do you hate murder, dirtdog? Can you tell me how it is possible to
>hate murder, but not hate a murderer?
I try to avoid hate where possible, it is a very extreme emotion that
certainly does nothing to stimulate logcal thought.
> Do you even know what 'hate'
>means?
snip
Of course I do. Do you know what axiomatically means?
> Hate for any crime justifies a belief in a penalty for that crime.
snip
Your opinion, and that is all
>Do you hate crime, dirtdog?
snip
No, not universally if we define crime as being any combination of
mens rea and actus reus currently defined by statute or common law as
an offence in the UK, or any other country for that matter.
> Do you hate that we 'punish' those who
>commit crimes?
snip
What a silly question. I greatly dislike the retributionist mindset
which believes that the only acceptable answer to 'crime' is
punishment. The response to crime would be better served by a careful
combination of rehabilitation, protection, deterrence, and possibly
some degree of punishment.
> Do you hate rapists?
snip
Defining rape in the simplistic manner you imply, I would probably
hate a rapist who raped my girlfriend. However, the reality of rape is
slightly different. Just as there is a wide range of levels of consent
ranging from willing procurement to reluctant acquiescence, there is
also a wide range of states of non consent. I might veer towards deep
dislike of the rapist who attacks his victim with violence, however,
my reaction towards a person convicted of rape on the grounds of
stupid recklessness with regard to consent might be more measured
(although in no way should this be interpreted to imply my condoning
such actions)
Do you know what rape is ?
> Do you think rapists should
>be punished?
snip
I believe rape should be dealt with given regard to the overriding
principles of the CJS as defined above, with relative weight given to
each factor dependant upon the nature of the offence
Hate is a deeply personal concept that has no place in any academic
discussion of this nature. You seem a little too prone to its hold,
PV.
d0g
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:EewU6.428120$o9.67...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
What I would like to know is what you think the above murderers should have
been sentenced to for their first killings?
A Plenary Verbositor
A Planet Visitor wrote:
> "dirtdog" wrote:
> >"A Planet Visitoe" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"John Smith" wrote:
> > >> Hear, hear!!... you become what you hate.
> > >
> > >So hating racism makes you a racist???
> > >
> > Not necessarily, but using a hate of killers to justify the DP makes
>
> > you a killer.
> >
> Then the original thought from John Smith was not accurate... right?
> That was my point.
No. You became "Planet Visitor" by hating yourself.
>
> Do you hate murder, dirtdog? Can you tell me how it is possible to
> hate murder, but not hate a murderer?
Hold your self-loathing in abeyance while asking a Christian. If you
can.
> Do you even know what 'hate'
> means?
"Planet Visitor" has no understanding of this human emotion. On his
gas giant homeworld, the closest equivalent is the _must post_ urge,
which is as to "his" species as breathing is to humans.
He can definitely resist the urge to do so, but can't do it
indefinitely. In both situations, it's about
two minutes on average at most.
> Hate for any crime justifies a belief in a penalty for that crime.
Why? "Planet Visitor's" posts are patently crimes against the human
brain, yet "he" protests
vigorously against any hint "he" might be sanctioned for his usenet
antics, or "his" identity
might be disclosed.
> Do you hate crime, dirtdog?
Fascist rhetoric.
> Do you hate that we 'punish' those who
> commit crimes?
The only legitimate purpose of a penal system is to isolate offenders
until they are harmless. Anything beyond that is hateful. Whether any
given individual-- due to a psychiatric disorder,
ignorance, culture, or brain damage chooses to classify that as
"punishment" is irrelevant. Particularly if that individual is an
extraterrestrial gasbag entity.
> Do you hate rapists? Do you think rapists should
> be punished?
Love the sinner, hate the sin. Keep offenders isolated until the odds
they will reoffend match that of first-time offenders. It's really so
simple for all except this "Planet Visitor" gashead.
[The preceding was posted by "Planet Visitor." As "he" has repeatedly
admitted, "I" am but his sock puppet.]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message news:9fub1k$1jv$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:EewU6.428120$o9.67...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Highimpact1000" <highimp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:373df39a.01060...@posting.google.com...
> > > "maximus decimus meridius" <dice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<ti2tsnl...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I really am not interested in getting involved in one of your flame wars PV.
> What I would like to know is what you think the above murderers should have
> been sentenced to for their first killings?
>
I have no idea. It isn't my decision to make. You fail to realize that the
ONLY reason I present these examples, is the same reason that abolitionists
present Coleman.. et al. We have clear examples of those who HAVE
murdered. They have been proven to have done so. They somehow
were PERMITTED, by one force or another, to murder again. These
examples DEMONSTRATE that those we HAVE executed could well
have accomplished what these murderers did, had they NOT been
executed. One needs only extrapolate these possibilities into the
murderers we ACTUALLY executed to form an opinion as to the Utilitarian
value of the DP. Not that ALL murderers should be executed. But a
demonstration that those we HAVE executed could have also murdered
again. Do you believe recidivism examples provide us with NO direction?
You might... but I don't.
PV
John Rennie
Hmmm....Well we know that only three murderers in a hundred are executed and
we also know that very few of the 97 others are given real life sentences.
Your above examples show that America is prepared to take IMHO unacceptable
risks with many of these others. I and my ilk are suggesting that instead
of the DP for those miserable 3 in one hundred, they should be given LWOP
leaving society in just as much danger as they were but in no greater
danger. There would not IMHO be any recidivism for this 3% but should the
highly improbable occur, and Murphy's law says it does, the murders
committed by the 3% would be completely submerged by the recidivism by what
must be a large proportion of the 97%.
A Planet Visitor
"PV's sock puppet" <abc...@abcxyz.com> moved his lips but no
intelligent thought emerged in message news:3B22C0A7...@abcxyz.com...
> A Planet Visitor wrote:
>
> > "dirtdog" wrote:
> > >"A Planet Visitoe" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"John Smith" wrote:
> > > >> Hear, hear!!... you become what you hate.
> > > >
> > > >So hating racism makes you a racist???
> > > >
> > > Not necessarily, but using a hate of killers to justify the DP makes
> > > you a killer.
> > >
> > Then the original thought from John Smith was not accurate... right?
> > That was my point.
>
> No. You became "Planet Visitor" by hating yourself.
>
Of course... when confronted by logic resort to stupidity. You are absolutely
a master at that, my little sock puppet.
> >
> > Do you hate murder, dirtdog? Can you tell me how it is possible to
> > hate murder, but not hate a murderer?
>
> Hold your self-loathing in abeyance while asking a Christian. If you
> can.
>
A rather simple question on my part... obviously you have no answer,
my little sock puppet.
> > Do you even know what 'hate'
> > means?
>
> "Planet Visitor" has no understanding of this human emotion. On his
> gas giant homeworld, the closest equivalent is the _must post_ urge,
> which is as to "his" species as breathing is to humans.
> He can definitely resist the urge to do so, but can't do it
> indefinitely. In both situations, it's about
> two minutes on average at most.
>
Speaking of gas... you just can't keep from passing yours, can you,
my little sock puppet.
> > Hate for any crime justifies a belief in a penalty for that crime.
>
> Why? "Planet Visitor's" posts are patently crimes against the human
> brain, yet "he" protests
> vigorously against any hint "he" might be sanctioned for his usenet
> antics, or "his" identity
> might be disclosed.
>
Like my little sock puppet, perhaps? I see no identity coming forth from
you, my little sock puppet.
> > Do you hate crime, dirtdog?
>
> Fascist rhetoric.
>
Stupid reply, my little sock puppet. I can only assume then that you don't
hate crime.
> > Do you hate that we 'punish' those who
> > commit crimes?
>
> The only legitimate purpose of a penal system is to isolate offenders
> until they are harmless.
Yes... it's called death row where we isolate, in the case of murderers
that we decide to execute. Once executed, they become totally harmless.
> Anything beyond that is hateful.
Did you learn that as part of your 'classical education?' My little
sock puppet.
> > Do you hate rapists? Do you think rapists should
> > be punished?
>
> Love the sinner, hate the sin. Keep offenders isolated until the odds
> they will reoffend match that of first-time offenders. It's really so
> simple for all except this "Planet Visitor" gashead.
>
Oh, that's sweet. Love the rapist, hate the rape. How Christian! Unfortunately,
humans find it somewhat difficult to love both the rapist and the murderer.
Perhaps you do, my little sock puppet.
> [The preceding was posted by "Planet Visitor." As "he" has repeatedly
> admitted, "I" am but his sock puppet.]
And not a very intelligent sock puppet at that. Of course, none of you are.
I'm beginning to blame it on the United Kingdom educational system, lately
raising a brood of totally lame posters.
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
snip
I see you grasping at straws here in order to make your theory sound
'murder is an act of killing an INNOCENT'. The thoery was in fact
bollocks and I simply pointed this out.
Will you never admit you are wrong about anything>
I am sure you know what you mean by the last sentence hear, but I'll
be damned if I can see the point you are struggling to make.
snipped
>I've extracted the crimes and left only your response to the MURDERS.
>Apparently you believe murder can ALWAYS be excused as the fault
>of someone else. Like the murderer... you can always find an excuse for
>WHY and HOW they murdered. It's always the fault of someone else.
>They let him out... he escaped... slack-jawed incarceration.
snip
The fact that the murderer was allowed to remurder is clearly the
fault of any of the institutions mentioned. The fact that the murderer
murdered is not. What a pathetic and predictable attempt to avoid the
issue
>
>But of course... When rosy fingered abolition, clad in her robe of saffron,
>begins to suffuse light over the earth... we can expect perfection in our
>incarceration of murderers and a swift elimination of ALL murders.
> Dream on, dirtdog... dream on.
snip
Delightful pro DP dogma. You'll be calling me a pinko lefty or lilly
livered liberal next
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
snipped conversation PV believes he is having with me.
PV,
It amuses me how you believe the elusive plenary verbositor is myself.
Indeed, I would be proud to have posted this article. Unfortunately, I
cannot accept credit for this, or any other Plenary posting.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to anyone who compared the style of
grammar employed by this poster with material from myself, that
Plenary Verbositor is not me. I have attempted to look deeper into the
words and writing style of said poster, and have two prime suspects,
the balance of probabilities leaning towards one rather than the
other. I accept that you dislike looking further than your gut
instinct concerning any matter, but would suggest in this case it
would be a good idea.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dogofg...@woof.com> wrote in message news:4ag5it02iim0t3eea...@4ax.com...
first person that doesn't deny it has to be the one. Not that I really
give a shit... because I'm finding it absurdly simply to ridicule the
poster.
MARK!!! Is that you, man???
> w00f
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message news:9fue8j$inu$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
more years. I'll pass, if it's all the same to you.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dogofg...@woof.com> wrote in message news:9jf5itggan9mctdn6...@4ax.com...
what condition of grace or purity or innocence of another crime that
the victim has to be in. Murder is certainly the unlawful act of premeditated,
with malice aforethought, brutally and inhumanly killing another
PERSON. It says NOTHING about the person who IS murdered.
If you claim that the victim is DESERVED of being murdered because
they are 'guilty,' (certain one can ONLY be guilty or innocent), of
another crime, then you must also agree that MURDERERS are
DESERVED of being executed because they are 'guilty.' Let
me insure you... NO ONE... not even Jeffrey Daumer DESERVES
to be MURDERED. They are innocent in respect to NO ONE having
the right to MURDER them. Executed -- yes. Vigilante justice -- never.
Why is it that so many abolitionists work so hard to trivialize MURDER???
> snipped
>
> >I've extracted the crimes and left only your response to the MURDERS.
> >Apparently you believe murder can ALWAYS be excused as the fault
> >of someone else. Like the murderer... you can always find an excuse for
> >WHY and HOW they murdered. It's always the fault of someone else.
> >They let him out... he escaped... slack-jawed incarceration.
> snip
> The fact that the murderer was allowed to remurder is clearly the
> fault of any of the institutions mentioned. The fact that the murderer
> murdered is not. What a pathetic and predictable attempt to avoid the
> issue
Institutions do not MURDER. MURDERERS do. All human institutions
are falliable.
> >
> >But of course... When rosy fingered abolition, clad in her robe of saffron,
> >begins to suffuse light over the earth... we can expect perfection in our
> >incarceration of murderers and a swift elimination of ALL murders.
> > Dream on, dirtdog... dream on.
> snip
> Delightful pro DP dogma. You'll be calling me a pinko lefty or lilly
> livered liberal next
My God... your 'classical education' doesn't even recognize a spoof
of Homer. Good grief. Exactly WHAT were you classically educated
in? Don't tell me... I've seen some examples.
PV
>
> w00f
>
Fred L. Wellman
"John Smith" <John Sm...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9ftfui$gp0$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> J.
with him? Fred
St.George
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:05:13 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> snipped conversation PV believes he is having with me.
>
> PV,
>
> It amuses me how you believe the elusive plenary verbositor is myself.
> Indeed, I would be proud to have posted this article. Unfortunately, I
> cannot accept credit for this, or any other Plenary posting.
>
> Furthermore, it would be obvious to anyone who compared the style of
> grammar employed by this poster with material from myself, that
> Plenary Verbositor is not me. I have attempted to look deeper into the
> words and writing style of said poster, and have two prime suspects,
> the balance of probabilities leaning towards one rather than the
> other.
What's your verdict then?
FWIW, I am _extremely_ confident that I know who the author is...
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
snipped
>> I see you grasping at straws here in order to make your theory sound
>> 'murder is an act of killing an INNOCENT'. The thoery was in fact
>> bollocks and I simply pointed this out.
>> Will you never admit you are wrong about anything>
>> I am sure you know what you mean by the last sentence hear, but I'll
>> be damned if I can see the point you are struggling to make.
>>
>Hardly. The fact of WHAT constitutes MURDER says nothing about
>what condition of grace or purity or innocence of another crime that
>the victim has to be in. Murder is certainly the unlawful act of premeditated,
>with malice aforethought
snip
No it is not. Murder is unlawful killing with intent. No element of
malice as such a word would usually be defined is necessary. The old
concept of 'malice aforethought' has been rejected as inaccurate and
is now generally only used by those who think they know what they are
talking about, but don't.
>, brutally and inhumanly killing another
>PERSON.
snip
This is bollocks. There need not be any brutality in the purest sense
in a killing that is murder. A doctor who assists a patient in suicide
is guilty of murder.
> It says NOTHING about the person who IS murdered.
snip
No, it doesn't, but you did. You said that murder was the act of
killing an INNOCENT. This is not correct and I merely pointed this
out.
>If you claim that the victim is DESERVED of being murdered because
>they are 'guilty,' (certain one can ONLY be guilty or innocent), of
>another crime, then you must also agree that MURDERERS are
>DESERVED of being executed because they are 'guilty.'
snip
Grasping at straws here aren't you? Your logical progressions are
certainly the most ILLOGICAL I have seen
> Let
>me insure you.
snip
Thank you very much. I need household (fire & theft - new for old if
possible) and car insurance please. Don't worry about holiday
insurance for the summer, I'll cover that.
>.. NO ONE... not even Jeffrey Daumer DESERVES
>to be MURDERED. They are innocent in respect to NO ONE having
>the right to MURDER them. Executed -- yes. Vigilante justice -- never.
snip
Correct. But why you are telling me this is beyond me
>Why is it that so many abolitionists work so hard to trivialize MURDER???
snip
I did not. I merely pointed out that murder as defined by law is not
always the hideous brutal, bloodthirsty act you like to think of it as
when justifying the fact that your government - funded by your taxes
and legitimised by your vote - kills people
snipped
>> The fact that the murderer was allowed to remurder is clearly the
>> fault of any of the institutions mentioned. The fact that the murderer
>> murdered is not. What a pathetic and predictable attempt to avoid the
>> issue
>
>Institutions do not MURDER. MURDERERS do. All human institutions
>are falliable.
snip
Of course they are. Including the system of trial by jury. Did I say
the institutions murdered? No. I said that in some cases they
facilitated it insofar as they failed in their duties of protection.
Stop twisting words, it makes your material propaganda.
>
>> >
>> >But of course... When rosy fingered abolition, clad in her robe of saffron,
>> >begins to suffuse light over the earth... we can expect perfection in our
>> >incarceration of murderers and a swift elimination of ALL murders.
>> > Dream on, dirtdog... dream on.
>> snip
>> Delightful pro DP dogma. You'll be calling me a pinko lefty or lilly
>> livered liberal next
>
>My God... your 'classical education' doesn't even recognize a spoof
>of Homer. Good grief. Exactly WHAT were you classically educated
>in? Don't tell me... I've seen some examples.
snip
Well whoopie fucking doo. You know Homer? You must be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo
clever......
h0wl
>
dirtdog
Yes...I thought you might
d0g
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dogofg...@woof.com> wrote in message news:cj66itcnku8erkkco...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:25:20 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
> >> I see you grasping at straws here in order to make your theory sound
> >> 'murder is an act of killing an INNOCENT'. The thoery was in fact
> >> bollocks and I simply pointed this out.
> >> Will you never admit you are wrong about anything>
> >> I am sure you know what you mean by the last sentence hear, but I'll
> >> be damned if I can see the point you are struggling to make.
> >>
> >Hardly. The fact of WHAT constitutes MURDER says nothing about
> >what condition of grace or purity or innocence of another crime that
> >the victim has to be in. Murder is certainly the unlawful act of premeditated,
> >with malice aforethought
> snip
> No it is not. Murder is unlawful killing with intent. No element of
> malice as such a word would usually be defined is necessary. The old
> concept of 'malice aforethought' has been rejected as inaccurate and
> is now generally only used by those who think they know what they are
> talking about, but don't.
murder \Mur"der\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Murdered; p. pr. & vb. n. Murdering.]
[OE. mortheren, murtheren, AS. myr?rian; akin to OHG. murdiren, Goth.
ma['u]r?rjan. See Murder, n.] 1. To kill with premediated malice; to kill
(a human being) willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully. See Murder, n.
Another dictionary -
mur·der (mûrdr) n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
>
> >, brutally and inhumanly killing another
> >PERSON.
> snip
> This is bollocks. There need not be any brutality in the purest sense
> in a killing that is murder. A doctor who assists a patient in suicide
> is guilty of murder.
>
v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
You will find all of these at dictionary.com. Of course if you have a
definition that clearly states murder is NOT 'brutal and inhumane,' or
is NOT 'premeditated malice,' I'd sure be interested in seeing THAT
dictionary. Read what I wrote again, dirtdog. And don't try to
read more into it then what is written. When I say what 'murder' is,
it does not EXCLUDE everything else as being 'non-murder.' I
may call a 'human' a mammal. But that doesn't mean ALL mammals
are 'human.' I may call a 'brutal murder' a murder. But that doesn't mean
all murders are 'brutal murdersl'. But of course they ALL ARE. It's just
that I needed to clear up your confusion in semantics.
> > It says NOTHING about the person who IS murdered.
> snip
> No, it doesn't, but you did. You said that murder was the act of
> killing an INNOCENT. This is not correct and I merely pointed this
> out.
So you decide that they are 'GUILTY' of deserving to be murdered!
Where essentially do you draw the line as to someone 'guilty?' The
guy locked up overnight in the drunk tank, who is murdered by a
fellow inmate? Murdering him is just a shade better than murdering
someone on the outside... right? I guess you believe it's quite reasonable
to murder someone who's guilty of SOME crime. That automatically
makes them guilty of DESERVING to be murdered. My God... it's truly
hard to believe you're an abolitionist. What IS an innocent to you?
Someone who has NEVER been convicted of a crime, perhaps?
> >If you claim that the victim is DESERVED of being murdered because
> >they are 'guilty,' (certain one can ONLY be guilty or innocent), of
> >another crime, then you must also agree that MURDERERS are
> >DESERVED of being executed because they are 'guilty.'
> snip
> Grasping at straws here aren't you? Your logical progressions are
> certainly the most ILLOGICAL I have seen
>
Well... what is an innocent to you? Is a certain class not 'INNOCENT'
of deserving murder? Exactly what class is that? Those who are
in prison, because of other crimes? That makes them 'guilty' of
DESERVING murder? You claim it's illogical, but you offer nothing
in return except the exclamation 'it's illogical.' Why is it illogical?
Because they are guilty of SOME crime, they are guilty of DESERVING
murder? Is someone in prison for theft, guilty of RAPE as well?
<snipo>
> >.. NO ONE... not even Jeffrey Daumer DESERVES
> >to be MURDERED. They are innocent in respect to NO ONE having
> >the right to MURDER them. Executed -- yes. Vigilante justice -- never.
> snip
> Correct. But why you are telling me this is beyond me
>
Because you have said they were NOT innocent. Now you say it's
correct. Make up your mind.
> >Why is it that so many abolitionists work so hard to trivialize MURDER???
> snip
> I did not. I merely pointed out that murder as defined by law is not
> always the hideous brutal, bloodthirsty act you like to think of it as
> when justifying the fact that your government - funded by your taxes
> and legitimised by your vote - kills people
>
Ah ha... so murder can be nice and sweet and gentle. I get the picture.
Jerk.
> snipped
>
> >> The fact that the murderer was allowed to remurder is clearly the
> >> fault of any of the institutions mentioned. The fact that the murderer
> >> murdered is not. What a pathetic and predictable attempt to avoid the
> >> issue
> >
> >Institutions do not MURDER. MURDERERS do. All human institutions
> >are falliable.
> snip
> Of course they are. Including the system of trial by jury. Did I say
> the institutions murdered? No. I said that in some cases they
> facilitated it insofar as they failed in their duties of protection.
> Stop twisting words, it makes your material propaganda.
>
And one could just as clearly say that EVERY abolitionist facilitated
it as well. I do not say this... but the conclusion is just as reasonable
as yours. The institutions failed in their duties, and the abolitionist
failed in their duties.
> >
> >> >
> >> >But of course... When rosy fingered abolition, clad in her robe of saffron,
> >> >begins to suffuse light over the earth... we can expect perfection in our
> >> >incarceration of murderers and a swift elimination of ALL murders.
> >> > Dream on, dirtdog... dream on.
> >> snip
> >> Delightful pro DP dogma. You'll be calling me a pinko lefty or lilly
> >> livered liberal next
> >
> >My God... your 'classical education' doesn't even recognize a spoof
> >of Homer. Good grief. Exactly WHAT were you classically educated
> >in? Don't tell me... I've seen some examples.
> snip
> Well whoopie fucking doo. You know Homer? You must be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo
> clever......
>
It doesn't take much... Mr. Dog... it doesn't take much.
PV
> h0wl
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
St.George
Have you got something to say?
If so, out with it. If not, shut up!
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> Okaaay.... it's not Peter, and not you. If I keep asking everyone, the
> first person that doesn't deny it has to be the one. Not that I really
> give a shit... because I'm finding it absurdly simply to ridicule the
> poster.
>
> MARK!!! Is that you, man???
It's _me_, PV, as you well know. Actually _you're_ me so,
definitionally, you must know. I am, after all, everyone on this
newsgroup and its entire output is merely my internal monologue.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
dirtdog
<god_save_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
snipped
>Have you got something to say?
>
>If so, out with it. If not, shut up!
>
I am neither;
1- A grass
2- A person who would make public accusations without holding strong
evidence to support such finger pointing
3- Someone who gives a fuck
Thankyou
d0g
St.George
Can't fault (3), at least.
Besides, it's not me - I'm hardly going to bother to create a new alias just
to abuse PV, am I? I do it ten times a day from this account....
Also, I would have been more funny.