Lest desi the FuckWit ...
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:80c9va...@lievre.voute.net...
> ... post some URLs ... sorry, 'URL's' (sic) to this incident, with an
> infantile little comment about how 'desi' (sic) or Earl haven't mentioned
> it ...
>
>
url:http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=248448&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&lis
tSrc=Y
>
> A Parisian Rabbi is stabbed in the stomach, in an apparent revenge attack
> against Israel's current polices in the Occupied Territories.
>
> Jigsaw will also chime in, with an atrociously spelled claim that 'it's
> starting again !'. What he won't bother to mention (either because he
> doesn't know, or because he's a lying little pile of shit), is that whilst
> there was a spate of anti-Semitic attacks last year: 119 attacks and 448
> threats of violence in April 2002 alone, the figures then dropped to
> 'only' [1] 10 in May 2002, 7 in June 2002, and 2 in July 2002 [2].
>
Strange that you call Jews 'butchers,' yet ignore
http://www.rr.com/v5/1/news/frame/0,2252,~ap~1~9000_324104,00.html
PV
>
>
> [1] as even one is too much
> [2] source: _Le Monde_, 12 August 2002
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
> desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
> http: // www . zeouane . org
> http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:cflcva...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Mon, 06 Jan 2003 09:04:43 GMT, dans l'article <LEbS9.24464$Sa3.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> > Strange that you call Jews 'butchers,'
>
> Israel is presently representative of Jewry throughout the world.
>
Make no mistake... those who call the Israelis 'butchers,' imply that
the Jews are 'butchers.' There is no doubt in my mind that your hate
for the Jew is rather intense, which defines what is anti-Semitism.
Claiming to 'be' a Jew, does not provide a shield for your hypocrisy.
What I find most disturbing is that I believe you assume this anti-Semitic
posture in the hope of 'fitting in' with your neighbors who I understand are
predominately Arab in the quarter where you claim to live. This
would imply that you fear the Arab as well... and further demonstrate
the irrational fears you have of aspects surrounding your 'real life.'
You really are a 'ship without a moral compass,' desi.
> 'Yes, your frustration with Israel's butchery, financed by the United
> States, is understandable'
>
> Yes, you probably are. Ho, ho, ho ... this is too easy. You obsessive
> fuckwit, FuckWit.
Obviously you are becoming very frustrated, and unable to form an
intelligible thought without repeating the same word over and over.
Nor do you even seem to understand who your comment was directed
toward -- hint -- it was Hugh... not me.
But that goes along with your 'argument' that as an abolitionist you
are 'articulate.' ROTFLMAO. Figured out how many continents there
are on our planet yet?
PV
>
> --
> Ayatollah desi
John Rennie
> le Tue, 07 Jan 2003 04:01:50 GMT, dans l'article
<OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> >> > Strange that you call Jews 'butchers,'
>
> >> Except that I don't, unless you really are stupid enough to believe
that
> >> Israel is presently representative of Jewry throughout the world.
>
> > Make no mistake... those who call the Israelis 'butchers,' imply that
> > the Jews are 'butchers.'
>
> Americans are semi-literate arseholes', or those who refer to Hitler as a
> mass murderer, 'imply that all Germans are mass murderers', or those who
> call Blair America's poodle, 'imply that all the British are America's
> poodles' ...
But, Desmond, you didn't call Sharon a butcher which he undoubtedly is.
You in your intemperate way called the Israelis butchers which means
that they are all butchers which isn't true.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:qp5eva...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Tue, 07 Jan 2003 04:01:50 GMT, dans l'article <OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> >> > Strange that you call Jews 'butchers,'
>
> >> Except that I don't, unless you really are stupid enough to believe that
> >> Israel is presently representative of Jewry throughout the world.
>
> > Make no mistake... those who call the Israelis 'butchers,' imply that
> > the Jews are 'butchers.'
>
> Americans are semi-literate arseholes', or those who refer to Hitler as a
> mass murderer, 'imply that all Germans are mass murderers', or those who
> call Blair America's poodle, 'imply that all the British are America's
> poodles' ...
>
that it is 'stupid to believe that Israel is presently representative of
Jewry throughout the world.' That is a clear fact. And you are stupid
to try and deny it... and an anti-Semite for saying butchery in respect
to the Israeli (read - Jew).
I once called Palestinians 'unreasonable' and both you and dirt went
on for ages as to my presumed 'racism against all Arabs.' Yours is
grossly offensive and most certainly directed against the Jew himself.
<desi's fumbling attempts to provide insults to hide from his anti-Semitism
clipped>
PV
>
> --
> Ayatollah desi |I'm anti-Semitic and proud of it
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:51heva...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:00:09 -0000, dans l'article <_qyS9.192$9l3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, John Rennie
<j.re...@ntlworld.com> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Just like those who call Bush a semi-literate arsehole 'imply that the
> >> Americans are semi-literate arseholes', or those who refer to Hitler as a
> >> mass murderer, 'imply that all Germans are mass murderers', or those who
> >> call Blair America's poodle, 'imply that all the British are America's
> >> poodles' ...
>
> > But, Desmond, you didn't call Sharon a butcher which he undoubtedly is.
> > You in your intemperate way called the Israelis butchers which means
> > that they are all butchers which isn't true.
>
> butchery carried out by the current Israeli government, is no more a
> condemnation of every Israeli (or every Jew, for that matter), than saying,
> 'British support for the war in Iraq' means that 'every' Briton supports
> such an event.
>
> Coming from an idiot who only learned to speak English a few years ago, and
> who still thinks that a typo of 'surprise' made five years ago, denotes
> someone's 'lack of literacy', the above is hardly surprising. However, I
> had expected more from you.
ROTFLMAO... Let me repeat... since you're hardly worth anything
'original.' you really ARE banging your head against the desk
at my return... aren't you, bubblehead?
How many continents are there?
What's the difference between 'imports' and 'exports'?
who extolled the fact that "British citizens have freedom of movement
anywhere within the U.K."?
Who confused Hemingway with John Donne?
Who confuses Tennyson with Alfred Austin?
Who finds it strange that someone could 'love' poetry?
Who had no idea what Apate represents?
Who became totally confused and erratic when I used the word
'eisoptrophobia' which clearly was an appropriate application of the term?
Who had never heard of Anna Kingsmill Finch yet claims an education
in feminist literary figures?
Who threw about 'the Big Crunch' to appear 'intelligent,' even though
unable to grasp the least bit of scientific understanding?
Who claimed Judge Zobel was not empowered to 'overturn' the verdict?
Who was ignorant enough not to apologize for making an ass of himself
in insults about Judge Zobel's powers.
Who confused an 'appeal petition' by the prosecution with a ruling
from the State Supreme Court?
Who argued against 'the doctrine of punishment' for criminals?
Who has been unable to decide if they fear or do not fear death?
Who claimed that released murderers are less likely to murder again
than persons who have never murdered before?
Who claimed that 'it is not necessary to prove that the DP does not deter'
for it to be true?
Who claimed that 'the dead cannot be honored'?
Who claimed that Lockerbie was caused by 'wind shear'?
Who claimed the Balkans are not in Europe?
Who claimed that in matters of morals, Europe has led the world for over
2000 years?
Who claimed that 'America' and the 'United States' are not synonyms?
Who claimed that 'none' of the terrorists in the WTC attack knew they were
about to commit suicide?
Who claimed in one breath to commute all sentences to life, and then
in the next said they were not in favor of life imprisonment?
Who confused arithmetic with algebra?
Who claimed that mathematics is not a language?
Who claimed he would 'gamble' on the lives of potential innocent victims of
murder?
And who believes that calling another a 'fuckwit' represents 'articulate
abolition'?
The answer is -- desi... to each of the questions. And if that doesn't
DEFINE someone who is illiterate... then our species is in sorry shape.
Now as I told Earl... it's obvious that you are also having another psychotic
episode, and need to quickly take your Thorazine meds.
PV
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church'
|isn't for you.
Desmond Coughlan
possibly the highest concentration of lies that FuckWit has _ever_ produced
in one post, and by 'golly' (sic), that's some feat !! X-No-Archive off,
and settle down, for FW is about to experience one of the biggest, most
brutal spankings he's ever had ... poor FuckWit ... LMAO !!
le Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:24:11 GMT, dans l'article <LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>> >> Just like those who call Bush a semi-literate arsehole 'imply that the
>> >> Americans are semi-literate arseholes', or those who refer to Hitler as a
>> >> mass murderer, 'imply that all Germans are mass murderers', or those who
>> >> call Blair America's poodle, 'imply that all the British are America's
>> >> poodles' ...
>> > But, Desmond, you didn't call Sharon a butcher which he undoubtedly is.
>> > You in your intemperate way called the Israelis butchers which means
>> > that they are all butchers which isn't true.
>> Do try to distance yourself from typical FuckWit illiteracy, John. The
>> butchery carried out by the current Israeli government, is no more a
>> condemnation of every Israeli (or every Jew, for that matter), than saying,
>> 'British support for the war in Iraq' means that 'every' Briton supports
>> such an event.
>>
>> Coming from an idiot who only learned to speak English a few years ago, and
>> who still thinks that a typo of 'surprise' made five years ago, denotes
>> someone's 'lack of literacy', the above is hardly surprising. However, I
>> had expected more from you.
> ROTFLMAO... Let me repeat...
You never do anything else ... sadly for news:alt.activism.death-penalty,
most of what you repeat is 'plagiarized' (sic) from websites ...
> since you're hardly worth anything
> 'original.' you really ARE banging your head against the desk
> at my return... aren't you, bubblehead?
Only once per post, FuckWit, as terminal boredom gets the better of me, and
I doze off until the end of your verbiage. I shall try to stay awake to
answer this one ...
> How many continents are there?
Seven. I had forgotten Antarctica. Quick, add it to the list !!
> What's the difference between 'imports' and 'exports'?
> who extolled the fact that "British citizens have freedom of movement
> anywhere within the U.K."?
LMAO ... I grouped these two together, to show how desperate you are, that
you have to reply on typos. Oops, sorry .. 'typo's' (sic). Why not go
back five years and find a misspelling [1] of 'surprise' ..? Damn, you got
there before me. Yep, proactive stupidity would be your middle name, if
you could spell 'proactive'.
> Who confused Hemingway with John Donne?
No one, unless you count my 'dumbing down' my response to you. Why does
that surprise you ? We all do it. Why only last night, I saw some
infantile cack from your 'pen' that claimed that 'America's' (sic)
reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
didn't mention any articles. ROTFLM-F-AO !! It just happened to mention
the execution of juveniles, which of course _is_ what is defined by Article
6.5 of the Covenant. How I laughed at your total ignorance. Another
'goggle' (sic) search had taken place, it would appear, and a copy and
paste of the first hit, followed. What a pity that the sum of your
'knowledge' comes from the web, and that in your halfwitted insecurity,
you're reduced to posting photographs of your 'bookcases'. LMAO !! The
intellectual 'teenager' whom everyone makes fun of, challenges his
persecutors to 'arm wrestle'. What a sad, obsessive fuckwit. Ho, ho,
ho ...
> Who confuses Tennyson with Alfred Austin?
Again, no one, as I for one have never even _mentioned_ Alfred Austin in my
posts. Why do you find it necessary to lie when you've been spanked ?
Damn, there I go, answering my own questions again ...
> Who finds it strange that someone could 'love' poetry?
LMAO ... FW seems to think that 'inventing them as he goes along', is going
to do something positive for his 'credibility' on AADP. Maybe it will: who
knows, he can't do any _more_ harm to his 'credibility'.
> Who had no idea what Apate represents?
Oops, I spoke too soon ...
Ha, ha, ha, oh stop it, I'm going to burst a rib ! FuckWit mentions Apate
back in May 2002 [2], hoping that it will make him look 'clever' and
compensate for his having left school at 15. Sadly, the whole of
news:alt.activism.death-penalty 'whups [sic] hi's [sic] ass [sic]' about
it, and all he can offer in response is a claim that 'big terms' [3] may be
too hard for others (just before they started 'posting to others',
presumably) to understand. Not only that, but he subsequently can't even
_find_ his own words a few days later !! One wonders if FW could find his
own 'ass' (sic) in the dark ... LOL ... this is too easy: get me my gun,
there are some more apples in that barrel ... :-O
> Who became totally confused and erratic when I used the word
> 'eisoptrophobia' which clearly was an appropriate application of the term?
Another attempt to appear 'intellectual' [4], and an attempt which
backfired on FW when it was pointed out that it had come from his CD-ROM
version of _The OED_. Then again, as he unveiled this word just around the
same time as he boldly proclaimed, 'There is no such THING [sic] as an
abstract verb', one would have thought that he'd want to forget the whole
thing, along with the 'Major-League' spanking that that earned him. Of
course, news:alt.activism.death-penalty can still laugh at his winsome
little response of 'I knew them under a different name', when it was shown
that abstract verbs _do_ exist. One can only conjecture that the
'different name' to which he refers, is what they're called in his native
Russian. Ho, ho, ho ... one shouldn't mock the afflicted, but in FW's
case, I'm sure that everyone can make an exception. LOL ..
> Who had never heard of Anna Kingsmill Finch yet claims an education
> in feminist literary figures?
Gentle reader, here we have a patented FuckWit 'DoubleWhopper' [tm]. It
contains two lies, expertly intertwined to make it appear as if there were
only one. The first one is that I had 'never heard' of Anna Kingsmill
Finch. Of course, FW hasn't heard of her, but if you try 'feminist
literature', on google, then Anna Kingsmill Finch comes up on the third or
fourth page. That allows FW to claim that he didn't find out her name from
google ... sorry, 'goggle' (sic), and that his erudition allows him to
quote from classics and contemporary literature. Damnit, if only he could
master those apostrophes ... sorry, 'apostrophe's' (sic) !! LOL !!
Anyway, I digress ... 'God' (sic), I'm having the time of my life, here ...
FuckWit then tosses in the 'yet claims an education in feminist literary
figures'. Of course my degrees are in French feminist literature, and 20th
century works at that, and not English feminist literature, nor seventeenth
and eigtheenth century. So whilst my classical education means that I had
heard of, and read Anna Kingsmill Finch, that is not my field of expertise.
LOL ... FW's rage and frustration at not having had _any_ education worthy
of the name, has led him to trip himself up in the past (cf. 'prosecution
for libel' [5]). Maybe if he in fact _read_ the URLs ... sorry, 'URL's'
(sic) that he posts, he'd look less the fool, but then we wouldn't have
_half_ the fun that we do, poking fun at him.
> Who threw about 'the Big Crunch' to appear 'intelligent,' even though
> unable to grasp the least bit of scientific understanding?
FW seems to have a masochist streak that leads him to present his 'jigaboo'
(*chuckle*) buttocks to the assembled throng on AADP and _beg_ to be
spanked. Had he an education, he would know that 'the Big Crunch' is
taught in first and second year. However, whilst we in the West were
learning basic scientific concepts, FW was working the fields in his native
Russia, and hoping that his father would stay off the vodka. As YMT put it
just after I mentioned 'the Big Crunch' ...
> One would certainly expect a child of 12 or 13 years of age, being
> educated today in one of the more advanced nations, to know what
> the "Big Bang" means. It is natural for a child that age or older,
> after being provided with that explanation for the universe's
> origin and being informed of its ongoing expansion, to then wonder
> where it's going. [6]
> Who claimed Judge Zobel was not empowered to 'overturn' the verdict?
Yep, I was in error, and acknowledged it. LMAO, it just _tears you up_
that in doing so, I prevented you from mentioning it unless you wanted to
look like an idiot. Oh but of course: looking like an idiot is what you
'do'.
> Who was ignorant enough not to apologize for making an ass of himself
> in insults about Judge Zobel's powers.
The truth cannot be an insult, FuckWit.
> Who confused an 'appeal petition' by the prosecution with a ruling
> from the State Supreme Court?
Here we have FuckWit applying the 'anal introvertion' theory, by which he
trips himself up with so many lies, that he disappears up his own 'ass'
(sic), and weighs 10,000 tonnes.
> Who argued against 'the doctrine of punishment' for criminals?
Which I didn't, of course.
> Who has been unable to decide if they fear or do not fear death?
Come on, FuckWit, 'fess [sic] up', those photographs of dead bodies [7]
struck terror into your heart. LOL ... poor, sad, crass, uneducated,
classless, obsessive buffoon, FuckWit. LOL ...
> Who claimed that released murderers are less likely to murder again
> than persons who have never murdered before?
Which you have yet to refute, other than your 'We [sic] ALL [sic] know that
desi [sic] is WRONG [sic]' ...
> Who claimed that 'it is not necessary to prove that the DP does not deter'
> for it to be true?
You've never once managed to get one over on me on AADP, so you're out to
kill me with laughter, is that right, FW ? Indeed, that little exchange
has gone down in history as being in the Top 10 of _savage_ beatinngs
(quick, the list !!) that I administered to FuckWit in 2002.
Did I say that FuckWit was a liar ? In fact, what happened is that in his
drug-induced eagerness to appear as if he knew what 'logic' was, he made
the quite ludicrous claim that if a claim cannot be proven to be false, it
is necessarily true.
ROTFLMAO !!! Yes, gentle reader, laugh !! Let your laughter ring out
clear across the night sky !! FW is a fuckwit, and what's more, he's
_proud_ of that fact ...
> Who claimed that 'the dead cannot be honored'?
They cannot.
> Who claimed that Lockerbie was caused by 'wind shear'?
Wind shear happens at ground level, FuckWit. It's hardly my fault if you
don't know that Clear Air Turbulence happens at altitude. I've tried to
educate you, but your father was right when he sent you to work on the
fields instead of school.
> Who claimed the Balkans are not in Europe?
LOL !!
> Who claimed that in matters of morals, Europe has led the world for over
> 2000 years?
And we're proud of it.
> Who claimed that 'America' and the 'United States' are not synonyms?
Only insofar as fuckwits like you think that 'quote' is a noun. 'America'
is a synonym for 'United States' in the mouths of those whose English
language learning stopped at eight years old.
> Who claimed that 'none' of the terrorists in the WTC attack knew they were
> about to commit suicide?
Ho, ho, ho ... can you say 'misspeak' ? Talking of which ... erm, O.J.
Simpson ?? [8] LMAO !!
> Who claimed in one breath to commute all sentences to life, and then
> in the next said they were not in favor of life imprisonment?
Totally false, of course, but then, saying 'totally false' is tautologous
when the words 'Planet Visitor wrote' are at the top of a post.
> Who confused arithmetic with algebra?
LMAO !!
> Who claimed that mathematics is not a language?
Oh, stop it ... I'm laughing so much it's hurting ...
> Who claimed he would 'gamble' on the lives of potential innocent victims of
> murder?
Again, LMAO !! Note, 'Gentle Reader', that the expression 'desi would
prefer' is now absent from FW's rhetoric. He had his 'ass' (sic) nailed to
the wall by just about all of AADP, after claiming that I would 'prefer'
that Frank be released to kill again. FW couldn't sit down for a week
after that. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, that was one of
FW's more painful spankings, and made even me feel sorry for him. Now,
where is it, again ..? Ah, yes ...
'The above is supposed to balance your lies? All that blather
to cover the fact that you made statements that simply were not
true and all you can come up with is a spelling error and the
difference between being 'convicted' and found liable. Desmond
has many faults but when you point out to him errors of fact
he spends no time in admitting them. Increasingly you ruin many
a good argument by just not behaving responsibly. You cannot
resist the odd embellishment, the fatuous strawdog, the
misrepresentation of an argument. You don't need to do
these things - try to behave and we might, just might, take you
and your attitudes that little more seriously.' [9]
> And who believes that calling another a 'fuckwit' represents 'articulate
> abolition'?
Hey, FuckWit, if the glove fits ...
> The answer is -- desi... to each of the questions. And if that doesn't
> DEFINE someone who is illiterate... then our species is in sorry shape.
>
> Now as I told Earl... it's obvious that you are also having another psychotic
> episode, and need to quickly take your Thorazine meds.
Translation: Jesus, desi (sic), lay off me ...
If I were FW, I'd be ashamed to come onto Usenet. Maybe that's why he
hides his name ... whilst still claiming to be 'accountable' for what he
writes ... truly ROTFFLMAO !!! Then again, if I were FuckWit, I'd kill
myself to avoid the shame of _being_ FuckWit.
<fx: walks away, dusting hands ...>
[1] or 'mis-spelling'
[2] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=vEgA8.173369%24nc.23155166%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=fr
[3] url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=+%22do+those+big+terms+confuse%22+group:alt.activism.death-penalty&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=XKpA8.182471%24nc.24051659%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=2
[4] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9ACi8.69291%24Dl4.7549381%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=fr
[5] url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=WRGB9.301346%24S8.6144624%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl=fr
[6] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=d9253152.0209211329.3768cc6e%40posting.google.com&lr=&hl=fr
[7] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/blonde.html
[8] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
[9] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=Dfxn9.127%24gY1.21175%40newsfep2-gui&lr=&hl=fr
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
As the acknowledged arbiter on matters of knowledge, interpretation and
intelligence, I have taken it upon myself to go through PV's allegations and
see which have no merit - not even a prima facie case, if you will.
Accusations uncommented upon are not commensurate with convictions, merely
that the defence should be prepared to make a case.
> How many continents are there?
> What's the difference between 'imports' and 'exports'?
> who extolled the fact that "British citizens have freedom of movement
> anywhere within the U.K."?
Well, unless the rules have changed significantly, they do...
> Who confused Hemingway with John Donne?
> Who confuses Tennyson with Alfred Austin?
> Who finds it strange that someone could 'love' poetry?
> Who had no idea what Apate represents?
Well I have no idea either, so I acquit Desmond on jury nullification-type
grounds.
> Who became totally confused and erratic when I used the word
> 'eisoptrophobia' which clearly was an appropriate application of the term?
> Who had never heard of Anna Kingsmill Finch yet claims an education
> in feminist literary figures?
> Who threw about 'the Big Crunch' to appear 'intelligent,' even though
> unable to grasp the least bit of scientific understanding?
Hmm...well the Big Crunch is assuredly not gonna happen, but then again
neither did the Big Bang, so I throw out the case on the grounds of
prosecution ignorance
> Who claimed Judge Zobel was not empowered to 'overturn' the verdict?
The word 'overturn' in this context may be best interpreted mean to reverse
(i.e. to find 'not guilty') or it may be enough to nullify (i.e. to declare
a mistrial)
Zobel did neither of these things, and although he certainly had the power
to do either before the verdict (although on different grounds), it would
have been skating the edge of the law to do so after the verdict, especially
on the court's own motion.
In actual fact, he did not 'overturn' the verdict in any case; 'amended' it
would be a more appropriate word. However, the claim before me does not
state that he did. Nonetheless, I urge counsel to reconsider whether the
prosecution of this case is appropriate in all the circumstances.
> Who was ignorant enough not to apologize for making an ass of himself
> in insults about Judge Zobel's powers.
> Who confused an 'appeal petition' by the prosecution with a ruling
> from the State Supreme Court?
> Who argued against 'the doctrine of punishment' for criminals?
I think it is quite reasonable to argue against the 'doctrine of
punishment', if one interprets that, as I do, as a claim that punishment, in
and of itself, is not a utility-maximising use of societal resources.
Deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation may be thought to be achieved
by similar actions to those involved in punishment, but even if one takes
that view, it is far from axiomatic to extend that to a notion that
punishment alone is effective or proper.
Case thrown out on public interest grounds.
> Who has been unable to decide if they fear or do not fear death?
Given the breadth of philosophical uncertainty about the nature of life and
consciousness, I hardly think such an uncertainty can be held unreasonable
in any way.
I find this prosecution so unreasonable as to be perverse. In my chambers,
PV, now.
> Who claimed that released murderers are less likely to murder again
> than persons who have never murdered before?
On its own motion, this court hereby steps outside its published remit and
summarily convicts Desmond for manifest ludicrousness. Even if he did not
actually say this, it is exactly the kind of thing he would say, and that is
good enough for this court.
Desmond Coughlan, I sentence you to 18 months in the real world. May the
Lord have Mercy on your loony-liberal sensibilities.
> Who claimed that 'it is not necessary to prove that the DP does not deter'
> for it to be true?
Dismissed. The burden of proof is upon the theoretician.
> Who claimed that 'the dead cannot be honored'?
Again, I summarily convict on this matter. Conditional Discharge.
> Who claimed that Lockerbie was caused by 'wind shear'?
Again, I must convict, but lunacy is not an aggravating factor, it is a
curse. Probation
> Who claimed the Balkans are not in Europe?
Deliberately objectionable. Guilty. 25-to-life.
> Who claimed that in matters of morals, Europe has led the world for over
> 2000 years?
Silly, but not indictable. Not guilty
> Who claimed that 'America' and the 'United States' are not synonyms?
They are not. Silly PV.
Case dismissed, report issued to the Bar.
> Who claimed that 'none' of the terrorists in the WTC attack knew they were
> about to commit suicide?
> Who claimed in one breath to commute all sentences to life, and then
> in the next said they were not in favor of life imprisonment?
> Who confused arithmetic with algebra?
> Who claimed that mathematics is not a language?
It isn't. Languages are the product of sentient communication; mathematics
is a universal truth.
2+2=4 would be true whether life existed or not
Two plus Two Equals Four is dependent on it.
You have wasted my time and you're in contempt - take him down.
So, in conclusion, you both deserved to be imprisoned for cluelessness. It
won't deter you, but it will protect society from you, and that is an
extremely worthwhile goal.
John Rennie
"St.George" <ama.99@bt＃internet.com00> wrote in message
news:avl3u7$ek1$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> As the acknowledged arbiter on matters of knowledge, interpretation and
> intelligence, I have taken it upon myself to go through PV's allegations
and
> see which have no merit - not even a prima facie case, if you will.
> Accusations uncommented upon are not commensurate with convictions, merely
> that the defence should be prepared to make a case.
>
An IQ 0f 200 indeed. Your intelligence
level is that of the average Daily Mail reader i.e.
shamefully low. No 'big bang' as well - He! He!
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:t6vkva...@lievre.voute.net...
> Gather around, news:alt.activism.death-penalty ... here we have quite
> possibly the highest concentration of lies that FuckWit has _ever_ produced
> in one post, and by 'golly' (sic), that's some feat !! X-No-Archive off,
> and settle down, for FW is about to experience one of the biggest, most
> brutal spankings he's ever had ... poor FuckWit ... LMAO !!
>
victory before even posting a word in rebuttal.
PV
> le Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:24:11 GMT, dans l'article <LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> >> >> Just like those who call Bush a semi-literate arsehole 'imply that the
> >> >> Americans are semi-literate arseholes', or those who refer to Hitler as a
> >> >> mass murderer, 'imply that all Germans are mass murderers', or those who
> >> >> call Blair America's poodle, 'imply that all the British are America's
> >> >> poodles' ...
>
> >> > But, Desmond, you didn't call Sharon a butcher which he undoubtedly is.
> >> > You in your intemperate way called the Israelis butchers which means
> >> > that they are all butchers which isn't true.
>
> >> Do try to distance yourself from typical FuckWit illiteracy, John. The
> >> butchery carried out by the current Israeli government, is no more a
> >> condemnation of every Israeli (or every Jew, for that matter), than saying,
> >> 'British support for the war in Iraq' means that 'every' Briton supports
> >> such an event.
> >>
> >> Coming from an idiot who only learned to speak English a few years ago, and
> >> who still thinks that a typo of 'surprise' made five years ago, denotes
> >> someone's 'lack of literacy', the above is hardly surprising. However, I
> >> had expected more from you.
>
> > ROTFLMAO... Let me repeat...
>
> You never do anything else ... sadly for news:alt.activism.death-penalty,
> most of what you repeat is 'plagiarized' (sic) from websites ...
>
Or from my 'extensive library,' which containing more than 'three books'
is vastly superior to your own. But most of my posts are simply pointing
out the lies that you offer here. You are your own worst enemy... have
I mentioned that before? I believe I have.
> > since you're hardly worth anything
> > 'original.' you really ARE banging your head against the desk
> > at my return... aren't you, bubblehead?
>
> Only once per post, FuckWit, as terminal boredom gets the better of me, and
> I doze off until the end of your verbiage. I shall try to stay awake to
> answer this one ...
>
That's always been a struggle for you... staying awake during any
discourse that doesn't involve nubile nymphets or motorcycles or
penile enlargement spam.
> > How many continents are there?
>
> Seven. I had forgotten Antarctica. Quick, add it to the list !!
>
In other words, you admit you were 'intellectually challenged,' until
I taught you the difference between six and seven. And I think you're
lying again (although I can't prove it, other than your track record).
I think you overlooked Australia, and are now too embarrassed to
admit that you had done so.
> > What's the difference between 'imports' and 'exports'?
> > who extolled the fact that "British citizens have freedom of movement
> > anywhere within the U.K."?
>
> LMAO ... I grouped these two together, to show how desperate you are, that
> you have to reply on typos. Oops, sorry .. 'typo's' (sic). Why not go
> back five years and find a misspelling [1] of 'surprise' ..? Damn, you got
> there before me. Yep, proactive stupidity would be your middle name, if
> you could spell 'proactive'.
>
Hardly typos. Simply confusion. Why not try your other old standby...
claim you were being ironic. A TRUE typo was my use of 'Newfound,'
having left off 'land,' which is an obvious typo, in a hasty post. Yours
was confusion as to the 'difference' between imports and exports.
> > Who confused Hemingway with John Donne?
>
> No one, unless you count my 'dumbing down' my response to you.
Not 'dumbed down,' bubblehead... just 'a dumb response.' You certainly
knew NOTHING of who was the original author of the quote 'For whom the
bell tolls.' You're just digging your own grave much deeper here. You
wanted to appear clever and only showed your intellectual ignorance.
When I used that quote... your response was "Lemme guess, you 'LOVE
[sic] Hemingway', right ??" Having so often used the same phrase in
respect to Tennyson, you truly believed you were being smarmy with
claiming I 'loved Hemingway.' Since if you HAD known, you would
have said "Lemme guess, you 'LOVE' [sic] Donne, right ??" And when I
IMMEDIATELY jumped on you, you tried the 'desi shuffle,' and simply
provided ANOTHER lie, claiming you 'knew' but you lied because you felt
no one would catch you. A new record for you, admitting you lied, in the
hope to cover up your true lie as to your ignorance and intellectual
shortcomings. Since your ego would not permit an admission
of your intellectual gaffe. Your lies here are quite transparent, so don't
continue to try and hide your ignorance.
> Why does
> that surprise you ? We all do it.
You mean lie? No... hardly anyone here does it... you are, of course,
the greatest offender.
> Why only last night, I saw some
> infantile cack from your 'pen' that claimed that 'America's' (sic)
> reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> didn't mention any articles. ROTFLM-F-AO !! It just happened to mention
> the execution of juveniles, which of course _is_ what is defined by Article
> 6.5 of the Covenant.
I expressly quoted the ENTIRE paragraph that provides for that reservation...
and NOWHERE is it mentioned as referencing that Article of the Covenant.
It simply expresses the reservation that the U.S. asserts its constitution
takes precedence over the treaty obligations in that particular respect.
Quoting again -- "(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to
its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person
(other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws
permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment
for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age."
Other paragraphs address particular articles, but this particular one, which
plainly is the one you were speaking of, does NOT contain a reference to
ANY specific article of the Covenant. You are reading something into it,
which is not EXPRESSLY there. In fact, bubblehead, the ENTIRE (that's
'all' if 'entire' is too 'big' for you) Reservations, Understandings and Declarations
stated by the United States do not mention the use of Article 6.5 of
the Covenant. Perhaps you should try 'reading' it, rather than speaking
shit.
> How I laughed at your total ignorance. Another
> 'goggle' (sic) search had taken place, it would appear, and a copy and
> paste of the first hit, followed. What a pity that the sum of your
> 'knowledge' comes from the web, and that in your halfwitted insecurity,
> you're reduced to posting photographs of your 'bookcases'. LMAO !! The
> intellectual 'teenager' whom everyone makes fun of, challenges his
> persecutors to 'arm wrestle'. What a sad, obsessive fuckwit. Ho, ho,
> ho ...
>
Lot of incoherent rambling on your part. Lot of insults... other than that
a total non-content comment... typically empty of any meaning. I can
see that SG Seminal axiom falling flat on its face about now.
> > Who confuses Tennyson with Alfred Austin?
>
> Again, no one, as I for one have never even _mentioned_ Alfred Austin in my
> posts. Why do you find it necessary to lie when you've been spanked ?
> Damn, there I go, answering my own questions again ...
>
My point is made... you don't even know who Tennyson was.
> > Who finds it strange that someone could 'love' poetry?
>
> LMAO ... FW seems to think that 'inventing them as he goes along', is going
> to do something positive for his 'credibility' on AADP. Maybe it will: who
> knows, he can't do any _more_ harm to his 'credibility'.
>
Inventing as you go along is your specialty, sport. Like your inventions
when you expect to lie your way out of your intellectual ignorance, or
inventively and deceptively claim you were being 'ironic,' and not stupid.
> > Who had no idea what Apate represents?
>
> Oops, I spoke too soon ...
>
That happens quite often with you.
> Ha, ha, ha, oh stop it, I'm going to burst a rib ! FuckWit mentions Apate
> back in May 2002 [2], hoping that it will make him look 'clever' and
> compensate for his having left school at 15. Sadly, the whole of
> news:alt.activism.death-penalty 'whups [sic] hi's [sic] ass [sic]' about
> it, and all he can offer in response is a claim that 'big terms' [3] may be
> too hard for others (just before they started 'posting to others',
> presumably) to understand. Not only that, but he subsequently can't even
> _find_ his own words a few days later !! One wonders if FW could find his
> own 'ass' (sic) in the dark ... LOL ... this is too easy: get me my gun,
> there are some more apples in that barrel ... :-O
>
You dumb hick. I used a term that YOU were unfamiliar with, and
you did not have the presence of mind to even LEARN from it. You're
like the dumb kid in grade school, who is angry and frustrated about
those smarter than him, kids who know things he is unable to comprehend;
and instead of learning from them, believes the right thing to do is
throw rocks at them from a back alley as they go home. You're a
fucking throwback of the human race... and God most certainly should
have 'thrown you back.' Every time you use the phrase 'pseudo-intellectual,'
you only demonstrate your inability to comprehend what is going on
about you, so you lash out in ignorance. The fact is, drunks win bar
bets with Apate, and that makes it doubly mysterious to me why you
didn't know of Apate right from the start.
> > Who became totally confused and erratic when I used the word
> > 'eisoptrophobia' which clearly was an appropriate application of the term?
>
> Another attempt to appear 'intellectual' [4], and an attempt which
> backfired on FW when it was pointed out that it had come from his CD-ROM
> version of _The OED_. Then again, as he unveiled this word just around the
> same time as he boldly proclaimed, 'There is no such THING [sic] as an
> abstract verb', one would have thought that he'd want to forget the whole
> thing, along with the 'Major-League' spanking that that earned him. Of
> course, news:alt.activism.death-penalty can still laugh at his winsome
> little response of 'I knew them under a different name', when it was shown
> that abstract verbs _do_ exist. One can only conjecture that the
> 'different name' to which he refers, is what they're called in his native
> Russian. Ho, ho, ho ... one shouldn't mock the afflicted, but in FW's
> case, I'm sure that everyone can make an exception. LOL ..
>
Once again... you demonstrate your anger over your lack of intellect. I
fully understand the rage that must be inside of you. But you should try to
educate yourself, rather than attack those who are better educated in
the 'liberal arts.'
> > Who had never heard of Anna Kingsmill Finch yet claims an education
> > in feminist literary figures?
>
> Gentle reader, here we have a patented FuckWit 'DoubleWhopper' [tm]. It
> contains two lies, expertly intertwined to make it appear as if there were
> only one. The first one is that I had 'never heard' of Anna Kingsmill
> Finch. Of course, FW hasn't heard of her, but if you try 'feminist
> literature', on google, then Anna Kingsmill Finch comes up on the third or
> fourth page. That allows FW to claim that he didn't find out her name from
> google ... sorry, 'goggle' (sic), and that his erudition allows him to
> quote from classics and contemporary literature. Damnit, if only he could
> master those apostrophes ... sorry, 'apostrophe's' (sic) !! LOL !!
> Anyway, I digress ... 'God' (sic), I'm having the time of my life, here ...
> FuckWit then tosses in the 'yet claims an education in feminist literary
> figures'. Of course my degrees are in French feminist literature, and 20th
> century works at that, and not English feminist literature, nor seventeenth
> and eigtheenth century. So whilst my classical education means that I had
> heard of, and read Anna Kingsmill Finch, that is not my field of expertise.
he he he... your 'field of expertise'!!! Don't make me bust a gut laughing. If
it doesn't involve a description of a nymphet, or a motorcycle, you are
adrift in a sea of ignorance. Although you do make a fine figure of a 'prancing
pedantic.'
> LOL ... FW's rage and frustration at not having had _any_ education worthy
> of the name, has led him to trip himself up in the past (cf. 'prosecution
> for libel' [5]). Maybe if he in fact _read_ the URLs ... sorry, 'URL's'
> (sic) that he posts, he'd look less the fool, but then we wouldn't have
> _half_ the fun that we do, poking fun at him.
>
Nah... you never heard of her, because if you had, you would have quickly
asserted you did. Only now -- after I have BANGED... BANGED...
BANGED the name in your head a dozen times, do you claim that 'Of
course I heard of her.' We can believe that about as well as we can
believe you knew that 'For whom the bell tolls,' was a quote from John
Donne. Or that you 'love' poetry.
> > Who threw about 'the Big Crunch' to appear 'intelligent,' even though
> > unable to grasp the least bit of scientific understanding?
>
> FW seems to have a masochist streak that leads him to present his 'jigaboo'
> (*chuckle*) buttocks to the assembled throng on AADP and _beg_ to be
> spanked. Had he an education, he would know that 'the Big Crunch' is
> taught in first and second year. However, whilst we in the West were
> learning basic scientific concepts, FW was working the fields in his native
> Russia, and hoping that his father would stay off the vodka. As YMT put it
> just after I mentioned 'the Big Crunch' ...
>
Thanks for again confirming you are a racist... and as all racists... rather
dull-witted. The only thing you've ever crunched on is a huge jelly donut.
And we all know that you're the one who inherited the 'drunken meme (look
it up)' from your father. Come on, desi... admit it... you were every bit a
pseudo-intellectual in your offering of 'the Big Crunch,' probably having
just finished a candy bar. If you can't work a simple ARITHMETIC
problem, and you believe that mathematics is not a language, how can
you expect ANYONE to believe you are anything but intellectually
deprived?
> > One would certainly expect a child of 12 or 13 years of age, being
> > educated today in one of the more advanced nations, to know what
> > the "Big Bang" means. It is natural for a child that age or older,
> > after being provided with that explanation for the universe's
> > origin and being informed of its ongoing expansion, to then wonder
> > where it's going. [6]
>
> > Who claimed Judge Zobel was not empowered to 'overturn' the verdict?
>
> Yep, I was in error, and acknowledged it. LMAO, it just _tears you up_
> that in doing so, I prevented you from mentioning it unless you wanted to
> look like an idiot. Oh but of course: looking like an idiot is what you
> 'do'.
>
Oh... you were in error, all right. And managed to make a perfect ass of
yourself in the process of being in error. While lacking the most common
degree of sensibility to apologize for making an ass of yourself in the
insults you provided in your ignorance, on your WAY to finding yourself
in error. You think 'admitting' you were an ass, suddenly makes you not
BE an ass? Dream on, sucker... you're branded an ass... and an ass you
will remain. I believe it went on for almost a month, with you providing the
most disgusting insults, while you were WRONG. And then claimed that
an apology wasn't necessary, because your insults were in 'good faith.'
> > Who was ignorant enough not to apologize for making an ass of himself
> > in insults about Judge Zobel's powers.
>
> The truth cannot be an insult, FuckWit.
>
But lies can... Shall we run through it again? The lies ALONG the way,
to your abject, and totally humiliating confession and admission of your
ignorance? Why not? It's been awhile, and I always enjoy demonstrating
what an ignorant slimeball you can be...
Your words on the way to making that ignorant ass of yourself --
You wrote --
"Psst, LDB? Tell us again about how O.J. Simpson was 'convicted of murder
in a civil court' ... or even better, how Judge Zobel 'could have simply overturned'
Louise Woodward's Second-Degree Murder conviction, if he had wanted to ..." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827213015.06523.00000825%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
You wrote --
"The Judge was _not_ empowered to 'overturn' the verdict. All he
could do was to reduce it to manslaughter. Which is what he did." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827213012.06523.00000822%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
You wrote --
"This is plainly not the case. Rule 25(b)(2) allows a trial judge, to
_reduce_ the verdict, but not to overturn it." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827212944.06523.00000798%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
You wrote --
"If the defence had asked Zobel to deliver his ruling wearing eyeshadow
and pink polka dot pyjamas, suspended upside down from Air Force
One at 100 ft ASL, would LDB think that Rule 25[b][2] 'empowered'
him to comply ?" See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212940.09778.00000981%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
You wrote --
"ROTFLMAO !!!! Did you get that in your copy of _Law for Dummies_ ?
Because a judge denies a motion, it means that he was 'empowered'
to grant it ?
Oh Lord, this is _delicious_ !!! This is _wonderful_ !!!
You idiot ... you crass, classless, profoundly dense man. Oh, I
can't stop laughing ..." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212939.09778.00000980%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong... and I can't stop laughing, you crass, clueless,
classless, profoundly dense, evil little man.
You wrote --
"Before you start making a fool of yourself ... oops, too late ... you
might like to consider what everyone has been trying to tell you for
nigh on 48 hours now, i.e. that the ruling shows no such thing. All
it shows is that the defence _asked_ Judge 'Sobel' (sic) to do that.
Rule 25[b][2] doesn't allow this, and so he had to deny the ruling."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212946.09778.00000986%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzz... wrong. And look who made a fool of themselves.
You wrote --
"his 'come-and-spank-me' inability to digest and analyse legal
texts and decisions ... his belief that Rule 25[b][2] (which he hadn't
even _heard of_, until JPB and I gave him a 'heads-up') gave Judge Zobel
the power to overturn the second degree murder conviction, handed down in
the Commonwealth v. Woodward case." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212952.09778.00000992%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz... wrong. And look who said 'come-and-spank-me.'
You wrote --
"In, fact, the beautiful 'double-whammy' that I dealt you last night, was
that I pre-empted you with Judge Zobel's ruling, and that said ruling
shows that Rule 25[b][2] only allows a judge to reduce a murder conviction
to a lesser offence." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212956.09778.00000995%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
AND OOOPSSSS... here comes the 'kicker' from you -- after digging
your own grave, you hoped to crawl out of that cockroach existence,
and fully display your mental disabilities with --
"Based on my original reading of Rule 25[b][2], I stated that Judge Zobel
could not have overturned the guilty verdict, and that the only option
open to him, was to reduce the verdict of second degree murder, to a
lesser charge, namely that of manslaughter.
Upon further investigation, however, it would appear that he was, in
fact, authorised to both reduce the verdict, and (if necessary) quash
it completely. An e-mail that I received last night, from the Massachusetts
Bar Association, would appear to confirm this view.
Unless new information comes to light, I thus confirm that, _as far as
I am able to ascertain_, PV is right." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020830212952.10684.00000094%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzz..... you are now unmasked for the legal illiterate you are. All
those insults gone to waste, as you realize you have been talking
through your ass.
Now, take a look at your words -- the insults you heaped on me, when
you were WRONG. And then you expected to come away with NO APOLOGY?
By 'justifying' not needing to apologize for your lies and insults because
they were offered in 'good faith.' See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020902212912.27149.00001383%40mb-cg.aol.com
Buzzzz..... you could apologize over and over now, and it would not matter
one bit.. I will ALWAYS continue to recount the entire dialog of abuse you
heaped on me (just as you presume you can again heap abuse which has
no form of intelligent content -- only that abuse -- as a 'defense' mechanism
on your part - while others see you for what you are). You are forever branded
as a liar, and an ego-driven maniac. Unable to accept responsibility for your
words.
> > Who confused an 'appeal petition' by the prosecution with a ruling
> > from the State Supreme Court?
>
> Here we have FuckWit applying the 'anal introvertion' theory, by which he
> trips himself up with so many lies, that he disappears up his own 'ass'
> (sic), and weighs 10,000 tonnes.
>
TRANSLATION -- "I fucked up again... but this is just getting too
embarrassing for me." Are you DENYING that you did not CONFUSE
a Prosecution Appeal Petition, presuming that it was the RULING
of the court, and provided a 'legal citation' to justify your ignorance?
I have the proof, desi... this was just another case of you digging your
own grave -- See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2FCI9.323760%24fa.6235402%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
Where you offered this --
url:http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/appeal.html
which is the Prosecution Appeal Petition. As proof of the finding of
the Supreme Court, which is actually HERE
url:http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
The appeal petition, of course has no legal standing in respect to making
or interpreting LAW. It is simply an 'appeal' for the court to see things
as they see them, and not as they are. You couldn't even read the
very top line of the URLs to recognize the meaning. Just as you
couldn't read the very top line of your weekly statistics program,
when you proclaimed that it was a 'script' and not a program... while
the 'script' itself STATES it IS a program, in the very first line posted.
You have this very sad 'reading problem.'
> > Who argued against 'the doctrine of punishment' for criminals?
>
> Which I didn't, of course.
>
LOL ---- See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021013212908.02941.00002718%40mb-dh.aol.com
Quoting you "I personally shrink from the entire doctrine of 'punishment' as
a tool of crime prevention.." But I suppose that I can't quote you, as
you claim copyright to your own words. ho ho ho... you imbecile. Go
ahead and tell us that those WERE NOT your 'words.' Because I love
it when you lie, and others can look and see for themselves that you
ARE lying.
> > Who has been unable to decide if they fear or do not fear death?
>
> Come on, FuckWit, 'fess [sic] up', those photographs of dead bodies [7]
> struck terror into your heart. LOL ... poor, sad, crass, uneducated,
> classless, obsessive buffoon, FuckWit. LOL ...
>
They only made me sick to my stomach that you could presume to
find 'humor' in such pictures of what were once living breathing humans.
It speaks to how little you value life itself, while presuming you wish to
save the lives of murderers. You are a perverse grave-digger, you sad
little man. And you have ADMITTED that your impending death would
strike terror into your heart... and cause your sphincter to open wide
and the excreta to cover your pants, causing you to slide across the floor.
> > Who claimed that released murderers are less likely to murder again
> > than persons who have never murdered before?
>
> Which you have yet to refute, other than your 'We [sic] ALL [sic] know that
> desi [sic] is WRONG [sic]' ...
>
Hello... the recidivism rate for released murderers was reported at
1.2% in the latest DOJ report of 1994 (that represents a huge drop in such
recidivist murders from 6.6% in 1983 - probably due to the greater use
of the DP between those two reports). That means given 100,000
previously convicted murderers, at least 1,200 of them will recommit
new murders. The homicide rate in the U.S. runs about 6 for every 100,000.
Thus it is at least 200 times more likely for a released murderer to recommit
murder, than it is for the 'ordinary citizen' to commit a first murder. This is
not rocket science, desi... it's arithmetic... oh, I forgot... you are
'arithmetic-challenged.'
> > Who claimed that 'it is not necessary to prove that the DP does not deter'
> > for it to be true?
>
> You've never once managed to get one over on me on AADP, so you're out to
> kill me with laughter, is that right, FW ? Indeed, that little exchange
> has gone down in history as being in the Top 10 of _savage_ beatinngs
> (quick, the list !!) that I administered to FuckWit in 2002.
>
Don't be absurd... you took one of the biggest beatings of your life,
in your presumption that you don't need to 'prove' something. Stating that
you only need to CLAIM it is true. Your logic was so fundamentally flawed,
that I thought I'd bust a gut from laughing.
> Did I say that FuckWit was a liar ? In fact, what happened is that in his
> drug-induced eagerness to appear as if he knew what 'logic' was, he made
> the quite ludicrous claim that if a claim cannot be proven to be false, it
> is necessarily true.
My aching ass. It was YOU who claimed "It is not necessary for
abolitionists to 'prove' that it does not deter." I NEVER claimed it DID
deter. I simply said both are unproven. Thus YOU are the one
trying to claim that 'it does not deter' is TRUE. In fact, to be TRUE, you
MUST PROVE it is TRUE, since the presumption is always in the
negative. Remember semper praesumitur pro negante, the presumption
is always in the negative? That was my original presentation, and it
demonstrates that you are simply lying again.
>
> ROTFLMAO !!! Yes, gentle reader, laugh !! Let your laughter ring out
> clear across the night sky !! FW is a fuckwit, and what's more, he's
> _proud_ of that fact ...
>
> > Who claimed that 'the dead cannot be honored'?
>
> They cannot.
>
You're full of shit. And everyone knows it. I have provided enough
evidence to sink a ship, while we have only your silly words, with no
backing other than those words. Evidence sport... without it... you're
just full of crapola.
> > Who claimed that Lockerbie was caused by 'wind shear'?
>
> Wind shear happens at ground level, FuckWit. It's hardly my fault if you
> don't know that Clear Air Turbulence happens at altitude. I've tried to
> educate you, but your father was right when he sent you to work on the
> fields instead of school.
>
Again.. you don't know shit from shinola (look it up, desi), or go to
http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/114000.html
And everyone knows it. See --
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/n739pa/n739pa.htm
Try providing some reputable source (not urbanlegends.com) which
would support your silly stupidity. I believe proof of your stupidity
is well documented in the reference I provide from the Government
of the U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch.
> > Who claimed the Balkans are not in Europe?
>
> LOL !!
Ah... but no denial. You most certainly did make such a stupid claim.
> > Who claimed that in matters of morals, Europe has led the world for over
> > 2000 years?
>
> And we're proud of it.
>
So you're personally proud of the holocaust? I suspected as much.
> > Who claimed that 'America' and the 'United States' are not synonyms?
>
> Only insofar as fuckwits like you think that 'quote' is a noun. 'America'
> is a synonym for 'United States' in the mouths of those whose English
> language learning stopped at eight years old.
Tired of your bullshit... see --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20quote,%20n_2.htm
Argue with the OED... which you claim is some 'supreme arbiter.' Because
the OED calls it a noun, quite clearly. Then see --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20America,%20n.htm
And again argue with the OED... because it states that America is 'used also
as the name of the United States of America.' You're just being a stubborn
jerk, in the face of knowing you've screwed up.
> > Who claimed that 'none' of the terrorists in the WTC attack knew they were
> > about to commit suicide?
>
> Ho, ho, ho ... can you say 'misspeak' ? Talking of which ... erm, O.J.
> Simpson ?? [8] LMAO !!
>
So you admit you 'misspoke.' So what. I've admitted over and over
that I misspoke by stating 'guilt' in respect to a civil trial, fully
admitting it should have been 'liable.' And you keep harping on it.
So I'll keep harping on your silly misspeak. Are you presuming you
can do it, whilst (sic) I cannot?
> > Who claimed in one breath to commute all sentences to life, and then
> > in the next said they were not in favor of life imprisonment?
>
> Totally false, of course, but then, saying 'totally false' is tautologous
> when the words 'Planet Visitor wrote' are at the top of a post.
>
Actually, it's totally true. And you know it. Your words --
1) "Why not just shut down all of the nation's death rows, and commute
all of the sentences to life ?"
2) "I have stated that I am not in favour of life imprisonment without parole."
It would seem you are confused as to exactly what you do favour (sic).
> > Who confused arithmetic with algebra?
>
> LMAO !!
>
Stupid people usually do, when confronted with their stupidity. You
most certainly did try to present some stupid algebra example, as
presuming it would substitute for a very straightforward arithmetic
problem. I love the way you first claimed that PV was "about to experience
one of the biggest, most brutal spankings he's ever had" And then
believe that a large number of LOLs, LMAOs, and various and
sundry kindergarten insults constitutes that 'spanking.' Like the
old commercial -- 'Where's the beef???' Because all I've seen from
you so far... is baloney.
> > Who claimed that mathematics is not a language?
>
> Oh, stop it ... I'm laughing so much it's hurting ...
>
Well, you certainly did. And you looked silly as shit when you did.
When I said mathematics and logic were languages, you replied
"Oh boy ... so logic, and arithmetic, are 'languages' now ... PV
plumbs new depths in his desire to 'get one up' on Desmond.
What's next, PV, inventing a new 'nickname' for me ?"
'Blockhead' might be an appropriate new nickname for you.
Mathematics is a language, something everyone agrees with.
Arithmetic is the alphabet of that language. So you have not even
mastered the ABCs of that language.
> > Who claimed he would 'gamble' on the lives of potential innocent victims of
> > murder?
>
> Again, LMAO !! Note, 'Gentle Reader', that the expression 'desi would
> prefer' is now absent from FW's rhetoric.
There is no doubt you would 'prefer' it, as well. Do not read into my latest
words, as changing the fact that you DID prefer to 'gamble' on innocent
lives. Your words yet again to nail you down --
"Am I willing to gamble on that infinitesimally small chance that he will kill again ?
Yes."
There is no question that 'willing to' means you prefer to. See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=KfRi9.6191%24yB5.253233%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
> He had his 'ass' (sic) nailed to
> the wall by just about all of AADP, after claiming that I would 'prefer'
> that Frank be released to kill again.
It was YOUR words that stated such. See above URL. Actually, it
was John Rennie who first nailed you to the wall, and then rather
let you go, since you wiggled a great deal.
> FW couldn't sit down for a week
> after that. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, that was one of
> FW's more painful spankings, and made even me feel sorry for him. Now,
> where is it, again ..? Ah, yes ...
>
I haven't seen ANYTHING from you in the way of providing WORDS
from me to justify your pathetic whining. While all of my words
certainly exist. I am not in the habit of hiding my words. You are.
Making the most absurd statement ever uttered in Usenet... the
claim of copyright in an open forum. What a joke you are. Your
presumption of copyright, implies that no one can even 'legally' respond
to your posts, without your permission, if even one sentence of your post
is left in, in their response.
> 'The above is supposed to balance your lies? All that blather
> to cover the fact that you made statements that simply were not
> true and all you can come up with is a spelling error and the
> difference between being 'convicted' and found liable. Desmond
> has many faults but when you point out to him errors of fact
> he spends no time in admitting them. Increasingly you ruin many
> a good argument by just not behaving responsibly. You cannot
> resist the odd embellishment, the fatuous strawdog, the
> misrepresentation of an argument. You don't need to do
> these things - try to behave and we might, just might, take you
> and your attitudes that little more seriously.' [9]
LOL... When you find a retentionist who criticizes me... let me know.
I could well cite examples where John and Mr. D. have offered some
praise for my posts, and other abolitionists as well. Can you give
ONE example of a retentionist that doesn't hate your guts? Just
ONE.
As it is, John clearly stated you have 'many faults.' And he has
criticized you over and over. Calling you destructive to the cause
you supposedly support. And I believe I answered that post quite
adequately, since his reply to my reply was reminiscent of something
you would do... try to find some pedantic excuse for my use of 'mold.'
The fact is I was not out to point out 'all your faults' as he presumes.
I was pointing out "a quick example of only 3 ---" Obviously, I have
posted up to 44, in other posts. You WERE deceptive in your use
of 'execreta' (sic), trying to claim you had not said what you fully knew
you had said. You WERE deceptive when you claimed I had used the
word 'murder' when speaking of the civil trial of O.J., and you WERE
deceptive in your accusation that I had misquoted Jürgen. And John's
accusation of my 'lies' was rather a poor choice of words, IMHO, since I
fully admitted that JPB had not used the words 'crook' and 'Zobel'
together. But there is no doubt in my mind, that when someone claims
a judge KNOWS a person is not guilty, has the power to change a
jury verdict from guilty to not guilty, and does NOT DO SO... he is
a 'crook' in my eyes. Now, _I_ do not believe that Judge Zobel was a
crook... but JPB claimed that Zobel KNEW of that innocence, could
have CHANGED it to not guilty, and did not do so. I find, IMHO,
that JPB implied very clearly that Judge Zobel was a 'crook.'
Coupling that with the fact that JPB has also stated that the
entire State of Massachusetts (of which Judge Zobel is a
representative) was 'riddled with corruption.' I find that as a rather
compelling argument that JPB implies Judge Zobel is a crook.
And then perhaps I was speaking in the pejorative. Since JPB
tried to defend your lies, by claiming YOU were speaking in the
pejorative, when claiming I had stated 'guilty of murder,' in respect
to O.J.
The other 'point' was in respect to your preferring to free Frank
rather than be executed. And of that, I have no doubt I was not
lying, nor was I speaking in the pejorative. I was directly
addressing the fact that you had said "YES," in respect to
freeing Frank, if only execution was the other choice. It was
a very sick remark on your part. There is no question that the
question itself was 'loaded.' But you stepped in of your own
accord. It would have been quite simple to note that it was a
'loaded' question, that had no answer... but you did not do so.
You answered TRUTHFULLY, as to your feelings. And then
needed to backtrack quite a bit, with excuses.
> > And who believes that calling another a 'fuckwit' represents 'articulate
> > abolition'?
>
> Hey, FuckWit, if the glove fits ...
>
You must acquit. Therefore, I am 'not guilty' of being a FW, while
you are certainly guilty of being a 'blockhead.'
> > The answer is -- desi... to each of the questions. And if that doesn't
> > DEFINE someone who is illiterate... then our species is in sorry shape.
> >
> > Now as I told Earl... it's obvious that you are also having another psychotic
> > episode, and need to quickly take your Thorazine meds.
>
> Translation: Jesus, desi (sic), lay off me ...
>
Hardly... I love this game. Especially when you begin banging your
head against your desk... and screaming raging insults you presume
is 'articulate abolition.'
> If I were FW, I'd be ashamed to come onto Usenet. Maybe that's why he
> hides his name ... whilst still claiming to be 'accountable' for what he
> writes ... truly ROTFFLMAO !!! Then again, if I were FuckWit, I'd kill
> myself to avoid the shame of _being_ FuckWit.
>
> <fx: walks away, dusting hands ...>
Actually, after the crap you've just taken, you should try soap and water
first.
Following is a bunch of mindless references that only prove the deep psychotic
episode that desi is currently suffering.
PV
> [1] or 'mis-spelling'
> [2]
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=vEgA8.173369%24nc.23155166%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=
fr
> [3]
url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=+%22do+those+big+terms+confuse%22+group:alt.activism.death-penalty&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF
-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=XKpA8.182471%24nc.24051659%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=2
> [4]
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9ACi8.69291%24Dl4.7549381%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=f
r
> [5]
url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=WRGB9.301346%24S8.6144624%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&as_sc
oring=d&hl=fr
> [6]
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=d9253152.0209211329.3768cc6e%40posting.google.com&lr=&hl=fr
> [7] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/blonde.html
> [8]
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.
tampabay.rr.com
> [9] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=Dfxn9.127%24gY1.21175%40newsfep2-gui&lr=&hl=fr
> --
dirtdog
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
>le Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:24:11 GMT, dans l'article <LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
<almost crass _leathering_ of FW's arse snipped>
>> Who claimed Judge Zobel was not empowered to 'overturn' the verdict?
>
>Yep, I was in error, and acknowledged it. LMAO, it just _tears you up_
>that in doing so, I prevented you from mentioning it unless you wanted to
>look like an idiot. Oh but of course: looking like an idiot is what you
>'do'.
>
Indeed, Desmond.
It is actually rather ironic that one of the best examples of the fact
that however many 1950's [sic] edition's [sic] of the Children's
Encyclopaedia Britannica PV has on his rickety, flat-pack, self
assembly bookcase, he is _still_ an utter fuckwit.
Your incorrect claim vis a vis Rule 25 was a perfect opportunity for
FW to administer a rare spanking. Your arse was waving in the breeze
awaiting a quotation from the full text of R25.
But, instead, in the grand tradition of fat bastard, greedy, thick,
ignorant, backward, insular inhabitants of the country known as
America [sic], FW managed to spectacularly pull defeat from the jaws
of victory!
I remember quite clearly the chain of events. Having undertaken his
monthly pretence of claiming expertise on a subject in which his
knowledge is patently limited, FW had been spanked quite thoroughly by
'Just Passing By', and was thrashing around in the gutter calling his
opponent a 'lunatic', 'insane', 'obsessed', etc.
You, Desmond, interjected. You had clearly, in the manner of an
academic, undertaken some research, and had attempted to learn the
relevant law with the aim of understanding the technical background to
the final ruling in the Woodward case. It seems that you were
mistaken, but honestly so.
But how did FW respond? Did he point out just why Rule 25 actually
does allow a judge to unilaterally quash the finding of a jury and
stop you dead in your tracks, scoring a good 'three pointer' [sic] in
the process? Did he simply link to the pertinent section of the Rule?
Did he fuck. He screamed about how desi [sic] is evil, a racist, an
anti-Semite, in 'the gang', blah-de-fucking-blah. Instead of brutally
rogering your prone bumhole, he kindly pulled your 'pants' [sic] back
up, buttoned your fly and bent over naked in front of you, arse cheeks
spread so wide one could see his colon.
You see, the simple truth is that FW is too limited to produce an
argument based upon anything other than cut-and-pastes from hits one
to ten of a basic Goggle [sic] search. In this case, even FW appeared
to believe he was incorrect (You had, after all, quoted Rule
26(2)(b)), and reverted to the usual banal 'face saving' bluster and
irrelevance.
You, Desmond, were completely wrong, but FW's complete lack of any
real academic skills meant it appeared to all that you had 'won'.
It was only when you realised your mistake yourself, and, as a
light-dwelling abolitionist, were bound by your innate intellectual
honesty and saw fit to retract your earlier posts that FW woke up to
the fact that you were wrong. Left alone, he would have continued to
assert that your interpretation of R25 was wrong on the basis that you
are 'evil'.
The thoroughly amusing thing is that FW at that time attempted to
appear gracious. I seem to remember something along the lines of '[OK
desi [sic] let be the last time this is mentioned]'. Of course,
graciousness and FW certainly do not go hand in hand.
Now, of course, despite the fact this incident showed that FW hasn't
got the ability to cognently argue his way out of the proverbial paper
bag (even when he is right!), he attempts to present it as a
'spanking'! What a cock!
So I invite FW to share with the group just _why_ Desmond was
'spanked' by you in relation to the incident carefully and accurately
detailed above.
<rest snipped>
Just passing by
>
> You, Desmond, were completely wrong, but FW's complete lack of any
> real academic skills meant it appeared to all that you had 'won'.
>
In fact he was only very slightly wrong. Desi correctly interpreted
Rule 25(b)(2) but was unaware of Zobel's power to overturn under the
wider Rule 25. 95% of what Desi wrote about this at the time was
entirely accurate, and, in my opinion, he went further than he needed
to in his retraction.
My position was always - and still is - that Zobel could not
realistically have hoped to overturn the verdict without himself being
subsequently overruled by the SJC, and so went as far as he could to
compensate for his own earlier mistakes that probably contributed to
the perverse verdict.
St.George
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vjqT9.870$3r3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "St.George" <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.com00> wrote in message
I don't read the Mail.
I read The Sun.
>No 'big bang' as well - He! He!
Nope, no big bang.
You'll be hearing much more about my revolutionary Unified Field Theory
soon...if you're around long enough, old man!
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:13:55 +0000
>
>le Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:23:10 +0000, dans l'article
><5ibs1vkjeb9aet6lf...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
><dirtdog...@fruffrant.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>FuckWit was handicapped (in all senses of the word) from the beginning of
>the debate, by the fact that he did not know what Rule 25[b][2] was.
>Indeed, if you remember how my involvment in the whole Zobel - Woodward
>thing started ... it was on Tuesday 27 August 2002, I had been watching with
>interest the spanking that JPB was administering to FW's rosy arsecheeks,
>when the former mentioned Rule 25[b][2]. FW's response was ...
>
> 'I don't know where you found "rule 25(b)(2)." Going to the "General
> Laws of Massachusetts," Chapter 25B: Section 2. There is NOTHING there
> even remotely related to what you speak of.' [1]
>
>Now, let's just for a second, be kind to FW and not mention how he had in
>fact posted a URL barely a fortnight before, which had contained numerous
>mentions of Rule 25[b][2]. Let us skim over the fact that JPB asked him
>if he had _read_ that URL, and he again shook his fist, flicked his
>ponytail back, loudly declared that he always read 'ALL [sic] of the URL's
>[sic]' that he posted, and flounced off in a huff to smoke his Galloise and
>chug off in front of his photograph of Paul Bocuse, whilst cursing 'God'
>(sic) for making him be born in Russia, rather than in France. Oops, we
>mentioned it ... oh well, he deserves nothing less than ridicule, anyway.
>
>Back to the thread on 'Sobel' (sic), I responded in typically measured,
>temperate fashion ...
>
> 'Hardly surprising, bearing in mind that you're a moron.
> [...]
> You're a moron. A profoundly crass, stupid, classless man. I know
> next to nothing about Massachusetts law, and yet the above took me
> around 60 seconds of searching on the Cornell Law site, which provided
> a link to the above.
> [...]
> You really are as thick as shit in the neck of a bottle. No one could
> fault you for not knowing the above. Everyone can (and should) fault
> you for blowing out hot air on a subject of which you are wholly
> ignorant, preceded by your customary "ROTFLMAO".'
>
>Now in fact, subsequent reading (as distinct from 'goggle' (sic) searches)
>has revealed that in fact, as JPB states in an earlier post today, I was in
>fact correct regarding the ramifications of Rule 25[b][2]. Had I been
>_wrong_, however, then any 'victory' enjoyed by FuckWit, would have been
>purely accidental. How frustrating it must be for FW to have his arse
>tanned by all and sundry, and have to rely on 'own goals' by Light
>Dwellers, in order to score points. LMAO !!
>
>I thus retract my retraction, direct that the 'Rule 25[b][2]' saga be
>recorded as a Category I spank of FW's saggy arse, and reaffirm (as if
>anyone doubted it) that FuckWit really is an incompetent, retarded,
>moronic, sexually depraved fuckwit.
>
>{ snip }
>
>[1]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=g
uDa9.318152%24s8.5567619%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=en
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.
com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de
!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:13:55 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 99
>Message-ID: <slrnb2199g.5am.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <80c9va...@lievre.voute.net>
><LEbS9.24464$Sa3.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><cflcva...@lievre.voute.net>
><OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><qp5eva...@lievre.voute.net>
><_qyS9.192$9l3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><51heva...@lievre.voute.net>
><LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><t6vkva...@lievre.voute.net> <5ibs1vkjeb9aet6lf...@4ax.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042328244 19392611 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-Feedback: http://www.zeouane.org/feedback.html
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:05:01 +0000
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=vEgA8.173369%
24nc.23155166%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=fr
>[3]
>url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=+%22do+those+big+terms+confuse%22+gr
oup:alt.activism.death-penalty&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=XKpA8.1824
71%24nc.24051659%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=2
>
>[4]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9ACi8.69291%2
4Dl4.7549381%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=fr
>[5]
>url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=WRGB9.301346%2
4S8.6144624%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl=fr
>
>[6]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=d9253152.0209
211329.3768cc6e%40posting.google.com&lr=&hl=fr
>[7] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/blonde.html
>[8]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
>[9]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=Dfxn9.127%24g
Y1.21175%40newsfep2-gui&lr=&hl=fr
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.stealth.net!news.ste
alth.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-ber
lin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:05:01 +0000
>Lines: 313
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <t6vkva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <80c9va...@lievre.voute.net>
><LEbS9.24464$Sa3.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><cflcva...@lievre.voute.net>
><OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><qp5eva...@lievre.voute.net>
><_qyS9.192$9l3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><51heva...@lievre.voute.net>
><LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042153686 17724726 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
A Planet Visitor
> <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >le Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:24:11 GMT, dans l'article <LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
> >
>
> <almost crass _leathering_ of FW's arse snipped>
>
> >> Who claimed Judge Zobel was not empowered to 'overturn' the verdict?
> >
> >Yep, I was in error, and acknowledged it. LMAO, it just _tears you up_
> >that in doing so, I prevented you from mentioning it unless you wanted to
> >look like an idiot. Oh but of course: looking like an idiot is what you
> >'do'.
> >
>
> Indeed, Desmond.
<mindless insults from Louise clipped>
> Your incorrect claim vis a vis Rule 25 was a perfect opportunity for
> FW to administer a rare spanking. Your arse was waving in the breeze
> awaiting a quotation from the full text of R25.
>
> But, instead, in the grand tradition of fat bastard, greedy, thick,
> ignorant, backward, insular inhabitants of the country known as
> America [sic], FW managed to spectacularly pull defeat from the jaws
> of victory!
>
If anyone is an insult to their country, Louise... it's most certainly you.
Actually, as I did with you and 'mitigating circumstances,' the spanking
I administered at the end, was of desi's own creation. Certainly, if
he had simply 'kept his mouth shut,' as you should have done with
'mitigating circumstances,' his self-flagellation would not have occurred.
But you and desi are both masochists. Willing to accept an unlimited
amount of looking stupid, to just keep posting here.
> I remember quite clearly the chain of events.
Given that your drug-addled brain is unable to remember what you
had for breakfast... believing that is certainly a stretch.
<more mindless abuse clipped>
>
> You, Desmond, interjected. You had clearly, in the manner of an
> academic, undertaken some research, and had attempted to learn the
> relevant law with the aim of understanding the technical background to
> the final ruling in the Woodward case. It seems that you were
> mistaken, but honestly so.
>
Nah... he just did his usual... mouthed off without having the slightest
idea what he was talking about.
> But how did FW respond? Did he point out just why Rule 25 actually
> does allow a judge to unilaterally quash the finding of a jury and
> stop you dead in your tracks, scoring a good 'three pointer' [sic] in
> the process? Did he simply link to the pertinent section of the Rule?
>
Over and over. And each time I did, desi responded with the most
evil and disgusting insults imaginable. While he had his head up
his ass... and finally had to admit it was there.
> Did he fuck. He screamed about how desi [sic] is evil, a racist, an
> anti-Semite, in 'the gang', blah-de-fucking-blah.
Perhaps you can point out the URL where I wrote those words in
respect to the Zobel dialog. Certainly I have provided more than
sufficient proof in other posts that desi is evil, a racist, and an
anti-Semite. I would never presume that I have not 'called a spade
a spade,' where it concerns desi's evil. But, allow me to offer desi's
words to me, since you've clipped them. With proof, not the insubstantial
bullshit you always provide (think 'mitigating circumstances.') ---
desi wrote --
"Psst, LDB? Tell us again about how O.J. Simpson was 'convicted of murder
in a civil court' ... or even better, how Judge Zobel 'could have simply overturned'
Louise Woodward's Second-Degree Murder conviction, if he had wanted to ..." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827213015.06523.00000825%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
desi wrote --
"The Judge was _not_ empowered to 'overturn' the verdict. All he
could do was to reduce it to manslaughter. Which is what he did." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827213012.06523.00000822%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
desi wrote --
"This is plainly not the case. Rule 25(b)(2) allows a trial judge, to
_reduce_ the verdict, but not to overturn it." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827212944.06523.00000798%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
desi wrote --
"If the defence had asked Zobel to deliver his ruling wearing eyeshadow
and pink polka dot pyjamas, suspended upside down from Air Force
One at 100 ft ASL, would LDB think that Rule 25[b][2] 'empowered'
him to comply ?" See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212940.09778.00000981%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
desi wrote --
"ROTFLMAO !!!! Did you get that in your copy of _Law for Dummies_ ?
Because a judge denies a motion, it means that he was 'empowered'
to grant it ?
Oh Lord, this is _delicious_ !!! This is _wonderful_ !!!
You idiot ... you crass, classless, profoundly dense man. Oh, I
can't stop laughing ..." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212939.09778.00000980%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
desi wrote --
"Before you start making a fool of yourself ... oops, too late ... you
might like to consider what everyone has been trying to tell you for
nigh on 48 hours now, i.e. that the ruling shows no such thing. All
it shows is that the defence _asked_ Judge 'Sobel' (sic) to do that.
Rule 25[b][2] doesn't allow this, and so he had to deny the ruling."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212946.09778.00000986%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzz... wrong. And look who made a fool of themselves.
desi wrote --
"his 'come-and-spank-me' inability to digest and analyse legal
texts and decisions ... his belief that Rule 25[b][2] (which he hadn't
even _heard of_, until JPB and I gave him a 'heads-up') gave Judge Zobel
the power to overturn the second degree murder conviction, handed down in
the Commonwealth v. Woodward case." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212952.09778.00000992%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz... wrong. And look who said 'come-and-spank-me.'
desi wrote --
"In, fact, the beautiful 'double-whammy' that I dealt you last night, was
that I pre-empted you with Judge Zobel's ruling, and that said ruling
shows that Rule 25[b][2] only allows a judge to reduce a murder conviction
to a lesser offence." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212956.09778.00000995%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
AND OOOPSSSS... here comes the 'kicker' from desi -- after digging
his own grave, he hoped to crawl out of that cockroach existence,
and fully display his mental disabilities with --
"Based on my original reading of Rule 25[b][2], I stated that Judge Zobel
could not have overturned the guilty verdict, and that the only option
open to him, was to reduce the verdict of second degree murder, to a
lesser charge, namely that of manslaughter.
Upon further investigation, however, it would appear that he was, in
fact, authorised to both reduce the verdict, and (if necessary) quash
it completely. An e-mail that I received last night, from the Massachusetts
Bar Association, would appear to confirm this view.
Unless new information comes to light, I thus confirm that, _as far as
I am able to ascertain_, PV is right." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020830212952.10684.00000094%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzz..... desi was now unmasked for the legal illiterate he was. All
those insults gone to waste, as he realized he had been talking
through his ass.
Now, take a look at his words -- the insults he heaped on me, when
he was WRONG. And then he expected to come away with NO APOLOGY?
By 'justifying' not needing to apologize for his lies and insults because
they were offered in 'good faith.' See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020902212912.27149.00001383%40mb-cg.aol.com
Buzzzz..... desi could apologize over and over now, and it would not matter
one bit.. I will ALWAYS continue to recount the entire dialog of abuse he
heaped on me. desi is forever branded as a liar, and an ego-driven maniac.
Unable to accept responsibility for his words. Ring a bell? Just as you.
> You see, the simple truth is that FW is too limited to produce an
> argument based upon anything other than cut-and-pastes from hits one
> to ten of a basic Goggle [sic] search. In this case, even FW appeared
> to believe he was incorrect (You had, after all, quoted Rule
> 26(2)(b)), and reverted to the usual banal 'face saving' bluster and
> irrelevance.
>
Actually, I KNEW I was right. Since I could READ the ruling, while
desi was confused in reading the Prosecution Appeal Petition. Even
after, he was STILL confused until I pointed out where he was confused.
I believe he now understands the 'difference' between an 'appeal petition'
and a ruling on that petition from the court.
> You, Desmond, were completely wrong, but FW's complete lack of any
> real academic skills meant it appeared to all that you had 'won'.
>
Only to you, sport... since you are joined at the hip with desi.
> It was only when you realised your mistake yourself, and, as a
> light-dwelling abolitionist, were bound by your innate intellectual
> honesty and saw fit to retract your earlier posts that FW woke up to
> the fact that you were wrong. Left alone, he would have continued to
> assert that your interpretation of R25 was wrong on the basis that you
> are 'evil'.
There is a difference between 'evil' and 'stupid.' In desi's particular
case he is both. In the Zobel incident, I only referred to his 'stupidity.'
> The thoroughly amusing thing is that FW at that time attempted to
> appear gracious. I seem to remember something along the lines of '[OK
> desi [sic] let be the last time this is mentioned]'. Of course,
> graciousness and FW certainly do not go hand in hand.
>
Actually, I intended to do so, since I presumed that his acknowledgment
that he was totally wrong implied an apology. Once he clearly stated
that it DID NOT indicate an apology, since he believed his insults were
provided in 'good faith,' there was no longer a reason for me to 'forget'
about it, since no apology had actually been forthcoming. Clearly,
it is too late for an apology, and even you have recognized that he was
'stupid.' Whether you view him as the 'voice of God,' or a Saint for
murderers, there is no question he is 'stupid.' Once one of his
disciples (you) recognizes it... it has to be true.
> Now, of course, despite the fact this incident showed that FW hasn't
> got the ability to cognently argue his way out of the proverbial paper
> bag (even when he is right!), he attempts to present it as a
> 'spanking'! What a cock!
>
desi spanked himself. And it's always a pleasure to watch you do so
as well.
> So I invite FW to share with the group just _why_ Desmond was
> 'spanked' by you in relation to the incident carefully and accurately
> detailed above.
>
Because he was wrong... yet provided insult after documented insult
(shown above), and then felt it wasn't 'necessary' to apologize because
he believed insults can be offered in 'good faith,' when one is wrong.
desi did a better job spanking himself in this case, then I could have ever
accomplished.
> <rest snipped>
>
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.03011...@posting.google.com...
Actually, you are totally wrong. He obviously did not go as far as
he could. FULL STOP. Judges do not rule on expectations of
how their verdicts may be seen by higher courts in respect to guilt
and innocent. It is dereliction of the responsibility of a Judge if
he allows a guilty verdict to stand, when he KNOWS (and you claimed
he KNOWS) the accused is 'not guilty,' and has the power to change
that verdict. You haven't changed a bit. Totally obsessed with the
'Great White Whale,' and unable to accept the truth of the entire
matter. The judge in fact stated in his ruling "The verdict, it seems to
me, was not against the weight of the evidence." It is absurd to
try and argue that he 'KNOWS' she is not guilty, when he enters
those words into his ruling. Further, practically ALL of your meaningless
arguments were simply a repeat of what was contained in the Great White
Whale's defense appeal to the Supreme Court, which can be found within
url:http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.com00> wrote in message news:avl3u7$ek1$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> As the acknowledged arbiter on matters of knowledge, interpretation and
> intelligence, I have taken it upon myself to go through PV's allegations and
> see which have no merit - not even a prima facie case, if you will.
>
> Accusations uncommented upon are not commensurate with convictions, merely
> that the defence should be prepared to make a case.
>
>
> > How many continents are there?
shouldn't see some 'European influence' in everything that happens on the
five continents [1].
[1] quick, LDB ... clap your hands like a seal, and remind me that there
are six continents ... [2]
[2] as if I didn't know it, you retarded fuckwit ..."
To which I replied that all current sources, citing Britannica and Encarta
encyclopedia, recognize seven continents.
See my post --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ct6J9.462162%24S8.9569867%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&oe=windows-1252
> > What's the difference between 'imports' and 'exports'?
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E14C432.8070907%40comcast.net
desi stated -- "58% of British imports (sic) go to Europe." They are of
course -- 'Exports.'
> > who extolled the fact that "British citizens have freedom of movement
> > anywhere within the U.K."?
desi posted that comment in --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=oa5R9.77%245o1.43284%40newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net
does he really think that British citizens cannot move about the U.K.?
In fact he MEANT, most certainly the EU. And it should be pointed out
that U.S. citizens can move freely from San Diego, Calif, to Portland, Maine.
A distance equivelent to Paris to Moscow and back past Berlin. Without
ever encountering one stop light, much less a border control point.
>
> Well, unless the rules have changed significantly, they do...
>
> > Who confused Hemingway with John Donne?
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=NrHD9.354226%24S8.6967082%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&oe=windows-1252
I had posted to desi -- "However, you're still confusing the images you
see. Ask not for 'whom the bell tolls,' desi... it tolls for thee."
And desi responded with "Lemme guess, yo 'LOVE [sic] Hemingway',
right ??" While everyone is aware the author of those words is
John Donne.
> > Who confuses Tennyson with Alfred Austin?
Pejoratively. He certainly knows nothing of Tennyson. And presumes
to compare him with a hack... which Alfred Austin was.
> > Who finds it strange that someone could 'love' poetry?
See above.
> > Who had no idea what Apate represents?
>
> Well I have no idea either, so I acquit Desmond on jury nullification-type
> grounds.
>
Sorry, I cannot excuse his ignorance, using yours. She was the child of
Nyx, and one of the evils released by Pandora. She is the Greek Goddess
of Deceit. See, among MANY other references --
url:http://www.theoi.com/Khaos/Geras.html#Apate
url:http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Nyx.html
url:http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/apate.html
url:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6946/mythology/apate.html
urlhttp://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=539
I might also mention that you can find Earl, by just scrolling back
one name in the first URL, to find Geras. I really cannot believe
that this source name is unfamilar to you or anyone holding a
view they have been 'intellectually' endowed. Of course, that
does exclude desi and dirt... but I really thought you would not
have a problem.
>
>
> > Who became totally confused and erratic when I used the word
> > 'eisoptrophobia' which clearly was an appropriate application of the term?
There is no doubt he was confused, since he has continued to claim
using that rather common phobia is 'pseudo-intellectual.' Although
I can understand his reluctance to discuss phobias, with his psychotic
episodes having some source in his many phobias.
> > Who had never heard of Anna Kingsmill Finch yet claims an education
> > in feminist literary figures?
I have used her name a great number of times... and he has continued
to 'play dumb.' I can only assume he 'hasn't a clue,' and has only now
attempted to claim he 'knew of her.' So I was again in the pejorative.
> > Who threw about 'the Big Crunch' to appear 'intelligent,' even though
> > unable to grasp the least bit of scientific understanding?
>
>
> Hmm...well the Big Crunch is assuredly not gonna happen, but then again
> neither did the Big Bang, so I throw out the case on the grounds of
> prosecution ignorance
>
Latest evidence supports what you say. There would need to be a
radical discovery to now lend some credence to the 'coming of the
Big Crunch.' It appears that we are doomed to 'flicker out.' But
I guess 'we' don't need to worry about it happening. However, to
presume that desi 'knows' what he says when he uses the term
is stretching the bounds of belief. His presumed 'intellect' is as
elusive as the Higg's Boson.
>
> > Who claimed Judge Zobel was not empowered to 'overturn' the verdict?
>
>
> The word 'overturn' in this context may be best interpreted mean to reverse
> (i.e. to find 'not guilty') or it may be enough to nullify (i.e. to declare
> a mistrial)
>
> Zobel did neither of these things, and although he certainly had the power
> to do either before the verdict (although on different grounds), it would
> have been skating the edge of the law to do so after the verdict, especially
> on the court's own motion.
>
Jesus, Mark. The 'point' is that desi claimed OVER AND OVER, providing
insults along the way, for almost a month that Judge Zobel DID NOT HAVE
THE POWER. It has nothing to do with WHAT he did, but what he COULD
DO. desi said he couldn't. He was wrong. And lacked the courage to
apologize. When he first ADMITTED he was wrong, I presumed that was
an apology, and would have said no more of it. But he then DENIED having
apologized, making a clumsy excuse that one was not necessary since he
had insulted me in 'good faith.' I would not accept his apology NOW, under
any conditions, and any offers to not mention it again, that I made, are
totally 'off the table.' You are responding to my post 4) in this thread.
Much of the source comments which prove this are contained in post
6) of this thread, which is the rather lengthy one of mine.
> In actual fact, he did not 'overturn' the verdict in any case; 'amended' it
> would be a more appropriate word. However, the claim before me does not
> state that he did. Nonetheless, I urge counsel to reconsider whether the
> prosecution of this case is appropriate in all the circumstances.
All of what he DID do, is immaterial to desi's argument... which was in
respect to what he COULD do, rather than what he did do. He said that
Judge Zobel COULD NOT 'overturn' the verdict, but the fact is he COULD.
Of course, he did not. That's not the point.
> > Who was ignorant enough not to apologize for making an ass of himself
> > in insults about Judge Zobel's powers.
Ah.... see my post 6) for proof of that.
> > Who confused an 'appeal petition' by the prosecution with a ruling
> > from the State Supreme Court?
Ah.... see my post 6) for proof of that.
desi offered --
url:http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/appeal.html
which is the Prosecution Appeal Petition, as proof of the finding of
the Supreme Court, which is actually HERE
url:http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
Appeal petitions do not MAKE law. desi confused the two believing
the appeal petition was the ruling from the Supreme Court.
> > Who argued against 'the doctrine of punishment' for criminals?
>
>
> I think it is quite reasonable to argue against the 'doctrine of
> punishment', if one interprets that, as I do, as a claim that punishment, in
> and of itself, is not a utility-maximising use of societal resources.
>
You may 'think' it is, but it's the silliest argument I've ever heard.
Consider the definition of 'punishment,' and you will find confining a
person against his will for even one day is considered 'punishment.
Are we supposed to say 'go and sin no more,' and expect them to
do so?
> Deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation may be thought to be achieved
> by similar actions to those involved in punishment, but even if one takes
> that view, it is far from axiomatic to extend that to a notion that
> punishment alone is effective or proper.
>
> Case thrown out on public interest grounds.
>
Crapola. Case thrown out because you don't understand 'punishment.'
A crime without any 'punishment,' means a return to the caves, rather
than any 'advance of our species.' It's the most stupid thought ever
advanced. Even an unruly child is given a 'time-out,' and everyone
realizes it is both 'punishment' and effective in most cases. I never
say 'punishment alone.' desi disavows ALL 'punishment.' The
doctrine!!! By arguing against the doctrine of punishment, he EXCLUDES
punishment. If he means that he is against the idea of 'ONLY punishment,'
then he needs to state it thusly. But he does not... because it is typical
desi. I am not of the school that believes ONLY punishment is
involved when we sentence for a crime, but certainly WITHOUT
ANY PUNISHMENT, there is no deterrence for any crime, nor is
there any protection for future crimes.
> > Who has been unable to decide if they fear or do not fear death?
I think you've seen enough of that argument to recognize that desi has
claimed the excreta would flow down his pants if faced with his imminent
demise on one occasion, yet has stated he 'does not fear death,' on
another.
> Given the breadth of philosophical uncertainty about the nature of life and
> consciousness, I hardly think such an uncertainty can be held unreasonable
> in any way.
>
I feel as you do. But desi has made some rather unequivocal statements
because of his ego. Everyone knows that desi hopes to preen himself here,
and I work to burst that bubble with his inconsistent and conflicting
words. That's why he hides those words.
> I find this prosecution so unreasonable as to be perverse. In my chambers,
> PV, now.
>
> > Who claimed that released murderers are less likely to murder again
> > than persons who have never murdered before?
>
> On its own motion, this court hereby steps outside its published remit and
> summarily convicts Desmond for manifest ludicrousness. Even if he did not
> actually say this, it is exactly the kind of thing he would say, and that is
> good enough for this court.
>
> Desmond Coughlan, I sentence you to 18 months in the real world. May the
> Lord have Mercy on your loony-liberal sensibilities.
>
>
> > Who claimed that 'it is not necessary to prove that the DP does not deter'
> > for it to be true?
>
> Dismissed. The burden of proof is upon the theoretician.
>
I have never claimed it deters or does not deter. He has claimed he does
not need to 'PROVE' that it does not deter. Quite clearly, HE DOES have
to prove whatever he claims, since the presumption is ALWAYS in the
negative. desi presumes that since it cannot be proven that the DP
DOES deter, it must thus be true that it does not. But that's total nonsense.
Any statement of presumed fact must be proven. Even statements
posed in the negative must be proven as negative, unless it can be
proven that the positive statement is false. The fact that the positive
statement cannot be proven DOES NOT make the negative statement
true. It must be proven on its own legs.
>
> > Who claimed that 'the dead cannot be honored'?
>
> Again, I summarily convict on this matter. Conditional Discharge.
>
> > Who claimed that Lockerbie was caused by 'wind shear'?
>
> Again, I must convict, but lunacy is not an aggravating factor, it is a
> curse. Probation
>
LOL.
>
> > Who claimed the Balkans are not in Europe?
>
> Deliberately objectionable. Guilty. 25-to-life.
>
Quite fair
>
> > Who claimed that in matters of morals, Europe has led the world for over
> > 2000 years?
>
> Silly, but not indictable. Not guilty
>
Nah... disgustingly false. A holocaust denial if ever there was one.
The DP must be put on the table for that one.
>
> > Who claimed that 'America' and the 'United States' are not synonyms?
>
> They are not. Silly PV.
>
Umm... see the OED, which I have posted to my web page
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20America,%20n.htm
desi has claimed the OED is the 'ultimate arbiter,' of the English
language, and thus will have to live with the decision of THAT
court.
> Case dismissed, report issued to the Bar.
>
> > Who claimed that 'none' of the terrorists in the WTC attack knew they were
> > about to commit suicide?
> > Who claimed in one breath to commute all sentences to life, and then
> > in the next said they were not in favor of life imprisonment?
> > Who confused arithmetic with algebra?
> > Who claimed that mathematics is not a language?
>
> It isn't. Languages are the product of sentient communication; mathematics
> is a universal truth.
>
> 2+2=4 would be true whether life existed or not
>
> Two plus Two Equals Four is dependent on it.
>
> You have wasted my time and you're in contempt - take him down.
You may be brainator, but you are no Galileo. See
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/galileo.html
A most famous quotation from this great thinker --
"Philosophy is written in this grand book - the universe - which stands
continuously open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood
unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the
characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics,
and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures,
without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it;
without these one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth."
>
> So, in conclusion, you both deserved to be imprisoned for cluelessness. It
> won't deter you, but it will protect society from you, and that is an
> extremely worthwhile goal.
>
>
Glad you're back... now quit wasting my time. :-)
PV
A Planet Visitor
> le Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:23:10 +0000, dans l'article <5ibs1vkjeb9aet6lf...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
<dirtdog...@fruffrant.com> a dit ...
<idiot dribble clipped>
>
> I thus retract my retraction,
ROTFLMAO. I presume you will soon retract the retraction of your
retraction. You blithering idiot. The fact is you checked a legal
source which CONFIRMED you were WRONG. Whether you
'retract' anything will NEVER make you 'right.' You would do
better to retract the retraction of your claim that you are not a
racist. That you could readily prove.
<typical 'mindless drivel' presumed as 'articulate' by desi>
Just passing by
> Further, practically ALL of your meaningless
> arguments were simply a repeat of what was contained in the Great White
> Whale's defense appeal to the Supreme Court, which can be found within
> url:http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
>
>
> PV
Then how come YOU, in spite of receiving numerous daily challenges to
rebut those arguments with facts from the available evidence (rather
than simply your usual inane "the jury said so") failed to do so even
once? If "practically ALL" of my arguments were simply repeats of the
defence case or defence appeal, how come you didn't deal with them
with material from the prosecution case? You have access to the
transcripts, so that would have been very easy for you. Why did you
instead run away day after day from discussing the evidence itself?
And please do try to claim that the above is a misrepresentation of
how our exchanges went, because then I can have so much fun
reproducing your posts here to prove how accurate it is.
BTW, have you added any new verses to the cuckoo song yet?
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>> > Hmm...well the Big Crunch is assuredly not gonna happen, but then again
> > neither did the Big Bang, so I throw out the case on the grounds of
> > prosecution ignorance
> >
> Latest evidence supports what you say.
"Latest evidence suppports" that there wasn't a Big Bang?
Source please.
Dolly Coughlan Jr
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:13:55 +0000
>
>le Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:23:10 +0000, dans l'article
><5ibs1vkjeb9aet6lf...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
><dirtdog...@fruffrant.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Yep, I was in error, and acknowledged it. LMAO, it just _tears you up_
>>>that in doing so, I prevented you from mentioning it unless you wanted to
>>>look like an idiot. Oh but of course: looking like an idiot is what you
>>>'do'.
>
>> Indeed, Desmond.
>>
>> It is actually rather ironic that one of the best examples of the fact
>> that however many 1950's [sic] edition's [sic] of the Children's
>> Encyclopaedia Britannica PV has on his rickety, flat-pack, self
>> assembly bookcase, he is _still_ an utter fuckwit.
>>
>> Your incorrect claim vis a vis Rule 25 was a perfect opportunity for
>> FW to administer a rare spanking. Your arse was waving in the breeze
>> awaiting a quotation from the full text of R25.
>>
>> But, instead, in the grand tradition of fat bastard, greedy, thick,
>> ignorant, backward, insular inhabitants of the country known as
>> America [sic], FW managed to spectacularly pull defeat from the jaws
>> of victory!
>>
>> I remember quite clearly the chain of events. Having undertaken his
>> monthly pretence of claiming expertise on a subject in which his
>> knowledge is patently limited, FW had been spanked quite thoroughly by
>> 'Just Passing By', and was thrashing around in the gutter calling his
>> opponent a 'lunatic', 'insane', 'obsessed', etc.
>>
>> You, Desmond, interjected. You had clearly, in the manner of an
>> academic, undertaken some research, and had attempted to learn the
>> relevant law with the aim of understanding the technical background to
>> the final ruling in the Woodward case. It seems that you were
>> mistaken, but honestly so.
>>
>> But how did FW respond? Did he point out just why Rule 25 actually
>> does allow a judge to unilaterally quash the finding of a jury and
>> stop you dead in your tracks, scoring a good 'three pointer' [sic] in
>> the process? Did he simply link to the pertinent section of the Rule?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.
com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de
!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:13:55 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 99
>Message-ID: <slrnb2199g.5am.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <80c9va...@lievre.voute.net>
><LEbS9.24464$Sa3.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><cflcva...@lievre.voute.net>
><OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><qp5eva...@lievre.voute.net>
><_qyS9.192$9l3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><51heva...@lievre.voute.net>
><LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><t6vkva...@lievre.voute.net> <5ibs1vkjeb9aet6lf...@4ax.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042328244 19392611 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-Feedback: http://www.zeouane.org/feedback.html
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
>
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:05:01 +0000
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=vEgA8.173369%
24nc.23155166%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=fr
>[3]
>url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=+%22do+those+big+terms+confuse%22+gr
oup:alt.activism.death-penalty&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=XKpA8.1824
71%24nc.24051659%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=2
>
>[4]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9ACi8.69291%2
4Dl4.7549381%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&hl=fr
>[5]
>url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=WRGB9.301346%2
4S8.6144624%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl=fr
>
>[6]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=d9253152.0209
211329.3768cc6e%40posting.google.com&lr=&hl=fr
>[7] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/blonde.html
>[8]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
>[9]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=Dfxn9.127%24g
Y1.21175%40newsfep2-gui&lr=&hl=fr
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.stealth.net!news.ste
alth.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-ber
lin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:05:01 +0000
>Lines: 313
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <t6vkva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <80c9va...@lievre.voute.net>
><LEbS9.24464$Sa3.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><cflcva...@lievre.voute.net>
><OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><qp5eva...@lievre.voute.net>
><_qyS9.192$9l3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><51heva...@lievre.voute.net>
><LkaT9.49246$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042153686 17724726 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:T9zU9.765$hy5.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:JMtU9.73253$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> >> > Hmm...well the Big Crunch is assuredly not gonna happen, but then again
> > > neither did the Big Bang, so I throw out the case on the grounds of
> > > prosecution ignorance
> > >
> > Latest evidence supports what you say.
>
> "Latest evidence suppports" that there wasn't a Big Bang?
> Source please.
>
verified by every respected scientist. I went on to only address the
'Big Crunch,' since that's what I was referring to. Sorry if my 'agreement'
with Mark in respect to the 'Big Crunch,' appeared to presume I also
agreed with 'neither did the Big Bang.' Current indications are that
there is not enough mass in the Universe (called the critical density)
for gravity to assume control over the expansion, and reverse its direction
at some future point in time.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.03011...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Further, practically ALL of your meaningless
> > arguments were simply a repeat of what was contained in the Great White
> > Whale's defense appeal to the Supreme Court, which can be found within
> > url:http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
> >
> >
> > PV
>
> Then how come YOU, in spite of receiving numerous daily challenges to
> rebut those arguments with facts from the available evidence (rather
> than simply your usual inane "the jury said so") failed to do so even
> once?
That would be because I referred you to the ruling of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court, at the very beginning, word for word. That court
addressed each of those 'arguments' presented by the defense.
> If "practically ALL" of my arguments were simply repeats of the
> defence case or defence appeal, how come you didn't deal with them
> with material from the prosecution case?
That would be because I referred you to the ruling of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court, at the very beginning, word for word. That court
addressed each of those 'arguments' presented by the defense.
Neither the prosecution appeal petition (nor the defense appeal petition)
MAKE LAW. Please clarify that to desi, as well, as he presumes
those petitions do make law.
> You have access to the
> transcripts, so that would have been very easy for you. Why did you
> instead run away day after day from discussing the evidence itself?
>
That would be because I referred you to the ruling of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court, at the very beginning, word for word. That court
addressed each of those 'arguments' presented by the defense.
> And please do try to claim that the above is a misrepresentation of
> how our exchanges went, because then I can have so much fun
> reproducing your posts here to prove how accurate it is.
>
Try posting the post where I posted the ENTIRE text of the Supreme
Court decision. You're pathetically in-love with a murderer, my boy.
You need help. Try explaining RATIONALLY, how a judge can
KNOW a person is innocent, have the power to overturn that
verdict, does not do so... yet cannot be branded a crook for NOT
doing so. Isn't that why we call them 'judges'? The perfect foil...
call him stupid, so you can avoid calling him a crook. Which is
what you would HAVE to call him, given the words you've posted
in respect to his decision.
What's that you say? He did so because he had already made so
many mistakes? Try explaining how the State of Massachusetts
is riddled with corruption, but somehow Judge Zobel is 'above that
corruption,' since you wish to try and USE him in your silly obsession.
Try explaining how the 'whole world' is against the poor 'Great White
Whale,' who displayed some rather sickening behavior in the course
of her crime and prosecution. But then.. that doesn't make her
guilty. The Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts and the
Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts made her guilty.
And guilty she will remain.
> BTW, have you added any new verses to the cuckoo song yet?
>
You already are 'cuckoo' enough, young man.
PV
Just passing by
> >
> > Then how come YOU, in spite of receiving numerous daily challenges to
> > rebut those arguments with facts from the available evidence (rather
> > than simply your usual inane "the jury said so") failed to do so even
> > once?
>
> That would be because I referred you to the ruling of the Massachusetts
> Supreme Court, at the very beginning, word for word. That court
> addressed each of those 'arguments' presented by the defense.
No, it DID NOT. Furthermore, I repeatedly challenged you to show where
that ruling, as you put it, "addressed" the conclusive scientific
proof of LW's complete innocence, and you repeatedly failed to do so.
Merely acknowledging the contents of the defence appeal is very
different from "addressing" them.
Moreover, even if the ruling you posted HAD specifically addressed the
defence claims, how would you know about it? You have never even read
the ruling in its entirety. You proved that when you made such a fool
of yourself in revealing your ignorance about the very EXISTENCE of
Rule 25(b)(2).
Let's look again at that episode. I asked you to explain how LW could
possibly have committed that crime given the existence of seven pieces
of undisputed scientific evidence proving her guilt to be impossible.
You then, rather than attempt to answer any of those seven points, did
a quick search and found the SJC ruling. One simple copy & paste
later, that ruling appeared, almost in full, in your next reply. I
pointed out that the ruling DID NOT answer those seven points with the
possible exception of the one concerning periosteum. Furthermore, I
accused you of not having even read the ruling you had pasted here.
You, of course, strenuously denied this and insisted that you had
indeed read it. But then, very shortly after, you tripped up and
showed what a liar you are. After I referred to Rule 25 (b)(2), you
replied: "I don't know where you found 'rule 25 (b)(2).' Going to the
'General Laws of Massachusetts,' Chapter 25B: Section 2. There is
NOTHING there even remotely related to what you speak of."
But - and I know you will now once again be cringing as I remind you
of this - the SJC ruling you insisted you had read, contained
reference after reference to Rule 25 (b)(2) including a lengthy
explanation of its meaning and relevance in relation to the LW case.
You were caught out lying and that exposure of your lies served to
overshadow the only real point you ever scored during our exchanges -
i.e. that Massachusetts judges are indeed empowered to fully overturn
convictions. Looking back, I wrote a few things about that which I can
now see should have been worded differently. But you failed to
capitalise on that because you were too busy trying to dig yourself
out of the hole the exposure of your lies had put you in.
And that was by no means the only time you had posted something
without reading it, was it? There was also the time I asked you for
some REAL evidence of LW's guilt, and so you again went searching for
something that *looked like* it supported the verdict. You found a web
site with "Shaken Baby Syndrome" in the title and a fair amount of
coverage of the LW case. So, without bothering to read any of it, you
copied the URL and posted it here followed by the bold claim: "There
is MY evidence."
But what you didn't know - until I told you - was that the website was
totally supportive of Louise Woodward and that the people running it
believe she is 100% innocent. If you had bothered to spend a little
time perusing that site you would have found an article by her
attorney, Harvey Silverglate, in which he condemned the verdict and
the abominable junk science that framed his client.
No wonder Desmond and Dirtdog have such an easy time regularly bashing
and humiliating you in this newsgroup. They should pick on someone
their own size.
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:14:34 +0000
>
>le Tue, 07 Jan 2003 04:01:50 GMT, dans l'article
><OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>>> > Strange that you call Jews 'butchers,'
>
>>> Except that I don't, unless you really are stupid enough to believe that
>>> Israel is presently representative of Jewry throughout the world.
>
>> Make no mistake... those who call the Israelis 'butchers,' imply that
>> the Jews are 'butchers.'
>
>Just like those who call Bush a semi-literate arsehole 'imply that the
>Americans are semi-literate arseholes', or those who refer to Hitler as a
>mass murderer, 'imply that all Germans are mass murderers', or those who
>call Blair America's poodle, 'imply that all the British are America's
>poodles' ...
>
>LOL ... you really are the mother of all fuckwits ... sorry, 'fuckwit's'
>(sic). Come on, FW ... 'fess up' (sic) ... you're an abolitionist, aren't
>you ?
>
><cue predictable retort of 'I'm more of an abolitionist than desi [sic]'
>..>
>
>{ snip remainder of FW's LSD-induced lunacy }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:14:34 +0000
>Lines: 30
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <qp5eva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <80c9va...@lievre.voute.net>
><LEbS9.24464$Sa3.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><cflcva...@lievre.voute.net>
><OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1041931075 15331219 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:26:13 +0000
>
>le Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:00:09 -0000, dans l'article
><_qyS9.192$9l3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, John Rennie
><j.re...@ntlworld.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Just like those who call Bush a semi-literate arsehole 'imply that the
>>> Americans are semi-literate arseholes', or those who refer to Hitler as a
>>> mass murderer, 'imply that all Germans are mass murderers', or those who
>>> call Blair America's poodle, 'imply that all the British are America's
>>> poodles' ...
>
>> But, Desmond, you didn't call Sharon a butcher which he undoubtedly is.
>> You in your intemperate way called the Israelis butchers which means
>> that they are all butchers which isn't true.
>
>Do try to distance yourself from typical FuckWit illiteracy, John. The
>butchery carried out by the current Israeli government, is no more a
>condemnation of every Israeli (or every Jew, for that matter), than saying,
>'British support for the war in Iraq' means that 'every' Briton supports
>such an event.
>
>Coming from an idiot who only learned to speak English a few years ago, and
>who still thinks that a typo of 'surprise' made five years ago, denotes
>someone's 'lack of literacy', the above is hardly surprising. However, I
>had expected more from you.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.n
et!skynet.be!skynet.be!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos
.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Lest desi the FuckWit ...
>Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:26:13 +0000
>Lines: 30
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <51heva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <80c9va...@lievre.voute.net>
><LEbS9.24464$Sa3.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><cflcva...@lievre.voute.net>
><OisS9.28849$Sa3.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><qp5eva...@lievre.voute.net>
><_qyS9.192$9l3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1041942775 15698866 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])