Desmond Going Offline
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
manufacturers.
This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
back !!
Ha!! Ha!!!
See you!!
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
'La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un coeur d'homme'
Albert Camus (1913-1960)
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
manufacturers.
This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
back!!
Ha!!! Ha!!!
Ian Harris
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:40:00 +0000, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
<D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Desi, it is that damn French that "knackered" your PC.
Didn't you read the warning ?
>The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
>manufacturers.
>
>This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
>November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
>
>All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
>weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
>back !!
What arguements ?
>
>Ha!! Ha!!!
Ha, ha, ha Desi !
>
>See you!!
and you
>--
>Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
>D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
>http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
>
>'La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un coeur d'homme'
> Albert Camus (1913-1960)
Ian Harris
Come Visit Andy Katz at:
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <3291d5d3...@news.alt.net>, Ian Harris <iha...@alt.net>
writes
>Desi, it is that damn French that "knackered" your PC.
>Didn't you read the warning ?
>
I know!! I know!! It's just that I can't help myself. . .!!!! One
glimpse of that red, white and blue, and I just go all . . . wobbly!!
>
>>
>>All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
>>weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
>>back !!
>
>What arguements ?
>>
Yeah, good point.
>>Ha!! Ha!!!
>
>Ha, ha, ha Desi !
>>
>>See you!!
>
>and you
>>--
:-)
Don Kool
As has been pointed out before both by Desi's postings and
the followups, Desi is just a clueless newbie. Since he is evidently
"into" very strange beliefs; perhaps he'll note with relish that his
two week reprieve from being bested is particularly ZEN.
Hope this helps,
Don
Ian Harris wrote:
> Desi Coughlan"
> <Desi Coug...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Desi, it is that damn French that "knackered" your PC.
> Didn't you read the warning ?
>
> >The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
> >manufacturers.
> >
> >This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
> >November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
>
> >
> >All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
> >weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
> >back !!
>
> What arguements ?
> >
> >Ha!! Ha!!!
>
> Ha, ha, ha Desi !
> >
> >See you!!
>
> and you
> Ian Harris
>
> Come Visit Andy Katz at:
>
> http://www.cheetah.net/issues/assholes/oct96.htm
****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charleton Heston
****************** "Planet of the Apes"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
Don Kool
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan wrote:
> Ian Harris <iha...@alt.net> writes
> >Desi, it is that damn French that "knackered" your PC.
> >Didn't you read the warning ?
> I know!! I know!! It's just that I can't help myself. . .!!!! One
> glimpse of that red, white and blue, and I just go all . . . wobbly!!
Desi, if your are ostensibly talking about France, you would
do better to refer to their colors as blue, white and red. Sorry to
point
out your lack of a "superior education" to the world but your obvious
ignorance has simply become too offensive to civilized people.
> >>All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
> >>weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
> >>back !!
> >What arguements ?
Exactly, Desi; since when have you had a real "argument" instead of
a fey hissy fit?
Hope this helps,
Don
"The law is there and the will of God. You break that law, you're
breaking the will of God and you're going to go to jail."
-- Charles Manson (Inmate B-33920)
-- Anti Death Penalty Hero
-- Parole Hearing 1992
"I just come out a prison. I got a chance to start over. And I'm
starting over and I'm not breaking no laws. So don't come around
me with no-nothing. I don't want no money. I'll eat out of garbage
cans. I'll stay on the complete bottom. I'm underneath this snake
here. I'm not breaking no law."
-- Charles Manson (Inmate B-33920)
-- Model Parolee
-- Two weeks before the murders
Voutier P
Hi,
I would like to post some messages to you about
A.J. Bannister, who is on death row in Missouri.
Late last week, a court ruled, in his final available
appeal, that they would not hear arguments concerning
his case. This means that the state could decide upon
an execution date at ANY time.
You can find out more information about this ruling
from A.J.'s home page at
http://users.aol.com/clamb80753/bann/bann.html
or
http://www.kcstar.com/local/stories/death15.htm >
which contains an article in the Kansas City Star
about the results of his appeal
or
http://www.abolition-now/com/cases/bannister/html
or
http://www.demon.co.uk/xyz/scandals/index.html
which is the Scandals-in-Justice web page.
In the next few messages I will post to this group,
I will include letters from him and his wife, written
over the course of the last two years, as well as
petitions (unfortunately written in LaTeX) for Clinton
and the governor of Missouri and an order form for
his book (also in LaTeX). For those of you who do
not have access to LaTeX, which I presume is almost
everyone, please send me e-mail and I will fax you a
copy.
I hope that many of you who read this group will
tell your friends, sign petitions, get your friends
to sign petitions and send them as soon as possible.
yours sincerely,
paul voutier
P.S. Please respond NOT to Dr.P.V...@city.ac.uk
but to vou...@euclid.colorado.edu.
Don Kool
Desi Coughlan wrote:
> The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
> manufacturers.
>
> This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
> November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
>
> All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
> weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
> back !!
>
> Ha!! Ha!!!
>
> See you!!
Sounds more like the newbie's 50 free AOL hours are up.
Voutier P
November 1996
URGENT ACTION
Dear Friends of AJ Bannister,
Last evening I had a call from Alan's wife Lindsay to tell me that the
Eighth Circuit Court had voted 2:1 AGAINST Alan's appeal. Obviously, this
is not good news, but we can all do our best to help Alan by sending in
those all-important letters to Governor Carnahan And President Clinton. As
yet I have heard of no execution date, but this will be set any date now.
In Alan's last form letter of November '95, he asked that we all write
letters to Governor Carnahan and President Clinton, but not to send them
until it becomes necessary....that time has come, so please get those
letters on their way as soon as possible. By letting Carnahan and Clinton
know that the eyes of the world are on this case, it may just be possible
to turn the tide in Alan's favour - we must at least give it our best
shot. Please send those letters to the address below:
William J Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500
USA
Tel 202 456-1111
The Honourable Mel Carnahan
Governor of Missouri
Room 218, State Capitol
206 West High Street
Jefferson City
Missouri 65102
USA
Tel 314 751-3222
Fax 314 751-4458
Please ensure that these two are swamped with letters!
On behalf of both Alan and Lindsay I would like to thank you all for your
continued help and support. This is a very trying time for them and I'm
sure any messages of love and support would be greatly appreciated.
If you have any queires my number is at the top of the page. The best time
to reach me is between 6pm and 8pm, or you can leave a message on my
answerphone and I'll get back to you.
THANK YOU EVERYONE
Maria
Voutier P
Lindsay G. Bannister
P.O. Box 365
Park Hills
Missouri 63601
U.S.A
November 1995
Having typed the letter which you have just read from Alan, I feel
very strongly that there are certain things which simply must be
added. Most of you are probably not aware of a number of these
things, because they tend to become marginalized, as we all
(including Alan), concentrate on his case per se.
Alan does not know that I have written this letter, but I believe
that what I am about to tell you, is of direct relevance to anyone
who wishes to understand more about him and is determined to help
him.
As those of you who know him can affirm, he has never been reluctant
to discuss any aspect of his case, he happily answers all and any
questions relating to it, whether they be from the media or from
friends like you. But I think it is only fair and reasonable ---
both to you and to Alan --- if you knew a little more about him.
I think that, in a sense, he does himself a great disservice, by
neglecting to talk about certain other things. Arguably, his form
letter was not the appropriate "forum" for an extended dialogue.
Maybe the fact that it is I, who feel compelled to add to/qualify
HIS letter, is a sense, makes my point for me.
I just fell that it is imperative that everyone is made aware of
a number of things which are not generally acknowledged.
The first point I want to make is that he has never really
articulated just how much of him he has given to his book. So he
rarely, if ever, explains how immensely difficult it has been for
him to write "...shall suffer death...".
We often hear about how time-consuming and arduous it is for
writers to conceive of an idea for a book and then commit their
thoughts to paper. For many, it is a lengthy, and at times agonizing
process. Eventually, though the book is completed. It comes to
fruition in an environment which is usually conducive as much
to research as it is to serious thought.
Alan wrote his book amid the brutal rigours of a maximum
security prison, where the working environment is anything but
favourable to such an enterprise. Contrary to public perception,
prison is not a fertile area in which the imagination can be
indulged because "time" is in infinite supply. Against THIS
backdrop, I think you'll agree, that it is nothing short of
outstanding, that the book was written AT ALL.
In his letter to you, Alan stated that he may not be "in the
same league as John Grisham...", this raises a number of questions.
Personally, I can't help but speculate about just how prolific
and successful Grisham would be if HE had to contend with any
ONE of the following: institutional harassment/infantile
vindictiveness, shake-downs, limited access to library and
copying facilities, lock-downs, stamp/postage problems,
stationery shortages, lack of money, isolation from family and
friends, And, to top it all, the extreme psychological torture
of knowing that the state is actively seeking his execution.
Not that I would wish it on him, (or anyone else for that matter),
but I wonder how many best-sellers Grisham would produce, if he
were incarcerated in a place like Potosi Correctional Centre.
The point I'm trying to get across to you, is that right from
the start, it has been his sheer determination, in spite of all
the odds, which has resulted in Alan's book making the transition
from concept, to reality. The price of realizing this dream, in
terms of his health alone, may well be excessive. Sales of the
book will determine whether this is the case or not.
As Alan said in his letter to those of you who have bought
copies, we thank you for doing so. It means so much to both of
us in terms of morale and moral support. To Alan, it means much,
much more. For him, every book sold is an acknowledgement of your
loyalty and belief in him, that you care about him and that you
are interested in what he has to say. About whether he survives
this nightmare, or whether he is to become yet another shameful
statistic for the Attorney General to gloat over, boast about and
use as political propaganda, in an attempt to enhance his chances
of re-election.
Many of you have asked me about Alan's health and how he is bearing
up. Some of you are not exactly in the best of health yourselves,
and I am very touched by your concern for him, in light of your own
problems. When Alan writes to you, you naturally try to form an
impression of how he is. But as some of you have pointed out, reading
between the lines can sometimes reveal much more than what he has
actually written.
Doubtless he comes across as strong, resilient, resolute and
very hardworking. And of course he's all of these things and
more, much more. But I have seen him when he has been unable to
keep his eyes open because he's been up, literally all night
working. I have seen how the emotional trauma of not knowing
whether he will be alive or dead months from now is taking its
relentless toll on him. The objective, is Alan's survival, but
sometimes he is his own worst enemy. There are times when it is
essential that we "listen" to our own bodies, unfortunately,
(and I understand this), he subjugates, (or feels he can), all
warning signals.
All of this is something which you're aware of, but knowing that
he is suffering and actually SEEING the physical effects of his
pain and anguish, are two different matters. He can get away with
telling you he is okay, but take it from me, this is far from
accurate. He consistently downplays the extent to which his own
health is compromised. There is a limit to how many repeated body
blows he can take, but he'll NEVER admit to it.
It occurred to me, that it really would cheer him up tremendously,
if he were to receive Christmas cards from all of you. Not only
would this be an unexpected surprise, it would help him take his
mind off his oppressive, bleak surroundings. I'm sure that most
of you realize just how much such friendly gestures are appreciated.
They warm the soul and lessen those feelings of isolation and
abandonment, which are intensified in prison during the festive
season. Each and every Christmas card sent to him, is a real
treat, a ray of sunshine in his depressing world behind those
electrified fences. Where the true essence of Christmas is lost,
amid overwhelming sadness and despair.
I wish that he could receive presents and tokens of your friendship,
but the prison/Department of Corrections, forbid it. After all, you
might try to send in a $1 bill or failing that, an automatic rifle!
If you genuinely want to help Alan AND cheer him up, there are
two things which you can do for him, which will really, really
make him happy and be of immense practical value.
As I said earlier, he is ALWAYS short of STAMPS. We all know what
a headache it is at Christmas, when we have to go to the Post
Office and spent a fortune on stamps for our Christmas cards. We
usually but them in bulk. We get them home, look at them, and
inwardly cringe. Every stamp represents a card which we KNOW
we've got to write!
Imagine all the stamps you buy in a year, then add the number of
stamps you have to buy at Christmas, then multiply all of these
by at least 1000, THAT'S the number of stamps which Alan goes
through in the course of an AVERAGE year.
This past year has not been an average one. In terms of everything
which has been happening, it has been quite atypical.
The volume of mail he receives would, I think, make most of us
go weak at the knees! Stephen Trombley's Worldview Pictures
estimates that by 1996, "Raising Hell" will have been seen by
about 40 MILLION people worldwide. And this is magnificent.
However, it highlights the point I'm making about stamps, and
how you can best help Alan right now.
So, if you fell disappointed at not being allowed to send him
Christmas gifts, spend the money on stamps for him and KNOW
that in doing so, you have helped him FAR more than you would
have, had you sent a Christmas cake or a box of chocolates.
STAMPS=COMMUNICATION=SURVIVAL.
If you cannot get stamps which are for use in the U.S., then
send roughly the equivalent in money, to me here, and I will
buy them on your behalf for him.
As most of you know, if you send stamps DIRECT to him, we may
well exceed his weekly quota. In which case, the prison will
return them to you, and Alan will not receive them AT ALL. So
please don't fall into the trap of believing you are doing him
a favour by mailing them straight to him. Plus, there's
virtually nothing the mail room enjoys more than returning
items to you, particularly if it's something which they KNOW
he needs. If you send them to me, Alan and I will do as we have
always done: he phones me and asks for a specific number to be
mailed, thus he remains within his quota and the prison is
kept "happy". Just why they have such a farcical rule regarding
stamp quotas, is beyond my comprehension. It seems thoroughly
arbitrary to me, but no doubt there is a prison "regulation"
somewhere which purports to justify this type of bureaucratic
idiocy.
The other thing which has the same "rule" attached to it, is
money. It is not permitted to mail it to him, (hence the
trouble with the $1 bill). So if you want to help him with
his stationery and pens etc, then mail the money to me. I
will then fill out the necessary paperwork, and mail it to
him, via the Department of Corrections in Jefferson City.
This money-sending procedure is INTENTIONALLY made complicated
because the prison DOESN'T want any inmate to be in a position
to buy ANYTHING which makes life more tolerable in the prison.
And given that they reserve a "special" type of dislike for Alan,
it's wise not to give them ANY opportunity or excuse, to
victimize him more than they already do.
Something else which I think is worthy of mention, is that,
(apart from the book which had occupied much of his time, the
personal letters, which are ongoing, and his legal work), he
receives a great many requests from college students, who ask
for his assistance with their research papers, assignments and
projects.
This is something which he enjoys immensely and always has.
It makes a refreshing change from the severity of life at P.C.C.,
to help these young people. He finds it extremely rewarding when
they write back and tell him all about the good grades they got,
and how much his help was a significant factor behind this.
No matter what else he has to do, he always gives these young
students priority. He feels that, because they are the next
generation, they are the ones who will help influence future
thinking about the death penalty. Apart from asking for help
with college work, other youngsters write to him for his advice
about personal problems they are having, with parents, possibly
the police, boy/girlfriends etc. He gladly helps these youngsters
and last year, had a T.V. interview with Reverend Larry Rice, in
which he talked "direct" to teenagers, about everything from
alcohol and substance abuse, to peer pressure, alienation and
crime.
It was an excellent programme, I just wish that MORE people
could have seen it. PARTICULARLY Governor Carnahan and President
Clinton, who talk about wanting to reduce violence and crime,
but don't realize that a man like Alan can actually HELP them
achieve this objective. Instead they want to execute him.
Youngsters LISTEN to Alan, they open up to him, much more
readily than they do with their own parents. I think it is to
Alan's credit that these young people feel that they can invest
their trust in him, especially at such a potentially volatile
and confusing time in their lives.
While on the subject of young readers, I just want to tell those
of you who aren't aware of it, that both Alan and I took part in
a T.V. programme to be shown on January 18th on BBC, (possibly
between 1-1:30PM).
The series is called "Lifeschool", and is aimed at, and presented
by, young people between the ages of 15--18. They discuss different
social issues each week, and have a sort of alphabet of subjects.
The programme which we took part in was entitled "K is for Killing".
Alan and I discussed the death penalty specifically, and I
understand that other participants included Michael Howard,
members of the Bentley family, a lady barrister, and an American
who lectures at a college in London, his name is McDowell.
The latter was, apparently, so PRO capital punishment that
he not only lost control of his emotions, but lost sight
entirely of his manners. According to the programme's researcher,
he, for reasons best known to himself, behaved in a manner more
in keeping with the hopelessly deranged, than with the
conventional image of a college lecturer. It seems he managed
to alienate everyone with his offensive outbursts --- everyone
from the young (unsuspecting) reporters, to the entire film
crew, along with the programme director!
One matter, which I feel I must bring up, relates to the use
Alan has had to make of a form letter. This is something which
he has always felt acutely sensitive about. As many of you
already know, Alan has NEVER been fond of form letters, they are
invariably perceived as impersonal, and, by definition, that's
exactly what they are, I suppose.
Alan and I don't like to receive form letters, I don't know of
anyone who DOES. But, as I have had to point out to him on
numerous occasions, they are a necessary "evil". If information
has to be disseminated quickly, on the sort of scale we are
talking about here, then they are essential. In fairness to
EVERYONE who wants to know what is happening, a handwritten
letter from him, especially at a time like this, is neither
realistic nor feasible.
There's a time and place for personal letters, regrettably, this
is not one of those times I'm afraid. A form letter, HAS to be
non-personal because effectively, it is a "newsletter".
I just wish that Alan would try to stop reproaching himself
constantly about the "cold" anonymity of his form letter to
you all.
He's being unfair to himself, and frankly he had enough to worry
about right now without agonizing over the acceptability or
otherwise of a form letter.
I know that those of you who I have talked to on the phone
understand this. I just hope that everyone else understands
too, and will not take umbrage.
Next I want to reiterate what Alan has said and thank Debby and
Peter Wakeham, along with Graeme Capes, all of "FRIENDS FOR LIFE",
in Luton (England), for their truly invaluable support.
For those of you who don't know all about "Friends for Life",
I would urge you to find out more about the excellent work
which they do. Particularly if you feel outraged by the very
existence of capital punishment and want to get actively involved
in its abolition.
As far as Alan and I are concerned, Debby, Peter and Graeme are
the sort of people anyone would be proud to have as friends, in
ANY context. If more people in the United States possessed their
degree of dedication, altruism and sheer humanity, the death
penalty would soon come to be recognized for the atrocity it is.
Lastly, a few words about Alan. Many of you, particularly those
of you who have been kind enough to phone/write to me, already
know that it is my love for, and belief in, Alan, along with
my outrage, disgust and anger, concerning the criminal justice
system here, which fuel my determination.
Sadly, there are countless victims of the justice system, throughout
the United States, the "fallout" from an execution is extensive.
New victims are being created every time an attorney fails in his
duty to represent his client effectively, every time a court
denies an appeal, every time a Governor declines to grant clemency,
every time an I.V. is inserted into a man's vein --- as he lies,
helpless on a gurney, waiting to die at the hands of his captors.
Each candlelight vigil which I attend at that prison on the night
of an execution, forces me to mentally relive the events of last
December. I can't find the words to express just how devastating
an experience it was. But Alan survived once, because ENOUGH people
cared sufficiently, to MAKE it happen. We have the capability to do
so AGAIN.
I can empathise completely, with the families and loved ones, of
those who have been, or are about to be, executed. These are the
forgotten victims, who are left behind to pick up the pieces of
their lives, left to nurse the type of emotional scars which are
too serious to disappear EVER.
I love this man so much, and I feel so much a part of him, that
his joy, is my joy, his pain is my pain, his life is mine, and mine
is his. I feel a boundless sense of pride in everything he says and
does.
The manner in which he retained his dignity and strength last
December in the holding cell, still has me speechless with admiration
and love. He is, quite simply, an unparalleled human being.
Thanks to the meticulous and very lengthy research by Stephen
Trombley, vital evidence which had been suppressed for 13 years,
has finally seen the light of day. However, it's up to the 8th
Circuit Court to decide what happens next, hence the oral arguments
on November 15th.
Stephen has paved the way for us. In highlighting Alan's case, he
has also focused global attention, not only on P.C.C., but on
the problem of the death penalty in the United States in general.
His contribution to the abolitionist movement is invaluable and it
is deserving of the highest praise.
But Stephen's efforts are in danger of being frustrated, if we allow
ourselves to become complacent or indolent.
We MUST capitalize on the back-draft from "Raising Hell" while
people are still feeling it. We must not rest on our laurels and
convince ourselves that further action is futile or redundant.
Where the death penalty is concerned, there is no such thing as
"enough" affirmative action and mutual support.
The death penalty is NOT going to go away simply because we "object"
to it in principle. It will continue to occupy the minds of
academics etc years after it has been abolished. Cosy, polite
theorizing achieves precisely nothing, we can sit around and
discuss the death penalty until we are blue in the face, and still
NOTHING will change.
PEOPLE bring about change, not abstract philosophizing. The death
penalty is here to stay, UNLESS AND UNTIL, WE AS INDIVIDUALS,
CONSOLIDATE AND DEFEAT IT.
We should not underestimate our collective power, we possess the
motivation so let's make it abundantly clear to the politicians
that we find the death penalty anathema, that it's a vote LOSER.
That THE REST OF THE WORLD is becoming increasingly aware of the
injustices of a criminal justice system which not only turns its
back on, and abandons those who turned to it for help, but
systematically KILLS them if they do NOT possess sufficient wealth
or power to win favour in the courtroom.
The Attorney General of Missouri - Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon - is NOT
sitting back - merely hoping that Alan will be executed. He is
ACTIVELY seeking a new execution date. He is nothing, if not
determined. He has the time AND the resources to pursue Alan into
the execution chamber. We have neither time, nor resources, but we
do have YOU, we have each other, and we CAN stymie the Attorney
General's/the states's attempts to execute Alan. And COLLECTIVELY,
prove, once and for all, that public pressure CAN prevent the state
from ALWAYS getting its obscene way with these men.
The petitions which you have been sent, are designed to give
practical meaning to what I have just said. The more signatures
which you can amass, the more self-evident it will be to those in
power, that Alan is not just a case number, to be rubber stamped
and forgotten. Please do your best with the petitions, this is our
LAST chance to make a significant impact.
If any of you would like to talk to me about anything Alan or I
have said, please don't hesitate to telephone or write. I WILL
reply to all your letters, just as soon as I can. I "owe" several
of you, at least three!! I apologize if it looks as if I've ignored
or forgotten them, I certainly haven't. I do hope you understand.
In the meantime, thank you for listening, and thank you for your help.
With kind regards,
Lindsay
Voutier P
A. J. Bannister, C.P. #24, 4A-4
Potosi Correctional Center
Rte. 2, Box 2222
Mineral Point
Missouri 63660
USA
January 1995
Hello friends and family,
Once again I am forced to use a form letter due to the fact
that there are so many of you, but I really want to share
recent events with you.
As most of you know, I had a very serious execution date set
for December 7th. I would like to talk to you about the events
that led up to this, including an account of the 5 days that I
spent in the holding cell, plus an update on the status of my
case at the moment.
I have made several attempts to write this letter during the
last several weeks, but each time I started, I ran into the
worst case of writer's block I've ever encountered. The problem
is, that to write about the holding cell, I have to relive it
in my mind, and those 5 days were the most physically and
emotionally draining of my life.
To some of you, the story I have to share may sound like fiction,
but for most of you, you helped me through it and are as aware
of the brutal reality of it as I am. On that note, let me start...
The United States Supreme Court turned down my writ of certiorari
on October 31st. The Missouri Supreme Court, upon a motion by the
Attorney-General, set my execution date for December 7th. They
did this on November 15th. On November 17th, I was paged and told
to report to the hospital. When I arrived there, I was told to
sit and wait. A few minutes later, Assistant Superintendent Don
Roper and Chief of Security Major Charles Harris walked in. Mr.
Roper was carrying the Warrant of Execution, which he then hand
delivered to me. I found it very bizarre, that they would call
me to the hospital, a place of healing, to hand deliver the
warrant setting out the date of my death.
The next significant event took place on November 28th. A guard
came into the housing unit and told me he had been instructed to
escort me to the Warden's office. Upon entering the administrative
building, I was handcuffed, hands in front of me, before being
taken into the Warden's office. Once there, Warden Delo said
"Hello" and he seemed to be in a jovial mood. I knew this visit
to his office was coming, it is part of the pre-execution
routine. We sat and talked for about an hour, he appeared very
nice at the time, asked me how I was doing and explained that
it was only part of his job to talk to me to ascertain my frame
of mind. He went on to ask if I had made funeral arrangements,
also, he went on to tell me that I would be removed from general
population on Friday December 2nd, and be placed in the holding
cell, He told me that I should get things in order, that he would
send a guard to pick me up midday on Friday.
As I sat there, I couldn't help but think of the other men before
me who'd had this chat with him. Warden Delo also asked me what I
thought I might want for my last meal, and if I thought I might
need sedatives to calm me. I told him steak and cheesecake, and
"No" to the drugs.
I got the distinct feeling that he would have sat there and chatted
all day if I wanted to, but I didn't.
On Tuesday 29th November, one Federal judge granted me a stay,
and on Wednesday 30th, yet another one did likewise. So, I had
two separate stays. The Attorney-General was working hard to have
them vacated, so I knew that even though I had stays, they could
be quite temporary.
On Wednesday 30th, I was again called to Warden Delo's office,
but this time I was handcuffed behind the back. Immediately upon
walking into his office, I sensed a drastic change in his attitude
from the previous Monday. He practically threw a faxed copy of
the stay at me, and I was in and out of his office in less than
30 seconds.
I went into Friday 2nd with two separate stays. Around noon, one
was vacated. I spent the afternoon quietly. At 7:15 that evening,
I called my attorney, the second stay had been vacated.
I knew they would be coming to get me at any moment, and when they
announced over the intercom for everyone to lock down, I knew they
were coming for me.
A thousand thoughts ran through my mind, how to say goodbye to my
peers here, some of whom I've lived in close proximity to for better
than a decade. It flashed through my mind, how, over the last 6
years I've seen 11 men escorted out of the unit. The sadness I felt
as I saw them for what was the last time... and now it was me.
Several guards came to my room, handcuffed me and took me to the
hospital, that is where the holding cell is located.
The holding cell is in a small room, 15 feet by 12 feet, half of
it is fenced off by a rigid metal screen. I was placed in there.
The other half of the room has nothing but a desk that a guard
sits at 24 hours a day, and a few extra chairs that are used by
visitors. There is a cordless phone at the guard's desk and I was
allowed both to receive, and to place, calls, 24 hours a day, I
was allowed to have visitors from 10:00AM till 10:00PM.
Lindsay was in Jefferson City on Friday 2nd, taking part in a
telethon to highlight my case with the Reverend Larry Rice, she
was doing another live telethon on Saturday 3rd in St. Louis.
My first visitors were Louise and Diane. Louise is Stephen
Trombley's lady friend and Diane their office manager.
I'd spent most of Friday night trying to call friends to let
them know I'd been moved. The most difficult call was to my former
schoolteacher, Ruth Blank. She is a wonderful lady, and I heard
her voice crack over the phone. I knew then that I'd hear care
and concern in a number of other people's voices. This is hard to
describe. The warm feeling of knowing that I'm cared about, and at
the same time, an indescribable feeling of pain and frustration
in being unable to hold that person and comfort them.
I got a couple hours sleep in the early hours of Saturday morning.
A very restless sleep. The overhead lights were on all the time,
plus, for the first time in over 12 years, I had to try to sleep
with someone else in the room.
The afternoon of the 3rd, before Louise and Diane visited, the
prison psychologist stopped in and talked to me, continually trying
to get me to take medication, Finally, I told her to prescribe
something and I'd take it if I felt I needed it.
The recreation staff brought me a VCR, and told me I could select
two movies per day. That Saturday, I chose ``Hunt for Red October''
and ``Tombstone''. On Sunday, it was ``Jurassic Park'' and ``The
Crow''. On Monday, I told them to pick something out, and they
brought me two movie titles that I found very tacky in light of
the situation, ``Assassin'' and ``The Alibi''. I didn't watch
either.
On Sunday, Lindsay and Stephen came to visit me. I could see
how Lindsay was shaken by the surroundings. We were not allowed
to touch. She would stick her fingers through the screen as far
as she could, and I could see she hadn't gotten any more sleep
than I had.
She is a remarkable woman and showed a strength of character I'm
so very proud to have witnessed.
Stephen and I discussed the legal avenues the attorneys were
attempting.
Later that afternoon the prison psychologist came back with a
psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Curran. She explained that he
was there in case I wanted to have something stronger prescribed.
I got the distinct impression that they weren't going to leave
until I agreed to have to have him prescribe something, and as
they were interrupting my visit, I told them to go ahead and
prescribe something, and they left.
Monday the 5th was an eventful day. My sister Adele visited, as
did my brother Brad, my mother and father as well as a friend
of mine from grade school named Linda.
Also Stephen visited and so too did Lindsay and Father Stika.
Father Stika is Archbishop Rigali's assistant and I thoroughly
enjoyed meeting him.
It was late in the afternoon of the 5th, that my lawyer informed
me that Western District Court Judge D. Brook Bartlett had turned
down my successive Writ of Habeas. This news was crushing because
it left very little between me and the execution chamber.
The lawyers went on to explain that they'd seek a stay from the
8th Circuit Court panel, but didn't hold out much hope that they'd
grant it. Later that evening they told me that a stay had indeed
been granted, but in all likelihood the Attorney-General would be
successful in having it lifted the next day, once he appealed to
the 8th Circuit Court, en banc (full panel).
Several other significant events took place on Monday.
While my mother and Stephen were visiting, the authorities were
noisily building the platforms for the witnesses to the execution
to sit on, just down the hall. I could hear this and was worried
that my mother would realize just what was taking place. So I did
my best to keep her attention. All for nothing, as it turned out.
When she and Stephen were ready to leave, so that Lindsay and Father
Stika could visit, Warden Delo showed up and told them it would be
awhile because, and I'll quote him, ``we are doing a mock exercise,
it may take an hour or so before a guard can escort you out''. In
simpler terms, they were practicing conducting an execution, mine.
Also on Monday, a long-time friend of mine by the name of Ed
Hubbard called me from Houston. I haven't seen Ed in probably
17 years though we've stayed in touch through letters and on
the phone. He told me he'd be flying up to see me. As it turned
out, the weather was terrible and the airport in St. Louis was
cancelling flights all the next day. So Ed was re-routed to
Chicago and unable to visit.
There is something else from that day that I want to share with
all of you. My mail was brought to me around 5:00PM. Two letters
in particular stood out, one was from a lady who lives in
Shawnee, Kansas, who'd seen an interview I'd given on Channel 41,
in Kansas City, a couple of weeks earlier. What stood out was that
her three pre-teen daughters had drawn me a picture, which she
enclosed. The other letter was from a friend of mine by the name
of Rick Davis. I hadn't heard from him in 12 years.
I wanted to try and get some sleep on Monday night, but that
was an exercise in futility. I knew that Tuesday was going to
be a very busy day, quite possibly my last. I knew KMOX radio
in St. Louis was going to be calling me at 10:00AM for a live
interview. Also, my lawyers had arranged for me to talk to the
Governor's legal assistant, Mr. Joe Bednar, at 2:00PM. By this
time I was so tired that I wasn't sure I was thinking straight.
But even so, I couldn't sleep. All I could do was look at the
clock on the wall. I think I dozed off about 5:00AM. At 7:00AM
I was awakened by the guard, I had a phone call from someone I
don't know! She was very nice, calling to ask if I were saved.
I couldn't get back to sleep.
Tuesday was indeed a full day.
My mother visited first, and I haven't the words to describe
the heartache, knowing that this might be the last time I saw
her. Her eyes were bloodshot and swollen from crying, I never
felt so helpless in my life, unable to hug her. I found out
later that the guards here were rather rude to her when she
left.
I had my interview with KMOX at 10.30am, on that note, I
apologize for cutting our phone call short Steph. (Stephanie
Sherwood is a friend of mine from England, and had called me
just after 10.00am). I had to keep the line open so as to
receive the call for the interview.
Lindsay and the Reverend Larry Rice came to visit me then. For
those of you outside the State, Reverend Rice champions the cause
of the homeless in St Louis, and has integrity and compassion
beyond reproach. I'd requested that he be allowed back in later
Tuesday night, this request was outright denied by Warden Delo
and no explanation was offered.
My sister Adele and brother Craig visited next. again, it was so
very hard to say goodbye.
Lindsay came back with Stephen, he stayed for an hour or so. It
was equally as hard to say goodbye to him as anybody. Stephen
has been, and is, a true friend. His hard work over these last
three years is why I'm still here. Through is documentary and
companion book, by the same title, 'The Execution Protocol', I've
met so many wonderful people, the inconsistencies of my case
catching the attention of so many people.
When Stephen left, Elizabeth came down. For those of you who don't
know her, she is a friend of Lindsay and I, 91 pounds, and 57 years
of feistiness and energy, that's Liz!
Warden Delo came in and had me fill out a form stating who the
witnesses to my execution (of my choice), would be. He also asked
again about my "last meal", I told him a T-Bone steak, salad, and
a low calorie cheesecake. The latter was a feeble attempt at humor.
I don't think he appreciated it!
At 2.00pm, my lawyers arranged the conference call with Joe Bednar.
I was on the phone with him for nearly an hour. Basically telling
him all of the reasons why my sentence should be commuted. In
hindsight, I'd made a serious mistake in not getting more sleep. I
was so tired, and certainly not at my best.
On a lighter note, Lindsay and Liz heard the entire conversation,
and thought I'd done well. A bit later that afternoon, while being
interviewed by a television station in St Louis, I was sitting
against the screen, Lindsay started pulling the hair on my ankles
through the screen, while Liz kept poking me on the toe!
Oh, before I forget, Diane and Peter Miller were here to visit me on
Monday. Peter is the man who does the editing and splicing of
Stephen's films. I thoroughly enjoyed meeting him, he'd flown in
all the way from London to visit.
At 4.30pm on Tuesday, my "last meal" was brought to me. I shared it
with Lindsay and Liz, sticking french fries through the screen. The
"last meal" was interrupted by a couple of phone requests for
interviews, even though it was the first decent meal I'd had for 12
years, I didn't have much of an appetite.
I realize I'm jumping back and forth, and I apologize for that, but
another thing took place earlier Tuesday. I'd specifically asked
permission for a Reverend Vernon Sword to be allowed to visit and a
friend of mine named Jeff Stack, both requests were denied.
The Warden came into the holding cell at 6.45pm and informed us that
visits were over. It was the hardest of all to say goodbye to Lindsay.
When her and Liz left, I suddenly felt very alone.
At 7.00pm, the phone rang, it was Mr. Ed Asner. And yes, he sounds
the same over the phone as on television. A deep, yet comforting
voice. Just moments after he rang, Warden Delo and several others
walked into the holding cell. I asked Mr. Asner if he could hold for
a moment, he said he would. I intentionally turned the phone towards
Delo so that Mr. Asner might hear. Warden Delo first informed me that
the 8th Circuit Court, en banc, has just left my stay in place by a
6 to 5 vote. Before I had even had time to appreciate this, he went
on to tell me that the Attorney General was at this very moment going
to Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court to have
my stay vacated, that in all likelihood Thomas would vacate it and
I'd be put to death.
He then introduced me to one of the men in the group, and told me
this was the nurse who would fit the IV. Then Warden Delo told me
that by State law, he now had to read me a document called "Notice of
Intent". I recall it clearly. It went: "The Missouri Supreme Court
has set your execution to take place within the confines of Potosi
Correctional Center on December 7th at 12.01am or any time December
7th, it is the intent of this court that this sentence be carried
out. It is the Department of Corrections intent to put you to death
on December 7th at 12.01 or at any time December 7th".
It seemed to me that Warden Delo was quite pleased with himself.
One of the men in the group was a representative from the Colorado
Corrections Department. I'd been told a couple of days earlier that
they'd be here. The purpose of their visit was to witness the
"Missouri Protocol" as they are expecting to execute someone in
Colorado this Spring. Warden Delo's closing remark during this little
visit was to tell me they'd be back shortly to give me the mandatory
antihistamine injection, and he explained that this was so "you don't
have an adverse reaction to the second chemical", that this would
relax my lungs.
As he started to walk out, he overheard me getting back on the phone
asking Mr. Asner if he'd been able to overhear this. Warden Delo
checked the log book and saw Ed Asner's name and his face paled! I
told Mr. Asner that my stay was still in effect and that I wouldn't know
till later that evening what the United States Supreme Court would
rule. The battery in the cordless phone was getting weak and it was
difficult to hear Mr. Asner.
About 7.15pm, Warden Delo came back, several guards and one of the
prison nurses were with him. This is when they gave me the
antihistamine injection. I have no proof of this, but I believe they
also slipped a sedative/tranquilizer in with it. By 8pm I was barely
able to walk without stumbling, and I'm told my speech was slurred
for several days after this.
I decided early on that I wasn't going to take any of the medication
they offered, every single moment was precious to me and I didn't
want to fall asleep and wake up to the authorities just moments away
from strapping me to the gurney.
The hours between 8.00pm and 10.00pm were very tense. Around 8.30pm,
a nurse came in, they had been taking my temperature and blood
pressure daily. I had to get on my knees and stick my left arm out
of the chuck hole (used to pass food and the phone back and forth) for
this. She took my temperature first, then my blood pressure. This time
though, I felt her tapping at the inside of my elbow joint and I knew
she was checking to see if I had sufficient veins. Our eyes met and
she knew I was aware of just what she was doing. I could sense that she
was not at all comfortable with this task.
About 9.00pm, Warden Delo came back and asked if I'd sorted out my
arrangements. He told me "the body" would be moved to Gum & Sons
funeral home and they could me there up to 24 hours.
What took place next speaks for itself. The Warden came down just
before 10.00pm and told that it looked as if the execution would take
place. He went on to tell me that I'd be placed on the gurney in about
an hour. What I didn't know was that at 9.49pm, the United States
Supreme Court had left the stay in place.
The protesters in the parking lot knew before I did that the execution
was off. I wasn't told until 10.15pm, when Warden Delo told me. I could
see that he was disappointed. This man was actually upset that he wasn't
going to be able to put me to death, that he wasn't going to be able to
show off the "Missouri Protocol" to the Colorado authorities. He couldn't
hide it.
I thought back to Stephen's film and Doyle Williams saying he sensed
Warden Delo's disappointment when he received a late hour stay. I'd
always felt it was personal between Doyle and Warden Delo (Doyle files
numerous law suits and Warden Delo doesn't like it). Delo's attitude
to me made me painfully aware that he derives some sort of sick
satisfaction out of his role in the execution process.
While those five days were the most trying of my life, I gained
something from the experience as well.
With my life being measured in hours possibly, there was such clarity
of thought in what's important. I counted myself fortunate in having so
many good friends. You all made it possible for me to face that situation
and retain my sanity.
I was released from the holding cell at 8.00am Wednesday morning. As I
took that first step out into the fresh air, it smelled so good!
But all in all, the holding cell is something I wouldn't wish upon anyone.
I don't think any man can know how he will act in that tome. For me, I
hid the frustration as best I could, but it was there all the same.
It puzzled me that the various authorities could allow this to come
so close when so much evidence which contradicts the State's case, was
out in the open.
Now allow me to update you on my present status.
No reason has been given by the courts as to why they granted the stay,
but it has to be one of these things: either Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel, the Sixth Amendment claim (right to counsel), or proportionality
review. All of these points will be included in my next appeal.
On that note, the oral argument phase of my next appeal is set for
February 22nd, in St Louis. This will be heard by the very same three
judge panel, which in 1993 went so far out of their way to turn me
down and then last month granted a stay when they certainly didn't have to.
Several things could happen as a result of this hearing.
They could do as before and turn down my appeals, in which case I would
be facing another execution date in June or July. Another option is that
they could reverse my conviction, in which case I would be returned to
Neosho, to stand trial again. Or, the most likely possibility is that
they will remand my case back to the Western District Court for what's
called an evidentiary hearing.
This too would be good news, as it would enable my lawyers to present all
the evidence (which was noticeable missing from my first trial), onto
the record.
In this eventuality, the District Court judge could order a retrial. If
given an evidentiary hearing, this could take up to one year, then I could
be facing another jury trial.
On an unrelated note, my lawyers and Stephen have advised me that we
should put a hold on writing letters to the Governor, at least for the
time being, as the courts are reviewing my case.
A number of you seem to have gotten the impression that the Governor
interceded in my case. This is incorrect. Governor Carnahan didn't have
to make a decision, as the courts stayed the execution.
I've given a great deal of thought to this. As close as it came, I don't
know if he was going to step in or not.
I still believe Governor Carnahan to be a decent man. I'm glad he wasn't
put in the position of making this decision. Either way, it would have
been unpopular.
There's a lot more to this, my friends. With the prospect of another
trial looming as a distinct possibility late this year or next, it raises
another problem. That being the finances to hire an attorney to represent
me. It was this inability to retain an attorney some 12 years ago that
resulted in this excessive sentence to start with. Here in the United
States, if a person cannot afford an attorney, one is appointed. These
appointed attorneys are more commonly referred to as public defenders.
The one who represented me at my initial trial did not bother to
investigate my case, or even return the phone calls of family and friends,
who could have testified on my behalf.
If given a retrial, it would be held in the very same court as before. And
therein lies the problem. As things stand right now, there is no way I can
hire an attorney. But we've got a little time to work on this.
Lindsay will be getting her green card any day now. Once she does, this
will enable her to get a job. She plans to get one and possibly a second
job, so she can start putting aside some money towards hiring an attorney.
But the truth of the matter is that even with two jobs, she can't set
aside but a fraction of what is necessary.
All of you have helped us so very much already. I quite literally owe my
very life to all of you. For it was your efforts over the last six months,
with the letter writing campaign, your faxes, phone calls and prayers that
turned the tide.
I now need to ask you to help me to see this through. We have approximately
ten months to work with.
What I am asking all of you, is if you can help by sending whatever you
can spare on a monthly basis to Lindsay? I've discussed this with a
number of you already. The consensus of opinion being that it's easier on
everyone to send a little on a monthly basis, between now and October,
rather to ask for a larger sum all at once. I realize that some of you
won't be able to help with very much. I understand this, but also want
to let you know that every little bit counts.
For those of you overseas, personal checks to Lindsay are not a good idea.
The reason being that the banks over here charge a substantial fee for
cashing overseas personal checks. So the best way to send any contributions
is by International Money Order or cash.
Or, for those of you in Europe, donations can be sent to Janet Klingstedt
in Sweden. In the UK, to Caroline Godfrey, and here in the US, either to
Lindsay, Ruth Blank, or to my sister Adele. I will put their addresses at
the end of this letter.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important this is.
Ten months may seem like a lot of time to work with, but because of the
large amount required to retain an attorney, we need to start right away.
On another note, Stephen's next film is tentatively scheduled to air in the
UK in April, on BBC2, and possibly in May here in the US on the Discovery
Channel. Some of you aren't as familiar with my case as I'd like for you
to be, so I hope that you will watch this documentary. When an exact date
is set for broadcast, I will certainly let all of you know. I'm sure that
this next film of Stephen's will put everything into perspective.
Again, I apologize for the somewhat impersonal nature of this, a form
letter. I would love to be able to write each and every one of you letters
on a regular basis, but it simply isn't physically possible. I do hope you
understand this.
I also want to thank all of you again for everything you've done. I'm
doing all I can to avoid a return trip to the holding cell.
I just can't put Lindsay and my mother through that again.
If any of you have any questions or any advice, please don't hesitate to
ask or share your thoughts.
Thank you all, you are the greatest group of friends a man could have.
(Below are the addresses).
Sincerely yours,
Alan J. Bannister
Lindsay Bannister Caroline Godfrey
P.O. Box 365 15 Donnington Drive
Park Hills, Missouri Valley Park
63601 Chandler's Ford
USA Hants. SO53 2PL
(314) 431-5022 England
1703-251244
Voutier P
A. J. Bannister, C.P. #24, 4A-4
Potosi Correctional Center
Rte. 2, Box 2222
Mineral Point
Missouri 63660
USA
November 1995
Hello again my friends,
Once again I have to make use of a form letter to all of you as
there is a great deal of information to pass along.
Over this past year, I have been unable to stay in touch with a
great many of you, as I would have liked to. Please believe me
when I say that I haven't forgotten any of you and certainly
appreciate all your care and concern for me.
More than a few times I've been racked with guilt over my
inability to answer letters as promptly as I'd like to. I
can assure you it is not laziness on my part, and I hope that
none of you feel that I have taken your friendship for granted
or that I don't appreciate all your help. It is because of the
combined efforts of all of you that I am still alive.
There's so much to tell you that I am uncertain where to begin!
Only yesterday I viewed that film documentary about myself, over
the past six months a number of you have asked questions stemming
from your having viewed it, or have commented on various bits of
it --- and I was unable to answer or comment, simply because I
hadn't seen it until recently. Overall I think Stephen Trombley
did an excellent job, however, several segments of it disturbed
me deeply.
I wasn't at all prepared to see my mother walking in the cemetery
to my burial plot, such an eerie feeling swept through me to
actually see what may be my final resting place.
The other part that moved me deeply was the the film footage
from outside this prison last December 6th, that was actual
footage, nothing staged about that. To see the look on Lindsay's
face and on my mother's as they awaited word, just tore me
apart. Especially as I sit here now, knowing that they may have
to endure this again, and that sort of emotional trauma shouldn't
be leveled at anyone once, much less twice.
Seeing their relief at the moment they learned I would not be put
to death that night, gave me such a warm feeling. But this was a
bittersweet joy as I couldn't help but start thinking of how at
that precise moment in time, I was in the holding cell still
thinking that I'd be put to death in under 2 hours.
For those of you who don't know this, the people in the parking
lot knew the execution had been called off some 20 minutes or
so before I did. To this day, I don't know why the superintendent
didn't bother to inform me of this much sooner than he did, he was
certainly the first to know.
As to my legal status as of this moment. Some of you are aware
of it, but let me catch everyone up.
On September 15th 1995, Judge D. Brook Bartlett of the Western
District Court, refused to grant an evidentiary hearing.
His reasoning for this, was that he didn't find the evidence credible.
On its surface, that might sound valid, but in actuality, since 1988,
this judge has refused to allow me to submit affidavits into the
record to prove the claims in my appeals.
He selected a small portion of what was actually in front of him,
and ruled on its credibility, thereby avoiding an evidentiary
hearing, at which all the evidence would see the light of day
and be made part of the court record.
Another note on Judge Bartlett, he had earlier refused to dismiss
himself from my appeal despite the fact that in another capital
case, he admitted to being "frustrated" and biased against
successive petitions in capital cases, which, in his own words,
"...should have been disposed of the first time...".
After this ruling, my next and last appeal was scheduled for
November 15th, in front of a 3 judge panel from the U.S. Eighth
Circuit in St. Louis. A number of people attended this: Lindsay,
my mother, Stephen Trombley, Christy Mercer, Rev. Larry Rice,
Jim McGinnis, Pat and Joe Basler, Jeff Stack, Carole Wantz, Tom
Block, etc etc and this show of support is highly unusual at
these hearings,
Stephen told me that approximately 35 people were there in
attendance, the St. Louis paper reported 10! As to why they would
greatly underestimate the number of people --- could it be they
don't want the public to know just how much interest there is
in this?
Myself, I am not optimistic. I have been in front of these
same three judges before, and to circumvent an unchallenged
point, they invoked a procedural bar on their own. So it's
pretty clear to me that they would rather execute me, than
be forced to admit the system is flawed and that a mistake
was made.
One of the judges did apologize for his mis-wording in the
denial of my previous appeal before them.
In it, he wrote that I "shot the man in the head", this is
factually inaccurate to say the least, and his apology is of
little consolation as that ruling was put before the U.S.
Supreme Court last year. It's a bit late to apologize as the
damage has already been done.
A piece of good news on this though, several days prior to
the hearing, an attorney from France by the name of Michel
Jallot contacted my attorneys about the Human Rights Commission
(which he is a member of), he was filing what's called an
amicus curiae brief, on my behalf. "Amicus curiae" is Latin
for "friend of the court". This brief was faxed to the court
the morning of November 15th but wasn't accepted because it
was faxed. So a properly formatted brief was hurriedly sent,
and I'm told it was received at the clerk's office on
November 17th.
This sort of international attention is exactly what the U.S.
courts fear the most, and for that reason, Stephen, Kent Gipson
and myself are planning to follow this up by contacting lawyers
in other countries.
Late the afternoon of November 15th, my lawyers --- Bruce Baty
and Chris Schneider, were here to visit me, to tell me of their
impressions of how the hearing went.
Again, it is nigh on impossible to predict what a court will do,
but they did tell me that they don't expect a ruling for a couple
of months. We went on to discuss some other matters, most
significantly, the letter-writing campaign on my behalf.
I have also discussed this with a number of other people and
the consensus is, that for it to be most effective, for the
time being (while my appeal is still pending in the court),
letters to the Governor should not be all that frequent.
If all of you were to write him say, one letter per month, that
would be a reminder to him. While my appeal is still in the
courts, the Governor isn't inclined or required, to do
anything.
The reason for this is obvious, because his thinking is ---
that if the courts grant relief of some sort, he will be
"off the hook". So apart from a letter a month to the Governor,
here's what I'd like to ask all of you to do --- and the
reasons why:
I am forced to presume that the courts will find a way to
justify turning away my appeal.
What leads me to think this, is that to do otherwise, raises
the questions of why they didn't do so, long ago?
So, when and if, they turn my appeal down, that will be it, as
far as appellate litigation goes, and another execution date
will be set approximately 3-4 weeks later. That's not much time
to organize any sort of meaningful letter-writing campaign. So
here's what I'm asking of each of you: that you continue to write
letters to Governor Carnahan and President Clinton, and ask as
many of your friends to do so as well, but don't send them right
away. Instead, set them aside and let them accumulate. When and
if my appeal is turned down, I will contact you, THAT'S the time
to send them all at once.
I can tell you from past experience, that this is a logistical
nightmare to try and coordinate, here's how I believe it would
work best. Peter & Debby Wakeham and Graeme Capes, of Friends
for Life (PAUL'S NOTE: this only applies to British readers of
this letter. Other readers should contact A.J. or Lindsay Bannister
for the appropriate information) will be contacting you again,
if and when it becomes necessary to mail all those letters, so
please keep them appraised of any address changes.
One note about these letters, I hope you'll all write, don't put
postage on these letters at this time. If there's any justice
left in this world, they won't have to be sent.
Another suggestion given to me recently that I think is an
excellent idea, is to circulate petitions for people to sign
--- one to President Clinton, the other to Governor Carnahan.
This would need to get under way immediately, so as to get as
many signatures as possible. I will draft up both and enclose
them along with this.
You will need to send these signed petitions to Lindsay. I
will put all the pertinent addresses and phone numbers at the
end of this letter.
Another important topic I would like to address briefly. Some
of you have sent me money through the mail, in most instances
the mail-room here sends it back to you, along with your entire
letter. Recently, Volker Naumann of Germany sent me his lucky
$1 bill. For some unknown reason, the mail-room let it through,
and before I could turn it in, sent two guards to my room to
conduct a search... lo and behold they "found" the $1 bill! I
had to turn it in, because it is contraband. I was issued a
conduct violation for this, and the staff went well out of
their way to make it seem far more serious than it was, one
caseworker even threatened me with "criminal prosecution" over
it!
Another went so far as to insinuate that Lindsay had smuggled it
in and that I might use it to "bribe" a guard! Please remember,
this is a $1 bill! When Lindsay called and spoke to the head
caseworker, he had the nerve to actually ask her "what if the
contraband had been a machine gun?" That's quite a leap ---
comparing a $1 bill to an automatic weapon!
Anyway, all of this wasn't unexpected. In recent weeks, the
staff of this institution has gone well out of its way to
harass me.
Several weeks ago, I was made aware of how an Assistant Attorney
General had replied to a letter written by Mrs. Lorna Newton, to
the Missouri Attorney General --- Jay Nixon.
Well some of you have known me for a number of years and know
that I simply cannot be still if someone tries to impugn my
character. So, I promptly replied to this man, politely, and
raised issues which he can't explain away.
For him to write to Lorna the letter he did, and ask her to give
the State the benefit of the doubt, and to attempt to depict the
Missouri Attorney General's Office as an entity above reproach,
was just too much for me to let go. Especially in light of how
the previous Missouri Attorney General, William Webster (1984--1992)
just got out of prison himself on November 14th!
Anyway, I expected this petty harassment just as soon as they
found out about my book and the screening of "Raising Hell" in
the U.S., drew closer --- they haven't let me down!
Last week they went so far as to try and permanently ban Stephen
Trombley from visiting me. Their initial reason was that he's
"a threat to the safety and security of the institution...".
Also, they kept me from doing a number of phone interviews with
the media.
Various journalists had called here to the prison, asking that
I return their call. The staff here neglected to relay the
majority of these requests to me and those that they did, were
only after attempting to discourage the reporter.
I went through much the same treatment in 1992 immediately after
the broadcast of "The Execution Protocol". It's all too apparent
that the staff do not like it when any inmate receives positive
attention. Yet these same people are oh so accommodating about
allowing access to media representatives they know will write
articles which perpetuate the myth that all inmates are animals.
Returning to the subject of sending things through the mail. I
cannot receive money, polaroid photos (the type with a back),
rosaries or crosses, I do appreciate the thought though.
And on that note, it would be a great help if all of you could
send a little something to Lindsay.
Right now we've got everything tied up in my book, and the cost
involved in writing has escalated. For those of you overseas,
personal checks are not a good idea --- as the banks here charge
$15-$20 to case each one.
The next subject I would like to talk to you about is my book.
It's been brought to my attention that the cost for some of
your overseas to get a money order is quite high. I've been
informed recently, that American Express offices charge a
minimal amount.
A number of you are probably wondering what I'm talking about!
I've written a book, the title of it is "...shall suffer death...",
it is semi-autobiographical, but more of an expose of America's
judicial and correctional systems. I will enclose a sheet of order
forms in with this. The book itself is finished, the formatting
is taking place right now, and it goes to the printers shortly.
It is my hope that all of you will buy my book and get as many of
your friends to do so as well.
While I'm by no means in the same league as John Grisham or Alice
Walker, I am quite proud of this book, a lot of time and effort
went into it, as well as a great deal of "me".
I'm not sure exactly when this letter will reach all of you, but
it is important to place your orders for the book as soon as
possible.
I think it's very safe to say that the authorities here in the U.S.
will not appreciate my book at all.
I have touched upon a great many things in it which they'd prefer
people not think about or be made aware of.
The more books that are sold, the better my chances are if we
ultimately have to approach the Governor about commuting my
sentence. So please do what you can.
Audenreed Press sends me lists of the orders placed and I see
a number of your names there already, let me take this opportunity
to thank you.
In closing, I want to thank all of you for everything you've done.
If the worst takes place, please do not second guess yourselves
or abandon the fight against capital punishment.
There are so many others within the system who are either innocent
or undeserving of the sentences they are under.
A classic example of this was Ken Saro-Wiwa, who, along with 8
others was executed in Nigeria on November 10th. His crime? He
opposed the pillaging of his country by a U.S.-based petroleum
company. He sought to protect the land and the animals which
inhabit it. For this "crime", a military tribunal sentenced him
to death and quickly carried out the sentence, thereby, in their
minds, silencing him.
From these shores, the U.S. Government lodged a feeble protest.
Citing how he was represented by an inexperienced attorney and
complaining that all the evidence was not presented (sounds
familiar).
Sure, easy to blame the lawyer in his case, don't go for that.
Truth is, Mr. Saro-Wiwa had no chance, regardless of his
representation. His views were unacceptable to the Nigerian
Government, they want U.S. money, and our country wants their
oil.
This world can become a better place, it already is, because
of each of you, so please, do not give up hope. If my sentence
is carried out, redouble your efforts to abolish capital
punishment and fight all the other social ills which diminish
us all as the human race.
Below are the pertinent addresses. Again I thank you all.
Always,
A.J.
Debby & Peter Wakeham Lindsay Bannister
Friends for Life P.O. Box 365
88 Cobden Street Park Hills, Missouri
Luton 63601
Bedfordshire LU2 0NG (314) 431-5022
ENGLAND U.S.A.
01582-612734 (evenings)
Graeme Capes
01462-482578 (evenings)
William J. Clinton The Honorable Mel Carnahan
President of the United Governor of Missouri
States of America Room 218, State Capitol
The White House 206 West High Street
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Jefferson City, Missouri
Washington, D.C. 65102
20500 U.S.A.
U.S.A.
Voutier P
September 1995
Hello my friends,=20
once again I'm placed in the awkward position
of having to use a form letter to contact all of you. I have asked
Caroline to xerox this handwritten letter and send each of you a
copy. Just once I wish one of these letters could contain some good
news, sadly, this isn't the one. Some of you already know of events
past couple of weeks, for those of you who don't, on September 15th
Judge D Brook Bartlett of the Western District Court turned my
appeal down. This in and of itself came as no great surprise as he=20
is ultra conservative. Earlier this year I attempted to have him
dismiss himself from my case as he is on record on another capital
appeal as being biased against successive appeals, in his own words
he states "I'm frustrated by these successive petitions which should
have been disposed of the first time". He refused to dismiss himself
from my case even though he had taken himself off the other one. His=20
reasoning was that mine was 'different'. Anyway, in his September
15th ruling, he rules that an evidentiary hearing isn't necessary as
he does not find the evidence credible. What is most telling about
this is that the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to present all
the evidence, he has in effect ruled on the credibility of evidence
he hasn't even heard. Seems our judges are now psychic also. Some of
you are probably asking how can this be? I don't have the answer to
that, but let's not forget, this is America where influence and
affluence are factors in our judicial process, a country where OJ can=20
be found innocent in spite of the fact there was an overwhelming
amount of evidence implicating him, and I can be put to death in=20
spite of a considerable amount of evidence mitigating the degree of
my guilt. Why? Because I didn't have the millions of dollars to retain
a whole crew of attorneys and instead was represented by a public
defender who literally did nothing to defend me, nothing in the way
of even questioning the State's prosecution, and these austere=20
appellate courts turn their backs on the truth. My conviction some 13
years ago was largely based on my supposedly confessing to the crime,
however, they did not get a written or taped confession. Why? Because
what I told them and what they testified to are completely different.
They committed perjury in securing a capital murder conviction against
me. It would be one thing for me simply to allege this, but it stands
out blatantly. They testified that I told them it was a contract murder
and that if I hadn't told them, they'd have never known this. Put=20
yourself in the jury's place, what would you think? But the brother of
the victim is on record stating he called them and told them he thought
it might be a contract murder. And he did this fully 7 hours before I
was even arrested. It can't be retracted either as I've had in my
possession the handwritten notes of one of the officers which details
this call. My public defender knew of this at trial and didn't do=20
anything. Now, absolute proof of this perjury exists, but these appeals
courts refuse to listen to this and a number of other issues. On this=20
note, I am in no way insinuating that all, or even a majority of police
officers will fabricate testimony, by and large they are decent honest
people, but don't for a moment think they're all honest, and we can't
always tell by outward appearance what's in a person's heart. Detective
Mark Fuhrman in the Simpson trial is a prime example of this.
Another fact of Judge Bartlett's ruling that I found offensive was his
implying that Stephen Trombley has a vested interest in keeping me alive,
and therefore, the things he uncovered during the past 3 years while=20
researching to do the documentaries is not credible according to this
judge. I can tell you this, overall, Stephen has spent a sizeable chunk
of his own money in these film projects, contrary to what the judge
implied. One other note on Judge Bartlett, in 1993 he granted an 11-day
evidentiary hearing for William Webster. Webster had stolen literally
millions of dollars from Missouri taxpayers, redirecting it back into
his campaign fund. Anyway, Bartlett gave him a lengthy evidentiary=20
hearing, the purpose of which was to decide whether to sentence Webster
to 18 months or 24 months in prison! Webster had pled guilty to a
substantially reduced charge, he ended up with an 18-month sentence,
which he served on a country club prison reserved for crooked politicians,
the most formidable obstacle keeping him in was the imposing row of=20
hedges around this prison he was in.
Anyway, as for what this denial of my appeals means, the next. and last
appeal is to the US 8th District Court. I had been hoping that they
wouldn't schedule the oral arguments on this till after Christmas, but
several days ago I was informed that the hearing has been set for November
15th. One of my lawyers (Chris Schneider) called Lindsay this past
Wednesday to tell her this, he went on to tell her that in a worst case
scenario, that I would be facing a December execution date if this next
court rules quickly and adversely. Lindsay was devastated by this, December=
=20
of 1994 is still fresh in our minds. As of this moment I still haven't told=
=20
my mother, last December was so hard on her and Lindsay, and its tearing=20
me up inside to know that they may be put through that again.
Last year, we waged a letter-writing campaign the likes if which the=20
authorities of this state had never encountered before, or since, and we=20
forced them to at least appear as if they were going to take another
look at my case. They went through the motions, but all they've really done
is turn their backs on the evidence once again. Now, that time has come=20
again, and it will take an even larger effort than last year to turn the
tide. I must tell you though, this is a battle we may not win regardless=20
of the effort. Over the years I've been rather outspoken of their=20
system of justice, to the point where I've gained some recognition=20
and hopefully brought some awareness to the barbaric practice of=20
capital punishment. In doing so I've certainly made no friends within=20
the bureaucracy which dispenses the death penalty. By executing me, they=20
feel I can be silenced and, that with the passage of time, forgotten,=20
and they are partially right in that thinking, but not entirely. As=20
most of you know, I've spent a good portion of this year writing a=20
book. The writing of it has been completed and in several weeks it=20
will go to the printer. No matter what the outcome, that part of me=20
can't be put to death. It may only be words on paper, but they're=20
my words.=20
Anyway, to a letter-writing campaign, having had the unpleasant=20
experience of being taken to within two hours of being put to=20
death last December, I really don't want to go through that again,=20
but from it I learned a couple of things. One being that the=20
authorities are influenced by sheer numbers and any publicity=20
which casts them in a bad light, they would prefer to avoid.=20
Capital punishment can only continue if carried out in the middle=20
of the night and they're allowed to shift responsibility off onto=20
someone else, i.e., ``I was only following orders''. As to who to=20
write, the most important person is obviously Governor Mel=20
Carnahan as he has the power to actually commute my sentence to=20
life. He could even reduce my conviction to 2nd degree, which is=20
still more than I am actually guilty of. I will provide his address=20
at the end of this letter along with the others I'll be mentioning.=20
Another one to write to is President Clinton, he does have the=20
authority to grant executive clemency and pardons. Although he=20
will say it is a state matter and not in his power (shifting the=20
responsibility), he does have the authority, don't allow anyone=20
to tell you differently. Executive powers have historically been=20
used by outgoing U.S. Presidents to pardon white-collar criminals,=20
usually party members or former high-ranking politicians who've=20
been caught at something, i.e., President Ford pardoned Richard=20
Nixon, President Bush pardoned U.S. Attorney-General Edwin Meese=20
before he was ever tried or convicted, or charged for that matter.=20
There's also four newspapers here in the U.S. who you could write to,=20
The New York Times, Washington Post, Kansas City Star and St. Louis=20
Post-Dispatch. In writing them, you should point out your personal=20
feelings about capital punishment and express your opinions about=20
its usage in my case. It is important to point out how all the=20
evidence hasn't been presented, through no fault of my own.=20
Last year, some of you contacted your local newspapers, this is=20
very helpful also, especially if you send a copy of these articles=20
to Carnahan and Clinton. Make them understand that this execution=20
won't go unnoticed as they'd like.=20
Letters to Carnahan should start right away, and you certainly don't=20
have to limit yourself to just one letter to him! The more letters=20
he receives on a regular basis, the better the chances of his doing=20
the right thing.=20
Now, lastly, and I'm not ``asking'' you to write these three judges,=20
but on Nov. 15th, Judge Wollman, Judge Henley and Judge Bright will=20
be hearing my case in St. Louis. If you want to write to them, I=20
certainly can't stop you :), nor would I. However, if you were to=20
write to them, I would suggest you point out the 6th Amendment=20
(Right to Consul) violation which stands out blatantly in my case=20
as well as Judge Bartlett's refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing.=20
Ask them to order a retrial so a jury can hear all the evidence.=20
One other note on them, you'd have to time your letters to reach=20
the courthouse around November 13th/14th and you might also suggest=20
they watch the Discovery Channel on November 18th (Stephen's=20
documentary airs then).=20
Again, the more letters these people get, the better my chances.=20
I know better than most people just how difficult it is to write=20
a number of letters! Time isn't on our side obviously, so please=20
allow me to thank you in advance.=20
There is one more very important topic I need to bring up. As I=20
mentioned earlier, the book I've been working on is finished, It=20
is titled ``... shall suffer death''. Some of you know the reason=20
for that title. For those of you who don't, those three words=20
have been in all my Warrants of Execution. The formatted manuscript=20
goes to the printer in early November. The book itself is about my=20
time on death row in part, but also, and more importantly, about=20
capital punishment in general. And I've got to tell you, I'm very=20
pleased with how it turned out. I have nothing to lose by being=20
brutally honest at this point. I accepted responsibility for my=20
actions long ago, now it's time for the authorities who commit=20
state-sanctioned murder to do the same. Caroline will be enclosing=20
a sheet of 3 order forms in with each of these letters. This is=20
something I also need your help with. There's plenty of books to=20
sell, and a short time to do so. It is my hope that you'll all buy=20
my book and get a couple of your friends to do so also. On this=20
note, I feel bad about the $8 cost of shipping charge to you in=20
the U.K., the alternative was bulk rate which would've meant it=20
would take a couple of months to reach you. I did make a decision =20
I hope helps to offset this. For those who purchase two books, the=20
cost is $12 per book and the shipping cost for a second book is=20
substantially less. With the cost of one book being $23, it is my=20
hope that you'll purchase two for a total of $33.50 (=9C21) and on=20
this, with the second book, loan it out to someone who supports=20
capital punishment or hasn't got an opinion. It's those people=20
we need to reach most as they don't know just what it is they're=20
condoning. As time is a factor, advance orders are vital for two=20
reasons. The first being that the sooner this book is out in=20
circulation, the more publicity brought by it can only help.=20
Secondly, by placing orders between now and November 15th, the=20
quicker these can get to you as all advance orders will be filled=20
the very day the books arrive at Audenreed Press from the printers.=20
One more note, those of you reading this are mentioned in the=20
back of the book by name. You all mean so very much to me that I=20
took the opportunity to thank you all in this fashion. Another=20
reason I'd like to get as many of these books sold in advance=20
and distributed as quickly as possible is that I'd like feedback=20
from all of you on it and if time allows, I'll gladly answer any=20
questions you might have on it.=20
If you are able to find more than 3 people interested in my book,=20
please feel free to run off copies of the order forms!=20
I wish I had something cute to say at this point, but I don't.=20
If the worse happens to me, please know that each and every one=20
of you made a positive difference in my life, and don't give up.=20
This world is a better place with all of you in it and continuing=20
to fight against injustices.=20
I count myself a fortunate man to have been blessed with your=20
friendships and having been given the opportunity to get to=20
know some of you.=20
Right about now, Lindsay could sure use some cheering up as well.=20
That girl has fought her heart out for me, please feel free to=20
write or call her, she is generally home till noon and all day=20
Mondays and Tuesdays. She can answer any questions you might have.=20
I haven't given up, don't you. If there's any justice left in this=20
world at all, truth will prevail.=20
Once again my friends, thank you=20
Sincerely Yours,=20
A. J. Bannister=20
New York Times President Clinton Lindsay Bannister
229 W. 43rd Street the White House P.O. Box 365=20
New York, New York 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Park Hills, Missouri
10036 Washington, D.C. 63601
20500 (314) 431-5022
Washington Post Governor Mel Carnahan=20
1150 15th Street N.W. P. O. Box 720=20
Washington, D.C Jefferson City, Missouri
20071 65102
Kansas City Star Judge Wollman, Judge Henley and Judge Bright
1729 Grand Blvd. c/o United States Court of Appeals=20
Kansas City, Missouri for the Eighth Circuit
64108 1114 Market Street, Room 511
St. Louis, Missouri
63129
St. Louis Post-Dispatch=20
900 N. Tucker Blvd.=20
St. Louis, Missouri=20
63101=20
Lucas Stults
Ohhh, another Killer-Groupie trying to free her beloved murderer. Don't
it just warm the cockles of your heart to see little Maria trying so
desperately to save the life of a confessed killer?
Of course, one DOES have to admire the fact that she's not claiming that
he's innocent. Maybe the little twit just thinks he's cute in his prison
outfit. I wonder if these guys get together and have pep-rallies. Can't
ya just see it now? Maria and her friends sitting around moaning: "Ohhhh,
I got Manson's autograph in the mail! He asked me to send him my panties
so he can fondle them at night!"
Maria, get out and meet men that AREN'T on death row. I can only assume
that you feel intimidated by guys that haven't taken a life, but I assure
you, a few classes on self-esteem and you'll do just fine.
Ian Harris
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:28:43 -0500, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
>Desi Coughlan wrote:
>
>> The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
>> manufacturers.
>>
>> This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
>> November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
>>
>> All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
>> weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
>> back !!
>>
>> Ha!! Ha!!!
>>
>> See you!!
>
> Sounds more like the newbie's 50 free AOL hours are up.
>
>
> Hope this helps,
> Don
>
You are probably right Don, but there are so many of those damn disks
around that he will probably return.
There was something about him that reminded me of early "Anal Andy".
How about you ?
Ian Harris
Come Visit Andy Katz at:
http://www.cheetah.net/issues/assholes/oct96.htm
>
Michael Grello
I would like to say that all men aren't as ignorant is this dude. Some
guys just can't tell the difference between having a prick and being one.
So, from those of us who have both compassion AND a sex life, I apologise.
hug a commie for Christ,
Mike <--- the last Jesus freak
voice of the religious LEFT
http://www.scsn.net/users/mgrello/
e-mail:mgr...@scsn.net
Goll, David
Exactly what is this gentleman facing the knacker yard for? What did he
do? (Murder, I guessed that ..., but what are/were the circumstances? Is
he appealing against the sentence or conviction?)
David
> In article <LSTULTS93743-2...@206.81.138.24>, LSTULT...@mediaform.com (Lucas Stults) writes:
> Ohhh, another Killer-Groupie trying to free her beloved murderer. Don't
> it just warm the cockles of your heart to see little Maria trying so
> desperately to save the life of a confessed killer?
<snip the rest>
John Kyrimis
Voutier P <sl...@city.ac.uk> wrote:
What's this got to do with aus.legal (an AUSTRALIAN legal group)?
--
John Kyrimis
E-mail: j...@dove.net.au
WWW: http://dove.net.au/~jsk/
Don Kool
> >> The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
> >> manufacturers.
> >>
> >> This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
> >> November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
> >>
> >> All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
> >> weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
> >> back !!
> >>
> >> Ha!! Ha!!!
> >>
> >> See you!!
> > Sounds more like the newbie's 50 free AOL hours are up.
> You are probably right Don, but there are so many of those damn disks
> around that he will probably return.
>
> There was something about him that reminded me of early "Anal Andy".
> How about you ?
Yes, he did have that same aroma of troll about him. I find
it rather pathetic that some people's lives have so little to offer them
that they feel the need to spam USENET seeking attention. As they say;
it takes all kinds. That doesn't make it any less sad or pitiable
though.
Poor Desi. Maybe one day he really will manage to achieve a "superior
education" and his lot in life will improve to the point that being
"shocking"
on USENET isn't his sole 'raison d'etre'.
Hope this helps,
Don
> > "The law is there and the will of God. You break that law, you're
> > breaking the will of God and you're going to go to jail."
> >
> > -- Charles Manson (Inmate B-33920)
> > -- Anti Death Penalty Hero
> > -- Parole Hearing 1992
> >
> > "I just come out a prison. I got a chance to start over. And I'm
> > starting over and I'm not breaking no laws. So don't come around
> > me with no-nothing. I don't want no money. I'll eat out of garbage
> > cans. I'll stay on the complete bottom. I'm underneath this snake
> > here. I'm not breaking no law."
> >
> > -- Charles Manson (Inmate B-33920)
> > -- Model Parolee
> > -- Two weeks before the murders
> >
> >****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
> >* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
> >* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charleton Heston
> >****************** "Planet of the Apes"
> >http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
--
Hope this helps,
Don
twi...@aol.com
Dove,
Would you please get the mailing address for AJ's victim(s) survivors so
we can write to them our condolences. What? You mean you don't have those.
I'm surprised!
Well, we will await your quick retrieval of them. Please Hurry!
TWIFTS
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <LSTULTS93743-2...@206.81.138.24>, Lucas Stults
<LSTULT...@mediaform.com> writes
>Can't
>ya just see it now? Maria and her friends sitting around moaning: "Ohhhh,
>I got Manson's autograph in the mail! He asked me to send him my panties
>so he can fondle them at night!"
>
<laugh>
Well, Lucas: I'm glad to see that you haven't changed in the last ten
days: still trying to insult other posters, and still making an pillock
of yourself by doing so.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32914C...@clark.net>, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
>
>> I know!! I know!! It's just that I can't help myself. . .!!!! One
>> glimpse of that red, white and blue, and I just go all . . . wobbly!!
>
> Desi, if your are ostensibly talking about France, you would
>do better to refer to their colors as blue, white and red.
Well, I just got my computer back, and before the kill file comes down
to once block out the nonsense that you post, Don, let me assure you
that red, white and blue, is exactly the same as blue, red and white. I
know that you have trouble forming a cogent point, but hell! I didn't
know that you couldn't read English without help. . . .
>Sorry to
>point
>out your lack of a "superior education" to the world but your obvious
>ignorance has simply become too offensive to civilized people.
>
So that means that 99% of Americans have *not* been offended by my
postings. . .?
>> >>All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
>> >>weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
>> >>back !!
>
>> >What arguements ?
>
> Exactly, Desi; since when have you had a real "argument" instead of
>a fey hissy fit?
>
Tsk, tsk. . . you missed it again, Don. The poster was referring to the
lack of serious arguments posted by *other* people.
> Hope this helps,
> Don
>
>
> "The law is there and the will of God. You break that law, you're
> breaking the will of God and you're going to go to jail."
>
> -- Charles Manson (Inmate B-33920)
> -- Anti Death Penalty Hero
> -- Parole Hearing 1992
>
> "I just come out a prison. I got a chance to start over. And I'm
> starting over and I'm not breaking no laws. So don't come around
> me with no-nothing. I don't want no money. I'll eat out of garbage
> cans. I'll stay on the complete bottom. I'm underneath this snake
> here. I'm not breaking no law."
>
> -- Charles Manson (Inmate B-33920)
> -- Model Parolee
> -- Two weeks before the murders
>
>****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
>* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
>* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charleton Heston
>****************** "Planet of the Apes"
>http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
Shit, and you talk about *my* sig file being long. . . . .??!!
Ian Harris
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 21:43:31 +0000, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
<des...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>So that means that 99% of Americans have *not* been offended by my
>postings. . .?
I believe you are capable of offending all nationalities. Anyway,
welcome back Desi, you provide well needed comic relief. Thanks !
Ian Harris
Desmond Coughlan
In article <3293B0...@clark.net>, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
>> The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
>> manufacturers.
>>
>> This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
>> November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
>>
>> All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
>> weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
>> back !!
> Sounds more like the newbie's 50 free AOL hours are up.
>
Don 'Megabrain' Kool strikes again!!
Only Don could look at a posting from someone whose e-mail address ends
in "demon.co.uk", and come to the conclusion that the poster has an aol
account. . .
Damn, I'm almost sorry that he's on my kill file. . .
--
Desmond Coughlan
Don Kool
> >> I know!! I know!! It's just that I can't help myself. . .!!!! One
> >> glimpse of that red, white and blue, and I just go all . . . wobbly!!
> > Desi, if your are ostensibly talking about France, you would
> >do better to refer to their colors as blue, white and red.
> Well, I just got my computer back, and before the kill file comes down
> to once block out the nonsense that you post, Don, let me assure you
> that red, white and blue, is exactly the same as blue, red and white. I
> know that you have trouble forming a cogent point, but hell! I didn't
> know that you couldn't read English without help. . . .
Desi; besides being nothing more than a common liar, you don't
seem to know very much about the world around you. It is American
convention to say "red, white and blue". French convention is to say
"blue, white and red". Seems like you need to work a little harder
on that "superior education" of yours, Jerkoff.
Hope this helps,
Don
Don Kool
Looks like Desi got another free AOL disk.
Don
Desi Coughlan wrote:
> Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
>
> >> The power supply for my PC is knackered, and so it has to go back to the
> >> manufacturers.
> >>
> >> This means that I shall not be able to post after tommorow (Tuesday 19
> >> November 1996) for a period of two weeks or so.
> >>
> >> All of you whose arguments I have ripped to shreds over the past few
> >> weeks, however, will not be able to rest easy for long, for I *shall* be
> >> back !!
> > Sounds more like the newbie's 50 free AOL hours are up.
> >
>
> Don 'Megabrain' Kool strikes again!!
>
> Only Don could look at a posting from someone whose e-mail address ends
> in "demon.co.uk", and come to the conclusion that the poster has an aol
> account. . .
>
> Damn, I'm almost sorry that he's on my kill file. . .
So it would appear.
Ian Harris
On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 16:24:42 -0500, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
(snip)
>Desi Coughlan wrote:
>> Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
>
> Desi; besides being nothing more than a common liar, you don't
>seem to know very much about the world around you. It is American
>convention to say "red, white and blue". French convention is to say
>"blue, white and red". Seems like you need to work a little harder
>on that "superior education" of yours, Jerkoff.
Perhaps his education is superior, it was just wasted on him.
Ian Harris
>
>
> Hope this helps,
> Don
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32a454ad...@news.alt.net>, Ian Harris <iha...@alt.net>
writes
>>
>> Desi; besides being nothing more than a common liar, you don't
>>seem to know very much about the world around you. It is American
>>convention to say "red, white and blue". French convention is to say
>>"blue, white and red". Seems like you need to work a little harder
>>on that "superior education" of yours, Jerkoff.
>
>Perhaps his education is superior, it was just wasted on him.
One of the joys of having Don 'Mad Dog' Kool in my kill file is that it
is only when other posters quote his inane garbage, that I get to . . .
'enjoy' seeing them fouling my hard drive.
For the benefit of all, I repeat that red, white and blue are exactly
the same as blue, white and red. If you disagree, answer me this
question: if five plus six makes eleven, doesn't six plus five *also*
make eleven?
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
" . . . the moral right to live does not depend on any laws. Moral rights
are . . . absolutes: they may not be infringed, however great the advantages
of doing so."
"Causing Death and Saving Lifes"
Jonathan Glover.
Ian Harris
>In article <32a454ad...@news.alt.net>, Ian Harris <iha...@alt.net>
>writes
>
>>Perhaps his education is superior, it was just wasted on him.
>
>One of the joys of having Don 'Mad Dog' Kool in my kill file is that it
>is only when other posters quote his inane garbage, that I get to . . .
>'enjoy' seeing them fouling my hard drive.
Admit it Desi, Don isn't really in your kill file. You'd have no one
to spar with if he was.
>
>For the benefit of all, I repeat that red, white and blue are exactly
>the same as blue, white and red. If you disagree, answer me this
>question: if five plus six makes eleven, doesn't six plus five *also*
>make eleven?
What kind of convoluted argument is this Desi ?
>
That damn French is getting you in trouble again. First your computer,
now .....
Ian Harris
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32a3b1c...@news.alt.net>, Ian Harris <iha...@alt.net>
writes
>>>Perhaps his education is superior, it was just wasted on him.
>>
>>One of the joys of having Don 'Mad Dog' Kool in my kill file is that it
>>is only when other posters quote his inane garbage, that I get to . . .
>>'enjoy' seeing them fouling my hard drive.
>
>Admit it Desi, Don isn't really in your kill file. You'd have no one
>to spar with if he was.
>
Oh, I assure you that he is there. When I download news messages, I see
"XX" next to his name, and only the header.
I don't mind sparring with anyone, even if they mix in a good proportion
of insults along with some serious argument. With Don 'Mad Dog' Kool,
however, he never presents any arguments: he just insults. I think that
his sole purpose on this newsgroup is to disrupt, and indeed, quite a
few people have e-mailed me privately to share this sentiment; even some
pro-death penalty posters.
>>
>>For the benefit of all, I repeat that red, white and blue are exactly
>>the same as blue, white and red. If you disagree, answer me this
>>question: if five plus six makes eleven, doesn't six plus five *also*
>>make eleven?
>
>What kind of convoluted argument is this Desi ?
>>
>
OK, what I'm trying to get across is that you can say 'red, white and
blue', and it's the same as 'blue, red and white', except that the order
is reversed. What Don 'Mad Dog' Kool probably thought that as the
colours of the French flag are blue, red and white (from left to right),
that it was incorrect to say the reverse. This shows how ludicrous he
and his postings really are.
I don't mind reading postings which quote him, in fact it's infinitely
preferable to having to read the inane cack which he posts on a regular
basis.
>That damn French is getting you in trouble again. First your computer,
>now .....
>
Ah ouais, mais allez, 'faut pas exagerer, non plus!!! :-)
--
Ian Harris
>>That damn French is getting you in trouble again. First your computer,
>>now .....
>>
>
>Ah ouais, mais allez, 'faut pas exagerer, non plus!!! :-)
>
No I'm not exaggerating Desi. Remember, forewarned is forearmed !
How is your Klingon ?
Ian Harris
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32a44ac7...@news.alt.net>, Ian Harris <iha...@alt.net>
writes
>
>
>>>That damn French is getting you in trouble again. First your computer,
>>>now .....
>>>
>>
>>Ah ouais, mais allez, 'faut pas exagerer, non plus!!! :-)
>>
>
>No I'm not exaggerating Desi. Remember, forewarned is forearmed !
>
;-)
I'm impressed, Ian!
>
>How is your Klingon ?
>
Last time I looked, the swelling was going down. ;-)
billy...@aol.com
>In article <32a44ac7...@news.alt.net>, Ian Harris <iha...@alt.net>
>writes
>>>>That damn French is getting you in trouble again. First your computer,
>>>>now .....
>>>Ah ouais, mais allez, 'faut pas exagerer, non plus!!! :-)
>>No I'm not exaggerating Desi. Remember, forewarned is forearmed !
>>;-)
>
>I'm impressed, Ian!
>
>>
>>How is your Klingon ?
>>
>
>Last time I looked, the swelling was going down. ;-)
Better take another look Des !
William Robert
Don Kool
> >> Desi; besides being nothing more than a common liar, you don't
> >>seem to know very much about the world around you. It is American
> >>convention to say "red, white and blue". French convention is to say
> >>"blue, white and red". Seems like you need to work a little harder
> >>on that "superior education" of yours, Jerkoff.
> >Perhaps his education is superior, it was just wasted on him.
> One of the joys of having Don 'Mad Dog' Kool in my kill file is that it
> is only when other posters quote his inane garbage, that I get to . . .
> 'enjoy' seeing them fouling my hard drive.
>
> For the benefit of all, I repeat that red, white and blue are exactly
> the same as blue, white and red. If you disagree, answer me this
> question: if five plus six makes eleven, doesn't six plus five *also*
> make eleven?
Leave it to an ignorant, uneducated ass like Desi to keep
digging himself deeper. While ignoring the fact that only a pathetic
liar would start whole threads to crow about "kill filing" someone and
then respond to post after post by that person, he still is too dense
to realize what a "convention" is. As Desi posted earlier today in
response to someone pointing out his ignorance of what countries
constituted "Europe";
"Except that . . . it's hard to explain to a non-European (no
slight intended there), but when we (as in, Western Europeans) say
"Europe" without qualifying the word, we normally mean countries in the
EU."
Apparently he didn't pay too much attention in Geography class
either because he's now got Scotland as part of Europe. Well, Desi,
when a Frenchman talks about the color of his flag, he says "blue,
white and red". American convention is to say "red, white and blue".
As your increasingly tiresome and off-topic postings to this newsgroup
show, you are much too dense to discern fine distinctions such as this.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Doug McDonald
Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
>Desi Coughlan wrote:
>> Don Kool <old...@clark.net> writes
>
>> >> I know!! I know!! It's just that I can't help myself. . .!!!! One
>> >> glimpse of that red, white and blue, and I just go all . . . wobbly!!
>
>> > Desi, if your are ostensibly talking about France, you would
>> >do better to refer to their colors as blue, white and red.
>
>> Well, I just got my computer back, and before the kill file comes down
>> to once block out the nonsense that you post, Don, let me assure you
>> that red, white and blue, is exactly the same as blue, red and white. I
>> know that you have trouble forming a cogent point, but hell! I didn't
>> know that you couldn't read English without help. . . .
>
> Desi; besides being nothing more than a common liar, you don't
>seem to know very much about the world around you. It is American
>convention to say "red, white and blue". French convention is to say
>"blue, white and red". Seems like you need to work a little harder
>on that "superior education" of yours, Jerkoff.
>
>
> Hope this helps,
> Don
Don,
Don't concern yourself with Desi. He thinks he knows ALL about France and
French. In reality he doesn't know merde.
Doug
<<<=============================================>>>
Doug McDonald * plus ca change
Glen Burnie, MD, USA * plus c'est
ami...@flash.net * la meme chose
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <19961203222...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
billy...@aol.com writes
>>>How is your Klingon ?
>>>
>>
>>Last time I looked, the swelling was going down. ;-)
>
>Better take another look Des !
>
Surely you're not *the* Billy Bobbit. . .? In which case, I shoudl
imagine that *you* would be the one advised to take another look. . .
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
http://www.maudit.demon.co.uk
"It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital
punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed
their kind."
George Bernard Shaw
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32a4ff8d...@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
<ami...@flash.net> writes
>
>Don't concern yourself with Desi. He thinks he knows ALL about France and
>French. In reality he doesn't know merde.
>
>Doug
>
Hi there, Doug: it's been a long time since you've been here to give us
a laugh at your expense.
Could you please repost the article in which I claimed to know all about
French or France? Thanks. When you've done that, we can discuss this.
><<<=============================================>>>
> Doug McDonald * plus ca change
> Glen Burnie, MD, USA * plus c'est
> ami...@flash.net * la meme chose
>
Oh 'plus ca change. . .', is it? I'm impressed!! What's next? How
about 'Le chat s'assied sur le tapis'?
See ya!!
Ian Harris
On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 19:00:31 -0500, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
{snip}
Don, from Desi's resume. Is this the reason he singled you out - name
association ?
September 1992 - March 1993:
Mc Donald's Restaurants, Murray Place, STIRLING FK8 2BX Scotland
Crewmember. My duties comprised cooking, washing, and dealing with
customers.
Reason for Leaving: Study Commitments.
Don Kool
> >>For the benefit of all, I repeat that red, white and blue are exactly
> >>the same as blue, white and red. If you disagree, answer me this
> >>question: if five plus six makes eleven, doesn't six plus five *also*
> >>make eleven?
> >What kind of convoluted argument is this Desi ?
> OK, what I'm trying to get across is that you can say 'red, white and
> blue', and it's the same as 'blue, red and white', except that the order
> is reversed. What Don 'Mad Dog' Kool probably thought that as the
> colours of the French flag are blue, red and white (from left to right),
> that it was incorrect to say the reverse. This shows how ludicrous he
> and his postings really are.
Actually, like your anti Death Penalty stance, it shows how
hopelessly sheltered, ignorant and naive you are. My posting merely
pointed
out the well known convention of how the colors are referred to in the
two countries. Your's reflects your well known ignorance of even
common knowledge. Put it this way; if you ever make it to France and
refer to their flag as being "red, white and blue", all the French
people
around will look at you like an asshole. In your case they would be
perfectly correct.
Hope this helps,
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32a5d4a5...@news.alt.net>, Ian Harris
<iha...@alt.net> writes
>On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 19:00:31 -0500, Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>Don, from Desi's resume. Is this the reason he singled you out - name
>association ?
>
>September 1992 - March 1993:
>Mc Donald's Restaurants, Murray Place, STIRLING FK8 2BX Scotland
>Crewmember. My duties comprised cooking, washing, and dealing with
>customers.
>Reason for Leaving: Study Commitments.
>
>> Happy to have cleared things up for you,
>>
>>****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
>>* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
>>* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charleton Heston
>>****************** "Planet of the Apes"
>>http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
>
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
>Don, from Desi's resume. Is this the reason he singled you out - name
>association ?
>
>September 1992 - March 1993:
>Mc Donald's Restaurants, Murray Place, STIRLING FK8 2BX Scotland
>Crewmember. My duties comprised cooking, washing, and dealing with
>customers.
>Reason for Leaving: Study Commitments.
No in fact, Ian, my time at Mc Donald's was great fun.
Singling Don 'Mad Dog' Kool out was due to his being an ignorant,
sexist, homophobic, redneck.
Don Kool
Desi Coughlan wrote (well actually didn't write anything just quoted
Ian):
> Ian Harris <iha...@alt.net> writes
> >Don Kool <old...@clark.net> wrote:
> >{snip}
> >Don, from Desi's resume. Is this the reason he singled you out - name
> >association ?
> >
> >September 1992 - March 1993:
> >Mc Donald's Restaurants, Murray Place, STIRLING FK8 2BX Scotland
> >Crewmember. My duties comprised cooking, washing, and dealing with
> >customers.
> >Reason for Leaving: Study Commitments.
Seems that Desi's "superior education" wasn't quite up to
Micky-D's standards. Well look at the bright side Desi; you held
a job for almost six months. That's several times as long as most
of the other anti Death Penalty posters. Perhaps one day, when your
education is up to snuff, you'll be able to reapply at McDonald's.
This time start a little lower and work your way up to dishwasher.
Maybe that way you'll last more than a few months.
Hope this helps,
Don Kool
> >Don't concern yourself with Desi. He thinks he knows ALL about France and
> >French. In reality he doesn't know merde.
> >
> >Doug
> Hi there, Doug: it's been a long time since you've been here to give us
> a laugh at your expense.
> Could you please repost the article in which I claimed to know all about
> French or France? Thanks. When you've done that, we can discuss this.
So now you're admitting that the "4 years" of French and your
claim of "fluency" on your "CV" are just more bullshit.
Don Kool
> >Don, from Desi's resume. Is this the reason he singled you out - name
> >association ?
> >
> >September 1992 - March 1993:
> >Mc Donald's Restaurants, Murray Place, STIRLING FK8 2BX Scotland
> >Crewmember. My duties comprised cooking, washing, and dealing with
> >customers.
> >Reason for Leaving: Study Commitments.
> No in fact, Ian, my time at Mc Donald's was great fun.
>
> Singling Don 'Mad Dog' Kool out was due to his being an ignorant,
Ludicrous on its face.
> sexist,
Wrong.
> homophobic,
Wrong, again.
> redneck.
Three strikes. You're out.
Well Desi, you're warped view of the world once again fails to
mesh with reality.
Don Kool
> >Don, from Desi's resume. Is this the reason he singled you out - name
> >association ?
> >
> >September 1992 - March 1993:
> >Mc Donald's Restaurants, Murray Place, STIRLING FK8 2BX Scotland
> >Crewmember. My duties comprised cooking, washing, and dealing with
> >customers.
> >Reason for Leaving: Study Commitments.
> No in fact, Ian, my time at Mc Donald's was great fun.
>
> Singling Don 'Mad Dog' Kool out was due to his being an ignorant,
Ludicrous on its face.
> sexist,
Wrong.
> homophobic,
Wrong, again.
> redneck.
Three strikes. You're out.
Well Desi, your warped view of the world once again fails to
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <5VmzdxAq...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, "Mr Desmond E.
Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <32a4ff8d...@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
><ami...@flash.net> writes
>
>>
>>Don't concern yourself with Desi. He thinks he knows ALL about France and
>>French. In reality he doesn't know merde.
>>
>Could you please repost the article in which I claimed to know all about
>French or France? Thanks. When you've done that, we can discuss this.
I'm still waiting, Doug.
Doug McDonald
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5VmzdxAq...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, "Mr Desmond E.
>Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>In article <32a4ff8d...@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
>><ami...@flash.net> writes
>>
>>>
>>>Don't concern yourself with Desi. He thinks he knows ALL about France and
>>>French. In reality he doesn't know merde.
>>>
>>Could you please repost the article in which I claimed to know all about
>>French or France? Thanks. When you've done that, we can discuss this.
>
>I'm still waiting, Doug.
And continue to wait you must, as I never stated that you posted an article in
which you claimed to know all about French or France. Although I cannot state
with certainty that you never posted such an article (as I have not read every
article in every newsgroup posted by you since you aquired Internet access);
what I posted was quite simply a deductive nomological explanation the root
cause of your pompous and arrogant posts regarding France, french culture, and
french language.
To suggest that my (general) comment was drawn from a (specific) singular post
is just an attempt, by you, to have me defend it according to your terms.
Re-read your own posts regarding all thing French if you are still uncertain of
the thread of arrogance that connects them. I don't save 'em. A few short
years spent in France does not you a scholar make.
Pauvre Desi; il glisse, il tombe, il pleure.
Doug.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32af801a...@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
<ami...@flash.net> writes
>>>Could you please repost the article in which I claimed to know all about
>>>French or France? Thanks. When you've done that, we can discuss this.
>>
>>I'm still waiting, Doug.
>
>And continue to wait you must, as I never stated that you posted an article in
>which you claimed to know all about French or France.
Oh really, Doug? So you mean that when you posted the following. . .
>
>Don't concern yourself with Desi. He thinks he knows ALL about France and
>French.
on Wednesday 4 December 1996, you were just doing what comes naturally:
talking shit?
As usual.
>Although I cannot state
>with certainty that you never posted such an article (as I have not read every
>article in every newsgroup posted by you since you aquired Internet access);
>what I posted was quite simply a deductive nomological explanation the root
>cause of your pompous and arrogant posts regarding France, french culture, and
>french language.
>
Well first of all, let me assure you that I haven't posted anything like
that. To do so would be to invite ridicule, as anyone with three brain
cells could very easily ask me any question about France, and it's
possible that I wouldn't be able to answer it.
What I *have* posted is that I have a deep love for French language and
culture, and that my time living there was very rewarding, both
culturally and linguistically.
>
>Pauvre Desi; il glisse, il tombe, il pleure.
>
Pauvre Doug: il se branle; il se fait enculer, c'est un trepan
extraordinaire!!
;-)
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
Doug McDonald
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <32af801a...@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
><ami...@flash.net> writes
>
>>>>Could you please repost the article in which I claimed to know all about
>>>>French or France? Thanks. When you've done that, we can discuss this.
>>>
>>>I'm still waiting, Doug.
>>
>>And continue to wait you must, as I never stated that you posted an article in
>>which you claimed to know all about French or France.
>
>Oh really, Doug? So you mean that when you posted the following. . .
>
>>
>>Don't concern yourself with Desi. He thinks he knows ALL about France and
>>French.
>
>on Wednesday 4 December 1996, you were just doing what comes naturally:
>talking shit?
>
>As usual.
No, Desi; to put it more bluntly, what I was saying was that you present
yourself as a "know-it-all" in relation to France and french language. I am
fully aware that you don't "know it all", however, in the bulk of your posts
with regard to these matters your portentious and superior attitude is quite
clear.
If you mean to infer in your "talking shit" comment that my December 4 post does
indeed accuse you of posting such an article; I must say that you've failed to
convince me. As eloquently and well thought out stated as it may be, it does
little to further your (rather contrived) argument.
Let me break it down to the basics, so that maybe even you might be able to
understand:
" He thinks he knows ALL about France and French." = "You claim I posted an
article in which I claimed to know all about French or France."
( Let's shorthand this equation as: "A" = "B") [your assertion in your response
to my post]
Well the problem is that "A" is merely a well thought out assesment of an
individual's state of mind with regard to a particular topic, gleaned from the
information directly presented by that individual; whereas "B" is a statement
of concrete fact. (You say I wrote "X", produce "X")
One is an individual's "viewpoint" the other is something that either happened
or didn't happen. Do you see the difference?
It would be like saying:
"The job was no longer a challenge, and I felt that my abilities would be better
stretched elsewhere." = "I got fired."
In this instance "A" is a "viewpoint"; "B" is a fact.
Simple, really.
>
>>Although I cannot state
>>with certainty that you never posted such an article (as I have not read every
>>article in every newsgroup posted by you since you aquired Internet access);
>>what I posted was quite simply a deductive nomological explanation of the root
>>cause of your pompous and arrogant posts regarding France, french culture, and
>>french language.
Above is my clear-as-crystal explanation to you that I never accused you of
posting such a statement. Guess it went right over your "high brows".
Below is your defense of a point I did not make. (I believe this is known as
"constructing a strawman" in logical disciplines.)
>>
>
>Well first of all, let me assure you that I haven't posted anything like
>that. To do so would be to invite ridicule,
You are certainly no stranger to this, Desi.
> as anyone with three brain
>cells could very easily ask me any question about France, and it's
>possible that I wouldn't be able to answer it.
>
>What I *have* posted is that I have a deep love for French language and
>culture, and that my time living there was very rewarding, both
>culturally and linguistically.
Pardon me, Des; but how was this experience "rewarding" for you
"linguistically"? Perhaps it is you English that needs work.
>
>>
>>Pauvre Desi; il glisse, il tombe, il pleure.
>>
>
>Pauvre Doug: il se branle; il se fait enculer, c'est un trepan
>extraordinaire!!
If it is boorish behavior you seek, just re-read your posts regarding French and
France as per my original suggestion.
Pauvre, Desi; vous ne prendre pas le dessus. Vous ne trouvez pas mal que je
corrige vos fautes? N'est-ce pas? D'accord!
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32b20d6e....@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
<ami...@flash.net> writes
[snip]
>>on Wednesday 4 December 1996, you were just doing what comes naturally:
>>talking shit?
>>
>>As usual.
>
>No, Desi; to put it more bluntly, what I was saying was that you present
>yourself as a "know-it-all" in relation to France and french language.
Oh, right! So although I have at no time posted any article in which I
claimed to know everything about France and French, you *know* it all
the same?
I mentioned this to another poster: as you obviously have telepathic
ability, could I have the lottery numbers for next week?
>I am
>fully aware that you don't "know it all", however, in the bulk of your posts
>with regard to these matters your portentious and superior attitude is quite
>clear.
>
Er, the word is 'portentous', idiot, and the context in which you've
just used it is erroneous.
>If you mean to infer in your "talking shit" comment that my December 4 post
>does
>indeed accuse you of posting such an article; I must say that you've failed to
>convince me. As eloquently and well thought out stated as it may be, it does
>little to further your (rather contrived) argument.
>
Now go and look up the meaning of 'infer'. It is *not* a synonym for
'imply'!
[snip]
>Simple, really.
>
Yes, you are, aren't you?
[snip]
>>Well first of all, let me assure you that I haven't posted anything like
>>that. To do so would be to invite ridicule,
>
>You are certainly no stranger to this, Desi.
Reading your postings makes us *all* familiar with it. . .
>
>> as anyone with three brain
>>cells could very easily ask me any question about France, and it's
>>possible that I wouldn't be able to answer it.
>>
>>What I *have* posted is that I have a deep love for French language and
>>culture, and that my time living there was very rewarding, both
>>culturally and linguistically.
>
>Pardon me, Des; but how was this experience "rewarding" for you
>"linguistically"? Perhaps it is you English that needs work.
<laugh> I love it!! Someone who corrects *my* spelling, whilst writing
'. . . *you* English that needs. . .'
Brilliant!!
>Pauvre, Desi; vous ne prendre pas le dessus. Vous ne trouvez pas mal que je
>corrige vos fautes? N'est-ce pas? D'accord!
>
Er, Doug. . . if you plan to spar with me in French, could you go and
look up the correct form of the verb to agree with 'vous'. . .?
'Vous perdez' might look better, coming from someone who uses French in
his sig.
Try this one. . .
'Une fois que tu arrives a corriger une de mes fautes, alors la, je
boufferai mon chapeau! T'es vraiment con, tu le sais?'
I have ommitted the accents there, in case someone reads this with non
MIME-compliant software.
My French is not perfect, Doug, but it's a damn sight better than your
English!
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
Doug McDonald
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <32b20d6e....@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
><ami...@flash.net> writes
>
>[snip]
>
>>>on Wednesday 4 December 1996, you were just doing what comes naturally:
>>>talking shit?
>>>
>>>As usual.
>>
>>No, Desi; to put it more bluntly, what I was saying was that you present
>>yourself as a "know-it-all" in relation to France and french language.
>
>Oh, right! So although I have at no time posted any article in which I
>claimed to know everything about France and French, you *know* it all
>the same?
Oh, right! Again, you seek to misdirect. (I say "You present yourself..." you
say "I have at no time posted..." These are not the same thing. <sigh>) As I
have indicated on two separate occasions, I said that a thread of arrogance
concerning this subject matter runs through your posts. NOT that you literally
claimed to know it all in so many words. If you can't argue against that, just
leave it alone - attempting to change my argument in an effort to make it weaker
simply explains why experience with logical arguments is not in your CV.
>
>I mentioned this to another poster: as you obviously have telepathic
>ability, could I have the lottery numbers for next week?
Just as it is not difficult to infer from your posts a certain facination on
your part with France and french language, your arrogance and superior attitude
with regard to this topic is equally as evident. No telepathy required. Try
again. But keep skirting the issue if you must, you are nothing if not amusing.
>
>>I am
>>fully aware that you don't "know it all", however, in the bulk of your posts
>>with regard to these matters your portentious and superior attitude is quite
>>clear.
>>
>
>Er, the word is 'portentous', idiot, and the context in which you've
>just used it is erroneous.
Wow, pointing out a typo; how adult (and pedantic) of you.
portentous: adj. Marked by pompousness; pretentiousness.
eroneous: adj. Containing or derived from error; mistaken; false.
And perhaps this will help:
comprehension: n. The act or capacity for understanding.
Please, in the future try to read with some.
>
>>If you mean to infer in your "talking shit" comment that my December 4 post
>>does
>>indeed accuse you of posting such an article; I must say that you've failed to
>>convince me. As eloquently and well thought out stated as it may be, it does
>>little to further your (rather contrived) argument.
>>
>
>Now go and look up the meaning of 'infer'. It is *not* a synonym for
>'imply'!
>
>
Wow pointing out a gerammatical error. I meant to say "If you mean [for me] to
infer..." Does this type of miniscule mistake really make it that difficult for
you to understand? Hard to believe that you have much schooling beyond grade
school if something so inconsequential throws you for such a loop. Then again,
maybe it is just easier for you to reply with a flame rather than a cogent
argument. (As evidenced by your failure to post any.)
[snip]
>
>>Simple, really.
>>
>
>Yes, you are, aren't you?
>
<yawn> ...continue flaming if you have nothing to say, little man. It might
make you feel even more important if you print out your witless comments and
show them to your "friend[s]".
>[snip]
>
>>>Well first of all, let me assure you that I haven't posted anything like
>>>that. To do so would be to invite ridicule,
>>
>>You are certainly no stranger to this, Desi.
>
>Reading your postings makes us *all* familiar with it. . .
Maybe you need to look up "ridicule", Des.
>
>>
>>> as anyone with three brain
>>>cells could very easily ask me any question about France, and it's
>>>possible that I wouldn't be able to answer it.
>>>
>>>What I *have* posted is that I have a deep love for French language and
>>>culture, and that my time living there was very rewarding, both
>>>culturally and linguistically.
>>
>>Pardon me, Des; but how was this experience "rewarding" for you
>>"linguistically"? Perhaps it is you English that needs work.
>
><laugh> I love it!! Someone who corrects *my* spelling, whilst writing
>'. . . *you* English that needs. . .'
Wow, another typo flame. You're so cool, Des. Perhaps I should run a spell
check on my posts so that you'll be able to understand them in the
future.......then again, it probably wouldn't help you anyway. Maybe asking you
to look up the words "spelling" and "linguistically" would be better advice;
after having done that you'll notice that I was not correcting your "spelling";
just your lack of ability to read with c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n.
>
>Brilliant!!
(failed attempt at sarcasm, I guess?)
>
>>Pauvre, Desi; vous ne prendre pas le dessus. Vous ne trouvez pas mal que je
>>corrige vos fautes? N'est-ce pas? D'accord!
>>
>
>Er, Doug. . . if you plan to spar with me in French, could you go and
>look up the correct form of the verb to agree with 'vous'. . .?
"Spar" with you? quelle, drole.
The infinitive form of the verb "to take" IS the correct usage; take a class.
>
>'Vous perdez' might look better, coming from someone who uses French in
>his sig.
>
>Try this one. .
My signature is a quote. (Alphonse Karr, from Les Guepes/Les Femmes). The fact
that it is in french really is of no importance to me. It seems to facinate
you, however. God knows why.
(BTW, while you are on the subject, your capitalization of the word "French" in
the above is gramatically incorrect. HTH.)
>
>'Une fois que tu arrives a corriger une de mes fautes, alors la, je
>boufferai mon chapeau! T'es vraiment con, tu le sais?'
>
Putain d'egotiste. <baillement>
Oh, and BTW you really shouldn't respond in the familiar when addressed in the
formal tense.
>I have ommitted the accents there, in case someone reads this with non
>MIME-compliant software.
OF COURSE you didn't put in the accents. It's a given. Do you see what an ass
you are for even typing the above? Do you think that someone is going to read
this and think that you FORGOT the accents?
>
>My French is not perfect, Doug,
I'll say.
> but it's a damn sight better than your
>English!
Dream on. Typing in the context of a Usenet newsgroup is oft times littered
with misssssspelled (Oops, there's one; have at it, Des.) words and typos. One
can only hope that with a little more experience, you will learn that these
things don't matter. Then again, I doubt it. The idea is to convey a thought;
try it sometime.
>--
Example:
"Nwo is the tme for al good men two come too the aid of there country."
is equally as acceptable as:
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."
in THIS context, because both can be read with comprehension. (You remember
"comprehension", don't you? If not, just scroll to the begining of this post.)
One last word you would do well to add to your vocabulary list is "Netequitte".
Looking that one up might also encourage you to stop with these (clearly) off
topic posts. This is not the place for you to try to learn french. Hint: Go
to a group that has the word "french" in the title. If you are in need of
further assistance you may e-mail me and I will make arrangements to tutor you.
Always glad to offer assistance to those in need,
Andy Chaplin
In article <32b74c69...@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
<ami...@flash.net> writes
>"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <32b20d6e....@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
>><ami...@flash.net> writes
<snip>
Hi there Doug,
I don't wish to come between you two bickering, but it does seem to me
that if you wish to complain about Des criticising your grammar and
spelling, it would be a smart move to check your own post really
thoroughly. It might make you look as smart as you claim to be. (BTW a
spell checker won't pick up the difference between *you* and *your*.
You'll need to proof read it, rather than rely on technology.)
Anyway, back to the DP group.
Best Wishes
--
Andy Chaplin
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
I just *had* to respond to this one !!!!! :-))) I caution all of you
that this is a flame war you're entering. There is nothing in here
about the death penalty, so if you *do* enter, don't start complaining
that it's 'off-topic', because it is. Outrageously so. However, if you
want to see Doug McDonald being savaged for his stupidity, then read on
. . . . . . .
In article <32b74c69...@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
<ami...@flash.net> writes
[snip]
>>Oh, right! So although I have at no time posted any article in which I
>>claimed to know everything about France and French, you *know* it all
>>the same?
>
>Oh, right! Again, you seek to misdirect. (I say "You present yourself..."
>you
>say "I have at no time posted..." These are not the same thing. <sigh>) As
>I
>have indicated on two separate occasions, I said that a thread of arrogance
>concerning this subject matter runs through your posts. NOT that you literally
>claimed to know it all in so many words. If you can't argue against that, just
>leave it alone - attempting to change my argument in an effort to make it
>weaker
>simply explains why experience with logical arguments is not in your CV.
>
Dress it up anyway you like, Doug, but the fact remains that you were
accusing me of having thoughts or aims which I had never vocalized.
Either you were doing this because you're psychic, or because you saw it
as an excuse for a cheap shot at my education. Either way, it's fine by
me, but if you *are* going to go for the latter option, then at least
get your *own* postings in order. What follows below will show that you
have a long way to go . . .
>>
>>I mentioned this to another poster: as you obviously have telepathic
>>ability, could I have the lottery numbers for next week?
>
>Just as it is not difficult to infer from your posts a certain facination on
>your part with France and french language, your arrogance and superior attitude
>with regard to this topic is equally as evident. No telepathy required. Try
>again. But keep skirting the issue if you must, you are nothing if not
>amusing.
>
'Skirting the issue', Doug? Why, whatever do you mean? I *am*
fascinated by France and French, but I *normally* leave that out of this
newsgroup, unless it becomes pertinent in some way to the discussion.
>>
>>>I am
>>>fully aware that you don't "know it all", however, in the bulk of your posts
>>>with regard to these matters your portentious and superior attitude is
>quite
>>>clear.
>>>
>>
>>Er, the word is 'portentous', idiot, and the context in which you've
>>just used it is erroneous.
>
>Wow, pointing out a typo; how adult (and pedantic) of you.
>
>portentous: adj. Marked by pompousness; pretentiousness.
>
>eroneous: adj. Containing or derived from error; mistaken; false.
>
Not bad, not bad. However, the mispelling of the words 'portentous',
and 'portentious' is well known (p 123 'Oxford Guide to English Usage',
Oxford University Press 1993). So it wasn't a typo, but an attempt on
your part to appear intelligent and erudite. Failed.
Incidentally, I wouldn't normally point this out, as it *may* be a typo,
but if you're going to be quoting from a dictionary (and with all the
'adj' bits above, I assume that you are), try putting two 'n's in
'erroneous'.
[snip]
>
><yawn> ...continue flaming if you have nothing to say, little man. It might
>make you feel even more important if you print out your witless comments and
>show them to your "friend[s]".
>
Yeah, right. Ever won any prizes for debating? No, didn't think so.
[snip]
>><laugh> I love it!! Someone who corrects *my* spelling, whilst writing
>>'. . . *you* English that needs. . .'
>
>Wow, another typo flame. You're so cool, Des. Perhaps I should run a spell
>check on my posts so that you'll be able to understand them in the
>future.......then again, it probably wouldn't help you anyway. Maybe asking
>you
>to look up the words "spelling" and "linguistically" would be better advice;
>after having done that you'll notice that I was not correcting your "spelling";
>just your lack of ability to read with c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n.
>
<laugh>
Very good, Doug: so you correct *my* English, whilst littering your own
postings with various grammatical, spelling, and typographical errors.
>>
>>Brilliant!!
>
>(failed attempt at sarcasm, I guess?)
>
It couldn't have failed it you detected it. . . :-)
>>
>>>Pauvre, Desi; vous ne prendre pas le dessus. Vous ne trouvez pas mal que je
>>>corrige vos fautes? N'est-ce pas? D'accord!
>>>
>>
>>Er, Doug. . . if you plan to spar with me in French, could you go and
>>look up the correct form of the verb to agree with 'vous'. . .?
>
>"Spar" with you? quelle, drole.
>The infinitive form of the verb "to take" IS the correct usage; take a class.
>
<LAUGH!!!!!>
Awesome!!!
I've heard it all now!!! The infinitive form of a verb following the
pronoun 'Vous' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For those of you who don't speak French, what Doug wrote above
(paraphrasing) was 'You to take not the upper hand. . .'
Doug, you're out of your depth here. . . The word 'vous' in regular
verbs is always followed (in the present indicative, at least) by the
form ending in '-ez'.
For example, 'Vous vous branlez.' Or 'Vous vous masturbez.'
Oh, and Doug, before I go onto futher ridicule you, don't waste
bandwidth by telling me that I wrote 'vous' twice there: this is correct
in pronominal verbs.
Incidentally, the word 'drole' is masculine, and so the correct form
would be 'quel drole'.
Now. . . .
>>
>>'Vous perdez' might look better, coming from someone who uses French in
>>his sig.
>>
>>Try this one. .
>
>My signature is a quote. (Alphonse Karr, from Les Guepes/Les Femmes). The
>fact
>that it is in french really is of no importance to me. It seems to facinate
>you, however. God knows why.
>
>(BTW, while you are on the subject, your capitalization of the word "French" in
>the above is gramatically incorrect. HTH.)
>
I can't find any part where I've used incorrect capitalization. . . If
you mean the word 'French' in English, then adjectives of nationality
*do* take a capital letter in English. In French, they don't usually,
but can if one uses them as a noun, rather than as an adjective.
Example:
Je suis americain.
Je suis un Americain.
Follow?
>>
>>'Une fois que tu arrives a corriger une de mes fautes, alors la, je
>>boufferai mon chapeau! T'es vraiment con, tu le sais?'
>>
>
>Putain d'egotiste. <baillement>
Bien, bien!! T'as ton dico a cote, hein? Ou peut-etre qu'il y a un
pote qui te donne toutes ces expressions que tu ne comprends meme pas!!
>Oh, and BTW you really shouldn't respond in the familiar when addressed in the
>formal tense.
>
Using the 'tu' form to someone in French whom one does not know, is a
well known form of insulting them.
It reminds me of when I was driving through Strasbourg in July of this
year. I cut in front of another driver (<sigh> Yes, it *was* my fault.
. .), and he started yelling abuse at me. I wound down the window and
yelled:
'Allez, 'fait pas chier, encule!! Va niquer ta mere!!'
*NOT* very polite, but my passenger (A German friend whom I was
visiting) was trying to get as low in the passenger seat as possible!!
Ah, happy days. . . . :-)
>>I have ommitted the accents there, in case someone reads this with non
>>MIME-compliant software.
>
>OF COURSE you didn't put in the accents. It's a given. Do you see what an
>ass
>you are for even typing the above? Do you think that someone is going to read
>this and think that you FORGOT the accents?
>
This was designed for idiots like you. As you have made a name for
yourself among others in this newsgroup for not forwarding any arguments
of substance, I was 'insuring' myself against your whining 'Dezzie!!
You missed an accent!!' Or as you would try to say it in French:
'Dezzie!! Vous ne mettre pas les accents!!" (You to put not the
accents!!)
>>
>>My French is not perfect, Doug,
>
>I'll say.
>
>
How the fuck would you know, intellectual dwarf?!?
[snip]
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
Don Kool
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan wrote:
>
> I just *had* to respond to this one !!!!! :-))) I caution all of you
> that this is a flame war you're entering. There is nothing in here
> about the death penalty, so if you *do* enter, don't start complaining
> that it's 'off-topic', because it is. Outrageously so. However, if you
> want to see Doug McDonald being savaged for his stupidity, then read on
> . . . . . . .
[...snip....]
And yet shamelessly, and cluelessly, the newbie refuses to
take it to e-mail where it belongs. Ego pure and simple. Funny
though because most egos are fed by posts where they look good, not
by where they are bettered by my twin brother. As we all knew, the
anti Death Penalty cabal are adept at rationalization.
Hope this helps,
Don
****************** Get your stinking paws off me,
* Don McDonald * You damned, dirty ape !
* Baltimore, MD * ---- Charlton Heston
Doug McDonald
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I just *had* to respond to this one !!!!! :-))) I caution all of you
>that this is a flame war you're entering. There is nothing in here
>about the death penalty, so if you *do* enter, don't start complaining
>that it's 'off-topic', because it is. Outrageously so. However, if you
>want to see Doug McDonald being savaged for his stupidity, then read on
>. . . . . . .
>
Not a "flame war", Des. Just a simple correction of your misguided attempts to
seem well versed in a topic that you (obviously) know little about.
>In article <32b74c69...@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
><ami...@flash.net> writes
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Oh, right! So although I have at no time posted any article in which I
>>>claimed to know everything about France and French, you *know* it all
>>>the same?
>>
>>Oh, right! Again, you seek to misdirect. (I say "You present yourself..."
>>you
>>say "I have at no time posted..." These are not the same thing. <sigh>) As
>>I
>>have indicated on two separate occasions, I said that a thread of arrogance
>>concerning this subject matter runs through your posts. NOT that you literally
>>claimed to know it all in so many words. If you can't argue against that, just
>>leave it alone - attempting to change my argument in an effort to make it
>>weaker
>>simply explains why experience with logical arguments is not in your CV.
>>
>
>Dress it up anyway you like, Doug, but the fact remains that you were
>accusing me of having thoughts or aims which I had never vocalized.
"Dress it up", ROFL. Is this an attempt by you to "debate" by playing stupid?
While it is easy to believe the stupid part, it does little to advance your
"arguments".
>Either you were doing this because you're psychic, or because you saw it
>as an excuse for a cheap shot at my education.
Your "education" remains a miniscule target. Maybe if you went out and got one
there would be something at which to aim.
> Either way, it's fine by
>me, but if you *are* going to go for the latter option, then at least
>get your *own* postings in order. What follows below will show that you
>have a long way to go . . .
>
>>>
>>>I mentioned this to another poster: as you obviously have telepathic
>>>ability, could I have the lottery numbers for next week?
Since this is obviously so important to you; "as you obviously have telepathic
ability, could I have the lottery numbers for next week?" should have been
quoted (by you) since it refers to something you posted earlier. :-(
>>
>>Just as it is not difficult to infer from your posts a certain facination on
>>your part with France and french language, your arrogance and superior attitude
>>with regard to this topic is equally as evident. No telepathy required. Try
>>again. But keep skirting the issue if you must, you are nothing if not
>>amusing.
>>
>
>'Skirting the issue', Doug? Why, whatever do you mean? I *am*
>fascinated by France and French, but I *normally* leave that out of this
>newsgroup, unless it becomes pertinent in some way to the discussion.
Perhaps you really are this obtuse, but I somehow doubt anyone could be; "issue"
in the above refers to "your arrogance", not your facination with France and
french culture and / or language.Your facination with France is your own
business. Your "facination" with the french language is just pathetic. I
should think that one who is "facinated" by something would take the time to
study the object of that facination. You, sir; obviously have not. I guess
you're too busy spell-checking. BTW, being able to sing the Big Mac song in
french does not you a scholar make.
>
>>>
>>>>I am
>>>>fully aware that you don't "know it all", however, in the bulk of your posts
>>>>with regard to these matters your portentious and superior attitude is
>>quite
>>>>clear.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Er, the word is 'portentous', idiot, and the context in which you've
>>>just used it is erroneous.
>>
>>Wow, pointing out a typo; how adult (and pedantic) of you.
>>
>>portentous: adj. Marked by pompousness; pretentiousness.
>>
>>eroneous: adj. Containing or derived from error; mistaken; false.
>>
>
>Not bad, not bad. However, the mispelling of the words 'portentous',
>and 'portentious' is well known (p 123 'Oxford Guide to English Usage',
>Oxford University Press 1993). So it wasn't a typo, but an attempt on
>your part to appear intelligent and erudite. Failed.
Maybe you need to look up "pedantic" as well.
>
>Incidentally, I wouldn't normally point this out,
Oh, come on! You live your little life for this. What's sad is that you fall
for EVERY bone tossed your way.
>as it *may* be a typo,
>but if you're going to be quoting from a dictionary (and with all the
>'adj' bits above, I assume that you are), try putting two 'n's in
>'erroneous'.
Sorry, Des; you missed. There are two 'r's in "erroneous"; not "two 'n's".
That was a freebie, I'm suprised you screwed it up. Missed your big chance.
How sad for you. Boy do you look like an ass. After going to the trouble of
correcting a typo ( a clewless newbie [TM Don Kool] undertaking if there ever
was one ) you reveal that you don't know how to spell. I'll forgive ya'; after
all it "...*may* be a typo..." on your part.
You'll learn that there are degrees of importance in everything when you grow
out of your breeches and into your long pants. If I drop a letter here or add a
letter there it doesn't bother me; why are you so obcessed with spelling all of
a sudden. It's a newsgroup, not a thesis - get over it.
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>><yawn> ...continue flaming if you have nothing to say, little man. It might
>>make you feel even more important if you print out your witless comments and
>>show them to your "friend[s]".
>>
>
>Yeah, right. Ever won any prizes for debating? No, didn't think so.
Actually, yes. :-)
>
>[snip]
>
>>><laugh> I love it!! Someone who corrects *my* spelling, whilst writing
>>>'. . . *you* English that needs. . .'
>>
>>Wow, another typo flame. You're so cool, Des. Perhaps I should run a spell
>>check on my posts so that you'll be able to understand them in the
>>future.......then again, it probably wouldn't help you anyway. Maybe asking
>>you
>>to look up the words "spelling" and "linguistically" would be better advice;
>>after having done that you'll notice that I was not correcting your "spelling";
>>just your lack of ability to read with c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n.
>>
>
><laugh>
>
>Very good, Doug: so you correct *my* English, whilst littering your own
>postings with various grammatical, spelling, and typographical errors.
>
>>>
>>>Brilliant!!
>>
>>(failed attempt at sarcasm, I guess?)
>>
>
>It couldn't have failed it you detected it. . . :-)
Because it was "detected" doesn't mean it was "funny". Don't quit your day job.
>
>>>
>>>>Pauvre, Desi; vous ne prendre pas le dessus. Vous ne trouvez pas mal que je
>>>>corrige vos fautes? N'est-ce pas? D'accord!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Er, Doug. . . if you plan to spar with me in French, could you go and
>>>look up the correct form of the verb to agree with 'vous'. . .?
>>
>>"Spar" with you? quelle, drole.
>>The infinitive form of the verb "to take" IS the correct usage; take a class.
>>
>
><LAUGH!!!!!>
>
>Awesome!!!
>
>I've heard it all now!!! The infinitive form of a verb following the
>pronoun 'Vous' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>For those of you who don't speak French, what Doug wrote above
>(paraphrasing) was 'You to take not the upper hand. . .'
Another couple of words to add to your vocabulary list:
"translate"
"transliterate"
"paraphrasing"
"For those of you who don't speak [f]rench", what I wrote above should have been
(by anyone well-versed in the language) translated (not transliterated) as "You
will never hold the upper hand." Sorry you missed the more advanced form, I'll
try to be more basic with you in the future. And I thought you knew your
stuff.....Ha, what a joke you are.
>
>Doug, you're out of your depth here. . . The word 'vous' in regular
>verbs is always followed (in the present indicative, at least) by the
>form ending in '-ez'.
>
>For example, 'Vous vous branlez.' Or 'Vous vous masturbez.'
"Always" I guess as in "Vous dites...". Vous voulez rire! (Oops, I used "to
laugh" in the infinitive tense; is that a "faux pas" as well, Des; Oh master of
all things french?)
>
>Oh, and Doug, before I go onto futher ridicule you, don't waste
>bandwidth by telling me that I wrote 'vous' twice there: this is correct
>in pronominal verbs.
Sorry to dissapoint you, Des; but I am well-aquainted with les verbes
pronominaux. Sadly it is you that is desperately in need of lessons. You poor
wanna'-be. I feel sorry for you.
>
>
>Incidentally, the word 'drole' is masculine, and so the correct form
>would be 'quel drole'.
When I say it to a man, I'll put it in the masculine form. Until
then........... (Subtlety, it just always seems to elude you, "Pauvre, Desi")
>
>Now. . . .
>
>>>
>>>'Vous perdez' might look better, coming from someone who uses French in
>>>his sig.
>>>
>>>Try this one. .
>>
>>My signature is a quote. (Alphonse Karr, from Les Guepes/Les Femmes). The
>>fact
>>that it is in french really is of no importance to me. It seems to facinate
>>you, however. God knows why.
>>
>>(BTW, while you are on the subject, your capitalization of the word "French" in
>>the above is gramatically incorrect. HTH.)
>>
>
>I can't find any part where I've used incorrect capitalization. . .
Sad thing is....I believe this.
> If
>you mean the word 'French' in English,
Ya' know, the rest of the sentence was in english; so I'd have to say that Yes,
I read it as an english sentence. Duh.
> then adjectives of nationality
"adjectives of nationality" ???
>*do* take a capital letter in English. In French, they don't usually,
>but can if one uses them as a noun, rather than as an adjective.
In "French language" the word "French" is used as an adjective modifying the
noun "language", therefore it should not have been capitalized. Just as in
"...*do* take a capital letter in English. In French...", neither "French" nor
"English" should have been capitalized, as one must assume you are referring to
the french language and the english language, "language" being inferred from the
context.
Quelle dol. (In case there is any doubt; YES I know that "dol" is masculine.
<yawn>)
>
>Example:
>
>Je suis americain.
>
"I am american"; correct usage, very good.
>Je suis un Americain.
"I am an American"; now you're getting it. Too bad the capitalization issue
confuses you so in the English [sic] language.
>
>Follow?
I hope you are following; but I'll provide you with the following example, just
to make sure:
When one describes something as "English" it means "from Great Britain" (or
"from England", to break it down for you). Various examples of this might
include "English tea", "English ship", or "English language". So you wouldn't
say "English language" (or "English" as in "English language) when referring to
the "english language". You see, english is spoken in other countries as well.
Just as french is spoken in countries other than France. Let me know if you
need further tutoring and I will e-mail you a study guide.
>
>>>
>>>'Une fois que tu arrives a corriger une de mes fautes, alors la, je
>>>boufferai mon chapeau! T'es vraiment con, tu le sais?'
>>>
>>
>>Putain d'egotiste. <baillement>
>
>Bien, bien!!
I thought so. ;-)
>T'as ton dico a cote, hein? Ou peut-etre qu'il y a un
>pote qui te donne toutes ces expressions que tu ne comprends meme pas!!
I don't need my "dico", moche. Besides I have yet to see a french-english
dictionary that contains the word "fuck". Maybe you could lend me the one you
use for all of your trite little phrases and first-year attempts at speaking the
language.
>
>>Oh, and BTW you really shouldn't respond in the familiar when addressed in the
>>formal tense.
>>
>
>Using the 'tu' form to someone in French whom one does not know, is a
>well known form of insulting them.
Oops, I mistook it for your (usual) (demonstrated) (blatant) (obvious)
(embarrassing) (juvenile) unfamilarity with the language. Heaven Forbid! At
least correcting you in this way is not as bad as writing an entire post
concerning typos. I'd shoot myself if I ever got that anal.
>
>It reminds me of when I was driving through Strasbourg in July of this
>year. I cut in front of another driver (<sigh> Yes, it *was* my fault.
>. .), and he started yelling abuse at me. I wound down the window and
>yelled:
>
>'Allez, 'fait pas chier, encule!! Va niquer ta mere!!'
>
>*NOT* very polite, but my passenger (A German friend whom I was
>visiting) was trying to get as low in the passenger seat as possible!!
>
>Ah, happy days. . . . :-)
A German impressed with french...there's a hoot. What happened after that; did
your German buddy "raid [your] Normandie" Oh la la!
>
>>>I have ommitted the accents there, in case someone reads this with non
>>>MIME-compliant software.
>>
>>OF COURSE you didn't put in the accents. It's a given. Do you see what an
>>ass
>>you are for even typing the above? Do you think that someone is going to read
>>this and think that you FORGOT the accents?
>>
>
>This was designed for idiots like you. As you have made a name for
>yourself among others in this newsgroup for not forwarding any arguments
>of substance, I was 'insuring' myself against your whining 'Dezzie!!
>You missed an accent!!' Or as you would try to say it in French:
>
>'Dezzie!! Vous ne mettre pas les accents!!" (You to put not the
>accents!!)
Well, I can see that you've learned how to transliterate the "French [sic]
language", too bad that it requires a deeper understanding to "translate" it
into "English" [sic].
>
>>>
>>>My French is not perfect, Doug,
>>
>>I'll say.
>>
>>
>
>How the fuck would you know, intellectual dwarf?!?
Well......if you've got no arguments I guess a foul mouth is a fair substitute.
Maybe jumping up and down and holding your breath will further advance your
cause. I'm sure that you are well aquainted with these "debating tactics".
>
>[snip]
>
BTW, you might want to go back and erase your flame in response to my
misspelling of "obsessed" as I know you were anal enough to insert one in your
original post. Don't worry, Des. If you caught this before you posted, no one
will know but you and me.
Always happy to elucidate the misinformed,
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
I'm posting another little add-on to this thread, as I have just printed
out my last posting, and I saw a mistake in what I wrote.
[my classic prose clipped]
>Using the 'tu' form to someone in French whom one does not know, is a
>well known form of insulting them.
>
>It reminds me of when I was driving through Strasbourg in July of this
>year. I cut in front of another driver (<sigh> Yes, it *was* my fault.
>. .), and he started yelling abuse at me. I wound down the window and
>yelled:
>
>'Allez, 'fait pas chier, encule!! Va niquer ta mere!!'
>
There's no way that Doug will notice this, as he can barely speak
English, let alone French, but that should have been:
'Allez, fais pas chier . . .' with an 's' at the end of the imperative
of 'faire'.
This error is due to the fact that I'm so used to writing 'Il fait. . .'
in many French idiomatic expressions. However, I apologise, and promise
that I shall be more careful in the future. D'accord, Dougie?
[Nobel-Prize deserving posting clipped]
--
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32bb5684....@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
<ami...@flash.net> writes
>
>>I just *had* to respond to this one !!!!! :-))) I caution all of you
>>that this is a flame war you're entering. There is nothing in here
>>about the death penalty, so if you *do* enter, don't start complaining
>>that it's 'off-topic', because it is. Outrageously so. However, if you
>>want to see Doug McDonald being savaged for his stupidity, then read on
>>. . . . . . .
>>
>
>Not a "flame war", Des. Just a simple correction of your misguided attempts to
>seem well versed in a topic that you (obviously) know little about.
>
A flame war which I considered putting to rest once and for all, but
I've been receiving a lot of positive feedback from other users,
enjoying the way in which I've been making you look like an incompetent
arsehole.
>>Either you were doing this because you're psychic, or because you saw it
>>as an excuse for a cheap shot at my education.
>
>Your "education" remains a miniscule target. Maybe if you went out and got one
>there would be something at which to aim.
>
Well, as you have no doubt been told by many women in your time, 'size
doesn't count.'
>Perhaps you really are this obtuse, but I somehow doubt anyone could be;
>"issue"
>in the above refers to "your arrogance", not your facination with France and
>french culture and / or language.Your facination with France is your own
>business. Your "facination" with the french language is just pathetic. I
>should think that one who is "facinated" by something would take the time to
>study the object of that facination.
<laugh>
You pathetic little man. Do something for me, eh? Call the Head of the
Department of French at Stirling University on + 44 1786 467530 and ask
him to verify whether or not I've 'studied' French, you ignorant little
eunuch. His name is Dr Kidd.
>>
>>Incidentally, I wouldn't normally point this out,
>
>Oh, come on! You live your little life for this. What's sad is that you fall
>for EVERY bone tossed your way.
>
Typically McDonald: if you make an error and someone points it out, you
claim that it was deliberate!
I would spend this entire post just insulting you, but you're so dense
that you probably wouldn't even cotton on.
Ah what the hell: it's good fun!!
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>><yawn> ...continue flaming if you have nothing to say, little man. It might
>>>make you feel even more important if you print out your witless comments and
>>>show them to your "friend[s]".
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, right. Ever won any prizes for debating? No, didn't think so.
>
>Actually, yes. :-)
>
Well share it with us, then. . .
>>
>>>(failed attempt at sarcasm, I guess?)
>>>
>>
>>It couldn't have failed it you detected it. . . :-)
>
>Because it was "detected" doesn't mean it was "funny". Don't quit your day
>job.
You're so thick that it doesn't occur to you that an 'attempt' at
sarcasm only 'fails' if no one notices it!!
>"For those of you who don't speak [f]rench", what I wrote above should have
>been
>(by anyone well-versed in the language) translated (not transliterated) as
>"You
>will never hold the upper hand." Sorry you missed the more advanced form, I'll
>try to be more basic with you in the future. And I thought you knew your
>stuff.....Ha, what a joke you are.
>
>
'You'll never hold the upper hand,' would be 'Il n'y a pas de chance que
tu prennes le dessus.' This bears very little resemblance to the rot
which *you* posted, you impotent little cretin.
Two things, here. . . no, I shall let *you* point them out!!
>>
>>Doug, you're out of your depth here. . . The word 'vous' in regular
>>verbs is always followed (in the present indicative, at least) by the
>>form ending in '-ez'.
>>
>>For example, 'Vous vous branlez.' Or 'Vous vous masturbez.'
>
>"Always" I guess as in "Vous dites...". Vous voulez rire! (Oops, I used "to
>laugh" in the infinitive tense; is that a "faux pas" as well, Des; Oh master of
>all things french?)
Read my posting again, dimwit: I wrote *regular* verbs! 'Dire' is an
irregular verb. Ha!! You're making us all laugh, Doug: keep it up!
As for your ridiculous troll about 'rire' in the infinitive (by the way,
prick: the infinitive isn't a tense: it's a mood): this is normal,
following an auxiliary verb, like 'vouloir', or 'preferer', or 'aimer'.
Examples:
Je veux y aller.
~~~~~
Je prefere rester a la maison.
~~~~~~
J'aime ecouter la musique francaise.
~~~~~~~
When *you* used this construction originally, you used it directly
following a subject pronoun.
'Vous prendre. . .' In other words, 'You to take . . .'
Bzz! Wrong again, moron!!! It should have been 'Vous prenez. . .' and
this is such a basic mistake, that I begin to doubt the veracity of the
'My First French Book' which you obviously have at your side!
>>
>>Oh, and Doug, before I go onto futher ridicule you, don't waste
>>bandwidth by telling me that I wrote 'vous' twice there: this is correct
>>in pronominal verbs.
>
>Sorry to dissapoint you, Des; but I am well-aquainted with les verbes
>pronominaux. Sadly it is you that is desperately in need of lessons. You poor
>wanna'-be. I feel sorry for you.
From you, imbecile, that's a compliment!
>>
>>
>>Incidentally, the word 'drole' is masculine, and so the correct form
>>would be 'quel drole'.
>
>When I say it to a man, I'll put it in the masculine form. Until
>then........... (Subtlety, it just always seems to elude you, "Pauvre, Desi")
ALERT!! ALERT!!! ALERT!!! Pathetic attempt to wriggle out of
mistakes!!!
>>>(BTW, while you are on the subject, your capitalization of the word "French"
>in
>>>the above is gramatically incorrect. HTH.)
>>>
>>
>>I can't find any part where I've used incorrect capitalization. . .
>
>Sad thing is....I believe this.
>
>> If
>>you mean the word 'French' in English,
>
>Ya' know, the rest of the sentence was in english; so I'd have to say that Yes,
>I read it as an english sentence. Duh.
>
>> then adjectives of nationality
>
>"adjectives of nationality" ???
>
Yes, moron: like 'French', 'English', 'Scottish', 'American'. . . you
know: words which describe one's nationality.
>>*do* take a capital letter in English. In French, they don't usually,
>>but can if one uses them as a noun, rather than as an adjective.
>
>In "French language" the word "French" is used as an adjective modifying the
>noun "language", therefore it should not have been capitalized.
Let's be sure that we're talking about the above expression in English,
right? OK. Try this. 'northern Ireland'. How does that look? Wrong,
of course. The bottom line is that adjectives of nationality in English
*are* capitalized. Like it or lump it, little man, it's the truth.
If it were as you say, then it would be correct to write 'united States
of America', as the word 'united' would be simply qualifying the States.
This is bullshit, and if you have *any* integrity at all, then you will
concede defeat.
>Just as in
>"...*do* take a capital letter in English. In French...", neither "French" nor
>"English" should have been capitalized, as one must assume you are referring to
>the french language and the english language, "language" being inferred from
>the
>context.
>
You're floundering here, Doug: and it's humiliating for you. In French,
if I write 'I am Scottish' (je suis ecossais), there is no
capitalization, as the word 'ecossais' is functioning as an adjective of
nationality.
If, however, I write 'I am A Scot' (je suis UN Ecossais), then the word
'Ecossais' is functioning as a substantive. 'Noun', to you.
So it's wrong to say that in French, the word 'French' should never be
capitalized.
>Quelle dol. (In case there is any doubt; YES I know that "dol" is masculine.
><yawn>)
Oh ho hum!! Hasn't it sunk in yet? You are a p-r-i-c-k.
If the word 'dol' is masculine, then the 'quel' should be masculine,
irrespective of what you think of the person to whom you're (mistakenly)
directing it.
Incidentally, get back to that dictionary, because 'dol' means the
attempt to engage in fraudulent or misleading activities. So you can
have it two ways: you directed it at me (and it's not a noun that can be
used of a person, so you're wrong there), or you don't know its meaning,
and just picked it out from your 'My First French Book'.
Asshole!
>>
>>Example:
>>
>>Je suis americain.
>>
>
>"I am american"; correct usage, very good.
>
>>Je suis un Americain.
>
>"I am an American"; now you're getting it. Too bad the capitalization issue
>confuses you so in the English [sic] language.
<sigh>
Doug, you're never going to comprehend this, so why don't you go and ask
your English teacher to explain it to you, OK?
>>
>
>
>>Follow?
>
>I hope you are following; but I'll provide you with the following example, just
>to make sure:
>
>When one describes something as "English" it means "from Great Britain" (or
>"from England", to break it down for you).
Wrong again, bulletbrain: England means just that: from *England*. Only
to idiotic redneck Americans are the words 'England' and 'Great Britain'
the same.
>Various examples of this might
>include "English tea", "English ship", or "English language". So you wouldn't
>say "English language" (or "English" as in "English language)
All of which *did* originate in England. So to call *them* English is
correct. However, to call someone from Britain 'English' is just
stupid, which probably goes some way to explaining why *you* do it.
>when referring
>to
>the "english language". You see, english is spoken in other countries as
>well.
>Just as french is spoken in countries other than France. Let me know if you
>need further tutoring and I will e-mail you a study guide.
>
Let's lay this 'french' (sic) and 'english' (sic) with lower case
letters shit to rest once and for all:
"Adjectives of nationality retain the capital, even when used in
transferred senses, e.g. Dutch courage, French language, Russian salad,
Turkish delight. The exceptions are arabic (numeral), roman (numeral,
type)."
"Oxford Guide to English Usage",
Oxford University Press 1993.
Or how about this one. . .
"Capital letters are used for the names of people and places (John
Smith, Paris, Oxford Street), the names of peoples and languages and
derived words directly related to them (English, Austrian, French,
Swede) . . ."
Appendix C, "The Concise Oxford English Dictionary"
Oxford 1995.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>'Une fois que tu arrives a corriger une de mes fautes, alors la, je
>>>>boufferai mon chapeau! T'es vraiment con, tu le sais?'
>>>>
>>>
>>>Putain d'egotiste. <baillement>
>>
>>Bien, bien!!
>
>I thought so. ;-)
>
Except that it would have been better to have written 'Putain
d'egoiste.'
>>T'as ton dico a cote, hein? Ou peut-etre qu'il y a un
>>pote qui te donne toutes ces expressions que tu ne comprends meme pas!!
>
>I don't need my "dico", moche. Besides I have yet to see a french-english
>dictionary that contains the word "fuck".
Really? You might like to consider 'The Collins French-English
Dictionary' Collins Publishing, 1993:
'Fuck 1. n. (act) baisage m. ; (a) "she's a good fuck" : "Elle baise
bien". (b) "Charge me? Like fuck you will!" : "Moi payer? Mon cul!" ,
"Fuck knows!" : "Je n'en sais foutrement rien!" 2. comp "fuck-all" :
"rien de rien"; "I know fuck all about it" : 'Je n'en sais foutrement
rien!" "fuckwit" : "peigne-cul". 3. vt. baiser "Fuck it!" : "Putain de
merde!". "Fuck me!" : "Putain!"; "Merde alors!". "Fuck you!" : "Va te
faire foutre!" 4. vi baiser.
There are a couple of compound phrases, there, but notice, if you will,
two things:
1. The use of the 'tu' form in the expression 'Va te faire foutre!'. It
is only moronic foreigners like you who would say 'Allez vous faire
foutre!'
2.
The inclusion of 'fuckwit.' They obviously *have* heard of you on this
side of the Atlantic!!
Whilst we're at it, and before I take the dog out, let's turn idly to
page 296 of the English-French section.
"French adj . . ."
What?!? Is this a capital 'F' that I see before me? Now let's look
further down the same entry, to where it gives the French translation of
'French': francais.
No capital 'F' there. So far, so good. . . as it's an adjective. Look
a little bit further, and we come to:
"Francais n. Les Francais = The French".
Ah, victory is sweet . . . .
>Maybe you could lend me the one you
>use for all of your trite little phrases and first-year attempts at speaking
>the
>language.
Oh, 'first year', is it? <laugh> I left first year French in 1985,
Doug. Try again!
>>
>>>Oh, and BTW you really shouldn't respond in the familiar when addressed in
>the
>>>formal tense.
>>>
>>
>>Using the 'tu' form to someone in French whom one does not know, is a
>>well known form of insulting them.
>
>Oops, I mistook it for your (usual) (demonstrated) (blatant) (obvious)
>(embarrassing) (juvenile) unfamilarity with the language. Heaven Forbid! At
>least correcting you in this way is not as bad as writing an entire post
>concerning typos. I'd shoot myself if I ever got that anal.
>
I've just shown above (in the discourse on 'va te faire foutre') that
the 'tu' form *is* used to insult. As a matter of interest, when you
meet someone, which form you use depends on age, social background, and
so on.
So in 1992, for example, I was sitting next to the Eiffel Tower, playing
my guitar, when a couple of French folk came up, and asked me to play
some stuff for them. One of their first questions was 'Tu viens d'ou?'
Not one of them would have dreamt of saying 'D'ou venez-vous?' or
something equally 'learner'.
>>
>>It reminds me of when I was driving through Strasbourg in July of this
>>year. I cut in front of another driver (<sigh> Yes, it *was* my fault.
>>. .), and he started yelling abuse at me. I wound down the window and
>>yelled:
>>
>>'Allez, 'fait pas chier, encule!! Va niquer ta mere!!'
>>
>>*NOT* very polite, but my passenger (A German friend whom I was
>>visiting) was trying to get as low in the passenger seat as possible!!
>>
>>Ah, happy days. . . . :-)
>
>A German impressed with french...there's a hoot. What happened after that; did
>your German buddy "raid [your] Normandie" Oh la la!
The German in question was at that time finishing a PhD in 20th century
French literature, so I think that we can assume that he speaks French
OK. . .
>>
>>>>I have ommitted the accents there, in case someone reads this with non
>>>>MIME-compliant software.
>>>
>>>OF COURSE you didn't put in the accents. It's a given. Do you see what an
>>>ass
>>>you are for even typing the above? Do you think that someone is going to
>read
>>>this and think that you FORGOT the accents?
>>>
>>
>>This was designed for idiots like you. As you have made a name for
>>yourself among others in this newsgroup for not forwarding any arguments
>>of substance, I was 'insuring' myself against your whining 'Dezzie!!
>>You missed an accent!!' Or as you would try to say it in French:
>>
>>'Dezzie!! Vous ne mettre pas les accents!!" (You to put not the
>>accents!!)
>
>Well, I can see that you've learned how to transliterate the "French [sic]
>language", too bad that it requires a deeper understanding to "translate" it
>into "English" [sic].
>>
Really? A little bit further up the article, you were claiming that I
had misinterpreted your 'French'.
In short, Doug: you're looking like a wanker right now. Give it up,
man: if you want to argue about the death penalty, then you have a
chance of holding your own, but in matters French, you have not got a
chance!!
A ton service . . . :-)
Doug McDonald
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>: Mon dieu! Il y a une hache dans ma tete.
>
>Oh my! I suppose that should have been;
>Mon dieu! Il y a une hache dans mon tete.
Although "tete" is feminine, it does not take the possessive form in french. It
is "la tete". :-)
>--
>Fucking French,
Well, I'm glad you said this as it may help to explain to Des why , when
referring to the french language, the word "french' should not be capatilized.
Although I believe you meant to refer to the language; because you capitalized
the word "french" it would be taken to refer to the French people. You don't
capitalize an adjective unless it starts a sentence.
I point this out not as a flame to you, (Who could flame one who has so
eloquently summed up my entire opinion on the topic?) but rather to illustrate a
simple point to a simple man (Des). Thanks for the opportunity.
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan (D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I'm posting another little add-on to this thread, as I have just printed
: out my last posting, and I saw a mistake in what I wrote.
: [my classic prose clipped]
This exchange between you Doug is giving me a headache. Right at the
back and on the left side ... right about here ... wait a minute! ...
Mon dieu! Il y a une hache dans ma tete.
--
Pardon my fucking French,
Kirk Erickson
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Doug McDonald
Boy, your panties certainly are in a bunch, Des. Relax, little guy. This time
I will respond using only your own words (as you have failed at every turn to
address any of my points, but rather seek only to attempt misdirection and feign
misunderstanding); so you can holster your red pencil and highlighter firmly
back into your pocket-protector. These are *your* "arguments". Aren't they
eloquent?
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I just *had* to respond to this one !!!!! :-)))
>if you
>>>want to see Doug McDonald being savaged for his stupidity
>making you look like an incompetent
>arsehole.
>Well, as you have no doubt been told by many women in your time, 'size
>doesn't count.'
>you ignorant little
>eunuch.
>I would spend this entire post just insulting you, but you're so dense
>that you probably wouldn't even cotton on.
>
>Ah what the hell: it's good fun!!
>
>you impotent little cretin.
>Doug, you're out of your depth here dimwit:
> moron!!!
>
>>
>
>Yes, moron
>You are a p-r-i-c-k.
>Asshole!
>Wrong again, bulletbrain:
>is just
>stupid, which probably goes some way to explaining why *you* do it.
>>>This was designed for idiots like you.
> Doug: you're looking like a wanker
>You pathetic little man.
>Ever won any prizes for debating? No, didn't think so.
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
>"Always" I guess as in "Vous dites...". Vous voulez rire! (Oops, I used "to
>laugh" in the infinitive tense; is that a "faux pas" as well, Des; Oh master of
>all things french?)
I missed this first time around: what do you mean my 'vous voulez rire',
Doug?
Could you explain the context of this to me?
Thanks.
--
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Mr Desmond E. Coughlan (D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : I'm posting another little add-on to this thread, as I have just printed
: : out my last posting, and I saw a mistake in what I wrote.
: : [my classic prose clipped]
: This exchange between you Doug is giving me a headache. Right at the
: back and on the left side ... right about here ... wait a minute! ...
: Mon dieu! Il y a une hache dans ma tete.
Oh my! I suppose that should have been;
Mon dieu! Il y a une hache dans mon tete.
--
Fucking French,
Kirk Erickson
kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <59ndha$ie6$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>, kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.c
a writes
>Mr Desmond E. Coughlan (D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: I'm posting another little add-on to this thread, as I have just printed
>: out my last posting, and I saw a mistake in what I wrote.
>
>: [my classic prose clipped]
>
>This exchange between you Doug is giving me a headache. Right at the
>back and on the left side ... right about here ... wait a minute! ...
>
>Mon dieu! Il y a une hache dans ma tete.
>--
>
>Pardon my fucking French,
You're pardoned. :-)
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32bf67d9....@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
<ami...@flash.net> writes
>Boy, your panties certainly are in a bunch, Des. Relax, little guy. This time
>I will respond using only your own words (as you have failed at every turn to
>address any of my points, but rather seek only to attempt misdirection and
>feign
>misunderstanding); so you can holster your red pencil and highlighter firmly
>back into your pocket-protector. These are *your* "arguments". Aren't they
>eloquent?
>
>
>
[my classic argument snipped]
What's wrong, Doug? Why didn't you respond. . .? :-)
I saw your reply to Kirk: an adjective isn't capitalized unless it
begins a sentence, eh? I hope you read my posting properly, in
particular the quotations from "The Oxford Guide to English Usage", and
"The Concise Oxford English Dictionary" about that. Adjectives of
nationality are *always* capitalized in English.
As for the rest of it, well you have so obviously lost the argument
about French, that I feel sure that we can drop this thread, don't you?
Good.
I *do* feel a bit of sympathy for you, but only a little, as your
humiliation wouldn't have happened, but you chose to engage in an
argument about French with me. Much the same would have happened to me
if I had argued with Dan Cutrer about law, or with Charles Trew about
physics.
If we stick to the death penalty, then there could be a valid argument
that both our points of view are valid, but when we talk about something
about which I am infinitely more knowledgeable than you. . . well,
there's no contest.
What do you do, Doug? I mean, what's your field of expertise? Aside
from making yourself look like a prick on a public forum like this.
Whatever it is, *I* would never dream of starting to argue with you
about it, unless of course, I knew a lot about it.
Goodnight, Doug. Don't feel too bad: you lost to the better man.
Des.
Demon rat2
But Doug, Des is just showing off his superior education here. Notice how
well he structures his arguments ?
On Tue, 24 Dec 1996 05:44:28 GMT, ami...@flash.net (Doug McDonald) wrote:
>Boy, your panties certainly are in a bunch, Des. Relax, little guy.
This time
>I will respond using only your own words (as you have failed at every
turn to
>address any of my points, but rather seek only to attempt misdirection
and feign
>misunderstanding); so you can holster your red pencil and highlighter
firmly
>back into your pocket-protector. These are *your* "arguments". Aren't
they
>eloquent?
>
>
>
>
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <19961225000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Demon rat2
<demo...@aol.com> writes
>But Doug, Des is just showing off his superior education here. Notice how
>well he structures his arguments ?
Thank you, 'Demonrat2'!!
Now perhaps you could stop hiding behind an alias. . .hmm?
--
David McDonald
>In article <19961225000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Demon rat2
><demo...@aol.com> writes
>
>>But Doug, Des is just showing off his superior education here.
Notice how
>>well he structures his arguments ?
>
>Thank you, 'Demonrat2'!!
>
>Now perhaps you could stop hiding behind an alias. . .hmm?
The message is still the same Desmond no matter who says it.
David McDonald
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <59s6rc$d7g$1...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>, David
McDonald <7323...@CompuServe.COM> writes
>On Wed, 25 Dec 1996 08:47:02 +0000, "Mr Desmond E. Coughlan"
><D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <19961225000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Demon rat2
>><demo...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>>But Doug, Des is just showing off his superior education here.
>Notice how
>>>well he structures his arguments ?
>>
>>Thank you, 'Demonrat2'!!
>>
>>Now perhaps you could stop hiding behind an alias. . .hmm?
>
>The message is still the same Desmond no matter who says it.
>
So the message seems to be that my education is superior?
Thank you all. ;-) However, don't let your adulation get in the way of
the real goal here: abolishing the death penalty.
Doug McDonald
"Mr Desmond E. Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <32bf67d9....@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
><ami...@flash.net> writes
>
>>Boy, your panties certainly are in a bunch, Des. Relax, little guy. This time
>>I will respond using only your own words (as you have failed at every turn to
>>address any of my points, but rather seek only to attempt misdirection and
>>feign
>>misunderstanding); so you can holster your red pencil and highlighter firmly
>>back into your pocket-protector. These are *your* "arguments". Aren't they
>>eloquent?
>>
>>
>>
>
>[my classic argument snipped]
"classic argument" You might want to look up "classic" while you've got your
'dico' in your hand.
>
>What's wrong, Doug? Why didn't you respond. . .? :-)
I did respond to your post. Remember, you just quoted some of it above (with
your "classic arguments" snipped to avoid further embarrassment, I see). Duh,
what a phoney you are.
>
>I saw your reply to Kirk: an adjective isn't capitalized unless it
>begins a sentence, eh? I hope you read my posting properly, in
>particular the quotations from "The Oxford Guide to English Usage", and
>"The Concise Oxford English Dictionary" about that. Adjectives of
>nationality are *always* capitalized in English.
Your "adjectives of nationality" argument, while humorous, is invalid. An
"adjective of nationality" (as in "English people") is capitalized. A common
adjective (as in "french language") is not capitalized. Maybe you should just
pick up a book on basic english and read it thoroughly and with comprehension.
Then again, you've proved all too many times that this is beyond you.
>
>As for the rest of it, well you have so obviously lost the argument
>about French, that I feel sure that we can drop this thread, don't you?
The original argument was that you speak on the subject of France and french
language in a pompous and arrogant way. Your blather below proves my original
contention quite well. Congratulations on being consistent.
>
>Good.
>
>I *do* feel a bit of sympathy for you, but only a little, as your
>humiliation wouldn't have happened, but you chose to engage in an
>argument about French with me. Much the same would have happened to me
>if I had argued with Dan Cutrer about law, or with Charles Trew about
>physics.
>
>If we stick to the death penalty, then there could be a valid argument
>that both our points of view are valid, but when we talk about something
>about which I am infinitely more knowledgeable than you. . . well,
>there's no contest.
>
>What do you do, Doug? I mean, what's your field of expertise? Aside
>from making yourself look like a prick on a public forum like this.
>Whatever it is, *I* would never dream of starting to argue with you
>about it, unless of course, I knew a lot about it.
>
>Goodnight, Doug. Don't feel too bad: you lost to the better man.
>
Goodnight, Des. Next time you need a crash course in humility (or language),
just let me know.
Archibald Coughlan
In article <ymnPjBBV...@maudit.demon.co.uk>, "Mr Desmond E.
Coughlan" <D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>[my classic argument snipped]
>>
>>"classic argument" You might want to look up "classic" while you've got your
>>'dico' in your hand.
>
>Tsk, tsk, Doug: I don't need a dictionary: I only used one to compound
>further your humiliation, which was almost complete anyway.
>
>>>
>>>What's wrong, Doug? Why didn't you respond. . .? :-)
>>
[snip]
>>>Goodnight, Doug. Don't feel too bad: you lost to the better man.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Goodnight, Des. Next time you need a crash course in humility (or language),
>>just let me know.
>>
>>
>
>Neither of which *you're* qualified to teach!
Well said, Uncle!!
;-)
--
Archibald Coughlan
(Dezzie's Eight-Year-Old "Nephew")
Mr Desmond E. Coughlan
In article <32c32202....@news.flash.net>, Doug McDonald
<ami...@flash.net> writes
>>[my classic argument snipped]
>
>"classic argument" You might want to look up "classic" while you've got your
>'dico' in your hand.
Tsk, tsk, Doug: I don't need a dictionary: I only used one to compound
further your humiliation, which was almost complete anyway.
>>
>>What's wrong, Doug? Why didn't you respond. . .? :-)
>
>I did respond to your post. Remember, you just quoted some of it above (with
>your "classic arguments" snipped to avoid further embarrassment, I see). Duh,
>what a phoney you are.
Uh-huh: you *didn't* respond to what I wrote about (for example) the use
of capitals in adjectives.
>
>>
>>I saw your reply to Kirk: an adjective isn't capitalized unless it
>>begins a sentence, eh? I hope you read my posting properly, in
>>particular the quotations from "The Oxford Guide to English Usage", and
>>"The Concise Oxford English Dictionary" about that. Adjectives of
>>nationality are *always* capitalized in English.
>
>Your "adjectives of nationality" argument, while humorous, is invalid. An
>"adjective of nationality" (as in "English people") is capitalized. A common
>adjective (as in "french language") is not capitalized.
You know, if you really are a real person, and not just a 'nom de plume'
of Don 'Mad Dog' McDonald (which bearing in mind your stubborn refusal
to admit defeat when everyone else can see it, wouldn't surprise me!),
then you must be very proud of the fact that you believe that you speak
English better than the good ol' folks at the Oxford University Press!
Didn't I quote you the bit about certain adjectives' being capitalized,
even when they only refer to words *derived* from nationalities? Like
'Dutch courage', or 'Russian salad', or even 'French language'? No, you
probably didn't read it, but then that just about sums up life 'a la
McDonald', doesn't it?
Standard English does not have 'french language', any more than it has
'john smith'.
>Maybe you should just
>pick up a book on basic english and read it thoroughly and with comprehension.
>Then again, you've proved all too many times that this is beyond you.
>>
>>As for the rest of it, well you have so obviously lost the argument
>>about French, that I feel sure that we can drop this thread, don't you?
>
>The original argument was that you speak on the subject of France and french
>language in a pompous and arrogant way. Your blather below proves my original
>contention quite well. Congratulations on being consistent.
>
>
My consistency here is of comprehensively trouncing you, and you have
proved that you have no integrity at all, by refusing to graciously
admit when you are wrong.
>>What do you do, Doug? I mean, what's your field of expertise? Aside
>>from making yourself look like a prick on a public forum like this.
>>Whatever it is, *I* would never dream of starting to argue with you
>>about it, unless of course, I knew a lot about it.
>>
>>Goodnight, Doug. Don't feel too bad: you lost to the better man.
>>
>
>
>Goodnight, Des. Next time you need a crash course in humility (or language),
>just let me know.
>
>
Neither of which *you're* qualified to teach!
--
Don Kool
> >But Doug, Des is just showing off his superior education here. Notice how
> >well he structures his arguments ?
> Thank you, 'Demonrat2'!!
>
> Now perhaps you could stop hiding behind an alias. . .hmm?
Desi, since you have just shown yourself to be the epitome of
a "clueless newbie", I'll explain it to you a little bit. "Aliases"
(as you so cluelessly put it) are part and parcel of USENET culture
and have been since the earliest days. Guess you never heard of a
"nom de plume" (that's called a "pen name" in English. I see from
earlier threads that your French is more than a little rusty).
BTW, while it's obvious that you enjoy looking like an ignorant
asshole in most every discussion, if you ever want your responses to
be met with something other than derision, you should probably know that
the term "alias" is more properly used in relation to mail. Check the
"man page" for "sendmail" and you might get an idea.
Don Kool
Desi Coughlan wrote:
> kirk...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes
> >Mr Desmond E. Coughlan (D.Cou...@maudit.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >: I'm posting another little add-on to this thread, as I have just printed
> >: out my last posting, and I saw a mistake in what I wrote.
> >: [my classic prose clipped]
> >This exchange between you Doug is giving me a headache. Right at the
> >back and on the left side ... right about here ... wait a minute! ...
> >Mon dieu! Il y a une hache dans ma tete.
> >Pardon my fucking French,
> You're pardoned. :-)
Another naive, idealistic moron handing out pardons with impunity
only to see the unrepentent offender most assuredly "French" again.