Illinois commutations
A Planet Visitor
Henry Brisbon
----------------------
Brisbon and three other men decided to rob somebody. When they couldn't
find the right pedestrian to rob in Kankakee, they drove toward Chicago on
Interstate 57. While riding along, they came up with the idea of robbing
motorists by staging phony accidents.
One of the killers tricked motorists out of their cars by asking them to
inspect minor collision damage, then led them to Brisbon, who brandished
the shotgun and robbed and shot them.
Betty Lou Harmon, 29, of suburban Darien, was forced to undress at gunpoint.
She ran away, but was caught by Sanders, who led her to Brisbon, who
fatally shot her in a field.
An engaged North Side couple, Dorothy Cerny and James Schmidt, both
25, who were returning from a family gathering in Matteson, also were
shot to death by Brisbon after being stripped of their valuables.
Brisbon told the couple to "kiss your last kiss" before firing shotgun
blasts into their backs as they lay on the side of the highway.
But Brisbon was not on Death Row for the I-57 murders. He was put
there because he used a sharpened spoon to kill another inmate while in
prison.
We can only expect that Brisbon will continue his 'works' after a return
to the prison population.
PV
Anthony Giorgianni
But what is wrong with putting the guy in a cell by himself and letting him
think about what he did as he watching his entire life go by? I say
executing him is letting him off too easy... and if, in the process, you
execute someone who is innocent, then you suddenly have taken an innocent
life. Then what?
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Anthony Giorgianni
guy apparently did.
But what is wrong with putting him in a cell by himself and letting him
think about what he did as he watches his entire life go by? I say
executing him is letting him off too easy... and if, in the process, you
execute someone who is innocent, then you suddenly have taken an innocent
life yourself. Then what? How does society and all the people involved in
prosecuting, judging and intentionally executing that person make amends? Do
we execute all of them, do we abolish the society? Or are they allowed
simply to go about there business despite having killed an innocent person?
And what if they intentionally execute an innocent person again!
While anyone can understand your horror and anger over the case you cite,
(I'm sure pretty much everyone feels your sense of outrage), you really need
to think about this carefully for practical reasons.
Furthermore (and I'm on less solid ground making this statement), do we
really want to send a message that killing is the way to achieve justice?
That is the same mentality that street gangs use every day. While there
certainly IS a difference between street gangs and a system that at least
tries to impose due process, I think one might argue that the death
penalty - rather than being a deterrent - may actually foster murder - at
least by the person who, in their screwy and perhaps hot-headed state of
mine, believes they need to exact punishment and obtain justice in
connection with someone who they feel, perhaps legitimately, has done them
wrong - maybe someone who raped them or their daughter or son or who beat up
their homie or who simply flipped them off on the highway.
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Anthony Giorgianni
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni
Fred
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
the DP --
>
> But Brisbon was not on Death Row for the I-57 murders. He was put
> there because he used a sharpened spoon to kill another inmate
while in
> prison.
>
> We can only expect that Brisbon will continue his 'works' after a
return
> to the prison population.
Wouldn't you be in favour of that?
F
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:54:39 +0000
>
>le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:47:46 GMT, dans l'article
><C8nU9.140183$k13.6...@news0.telusplanet.net>, Fred <no-...@nowhere.nohow>
>a dit ...
>
>{ snip FW's patented 'Spag-Special' in which he espouses puerile, wholly
> unworkable ideas which make him look even more idiotic than normal }
>
>> Wouldn't you be in favour of that?
>
>Don't encourage him ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berl
in.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:54:39 +0000
>Lines: 14
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <v7vsva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><C8nU9.140183$k13.6...@news0.telusplanet.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042415890 19297914 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:43:22 +0000
>
>le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:09:47 GMT, dans l'article
><LbiU9.107639$hK4.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Anthony
>Giorgianni <anth...@worldnet.att.net> a dit ...
>
>> A terrible story, A Planet.
>>
>> But what is wrong with putting the guy in a cell by himself and letting him
>> think about what he did as he watching his entire life go by? I say
>> executing him is letting him off too easy... and if, in the process, you
>> execute someone who is innocent, then you suddenly have taken an innocent
>> life. Then what?
>
>url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/PV.gif
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!opentransit.net!f
u-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:43:22 +0000
>Lines: 17
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <qggsva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><LbiU9.107639$hK4.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042400888 19676318 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:45:12 +0000
>
>le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:29:22 GMT, dans l'article
><CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>> Here's the history of one of those Illinois murderers commuted from the
>> DP --
>
>Which is absolutely irrelevant (what a surprise ...) to the current debate,
>as no one even _suggested_ that all, or even most, of those whose sentences
>were commuted this week, were innocent.
>
>What seems to have escaped your immature, fuckwitted, single-digit-IQ
>notice is that Governor Ryan took into account the guilty, but came to the
>conclusion that the _risk_ of executing the innocent was too great to allow
>him to condone the execution of the guilty. He decided, as all humane,
>thinking persons must do, that it is better to spare ten guilty men, than
>to kill one innocent man.
>
>What a pity that you've turned that noble doctrine on its ... sorry, 'it's'
>(sic) head, and would prefer to see ten innocents die, than to see one
>guilty man spared. Then again, you're a sad, obsessive, sick, lying,
>retarded, barely literate immigrant fuckwit.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-be
rlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:45:12 +0000
>Lines: 28
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <o26sva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042390219 20109897 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:o26sva...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:29:22 GMT, dans l'article <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> > DP --
>
> as no one even _suggested_ that all, or even most, of those whose sentences
> were commuted this week, were innocent.
>
again??? Well, Henry Brisbon represents proof to the contrary of
that supposition. Thus, he is VERY relevant.
<'mindless drivel' clipped>
PV
>
> { snip }
>
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church'
|isn't for you.
A Planet Visitor
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:C8nU9.140183$k13.6...@news0.telusplanet.net...
since he was most assuredly guilty of all the crimes he was accused
of committing. I only 'fear' for the consequences of his return to the
prison population. Unlike those who support murderers being
returned to that population to murder again, I believe that NO ONE,
not even another murderer deserves TO BE murdered. No one
has ever been found guilty of BEING murdered. Brisbon himself
does not deserve to be murdered, which could very well happen,
given that other convicts recognize the danger he represents to
them. Brisbon represents the 'poster boy' for execution. And if
Governor Ryan had commuted EVERY sentence but his, I would
have had much less of an argument to claim that he did so as
a political, rather than a personal conviction move. The fact is,
Governor Ryan gave not one look at WHO he was commuting.
He commuted them all... Brisbon being one of them. And that
was shown to be a transparent political move, rather than one
of personal conviction, while he attempted to cloak himself in
the white robe of a 'savior' in his pitiful speech before a stacked-deck
audience of only rabid DP opponents.
PV
> F
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:v7vsva...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:47:46 GMT, dans l'article <C8nU9.140183$k13.6...@news0.telusplanet.net>, Fred
<no-...@nowhere.nohow> a dit ...
>
> { snip FW's patented 'Spag-Special' in which he espouses puerile, wholly
> unworkable ideas which make him look even more idiotic than normal }
>
>
>
if he murders in prison, or even after release. After all, you're a 'gambling'
man, when it comes to 'gambles' on innocent lives. You've admitted
as much.
PV
Kwag7693
Date: 1/12/03 11:29 AM Eastern Standard Time
>But Brisbon was not on Death Row for the I-57 murders. He was put
>there because he used a sharpened spoon to kill another inmate while in
>prison.
>
>We can only expect that Brisbon will continue his 'works' after a return
>to the prison population.
>
>PV
I am sure that this will fail to inspire comment from the anti-death penalty
lot, but this really is a fair argument against letting murderous fiends
interact with other people ever again.
Kevin
Kwag7693
Date: 1/12/03 11:45 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Which is absolutely irrelevant (what a surprise ...) to the current debate,
>as no one even _suggested_ that all, or even most, of those whose sentences
>were commuted this week, were innocent.
Interestingly, what you snipped was the evidence that murderers kept behind
bars continue to murder other people.
>What seems to have escaped your immature, fuckwitted, single-digit-IQ
>notice is that Governor Ryan took into account the guilty, but came to the
>conclusion that the _risk_ of executing the innocent was too great to allow
>him to condone the execution of the guilty. He decided, as all humane,
>thinking persons must do, that it is better to spare ten guilty men, than
>to kill one innocent man.
And by reciprocal reasoning, why should we ever punish anyone for fear of
punishing the innocent? Why not spare all guilty persons out of the fear of
depriving an innocent of his life, liberty or property unjustly?
Kevin
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:54:39 +0000
>
>le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:47:46 GMT, dans l'article
><C8nU9.140183$k13.6...@news0.telusplanet.net>, Fred <no-...@nowhere.nohow>
>a dit ...
>
>{ snip FW's patented 'Spag-Special' in which he espouses puerile, wholly
> unworkable ideas which make him look even more idiotic than normal }
>
>> Wouldn't you be in favour of that?
>
>Don't encourage him ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berl
in.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:54:39 +0000
>Lines: 14
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <v7vsva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><C8nU9.140183$k13.6...@news0.telusplanet.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042415890 19297914 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:43:22 +0000
>
>le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:09:47 GMT, dans l'article
><LbiU9.107639$hK4.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Anthony
>Giorgianni <anth...@worldnet.att.net> a dit ...
>
>> A terrible story, A Planet.
>>
>> But what is wrong with putting the guy in a cell by himself and letting him
>> think about what he did as he watching his entire life go by? I say
>> executing him is letting him off too easy... and if, in the process, you
>> execute someone who is innocent, then you suddenly have taken an innocent
>> life. Then what?
>
>url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/PV.gif
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!opentransit.net!f
u-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:43:22 +0000
>Lines: 17
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <qggsva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><LbiU9.107639$hK4.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042400888 19676318 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:45:12 +0000
>
>le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:29:22 GMT, dans l'article
><CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>> Here's the history of one of those Illinois murderers commuted from the
>> DP --
>
>Which is absolutely irrelevant (what a surprise ...) to the current debate,
>as no one even _suggested_ that all, or even most, of those whose sentences
>were commuted this week, were innocent.
>
>What seems to have escaped your immature, fuckwitted, single-digit-IQ
>notice is that Governor Ryan took into account the guilty, but came to the
>conclusion that the _risk_ of executing the innocent was too great to allow
>him to condone the execution of the guilty. He decided, as all humane,
>thinking persons must do, that it is better to spare ten guilty men, than
>to kill one innocent man.
>
>What a pity that you've turned that noble doctrine on its ... sorry, 'it's'
>(sic) head, and would prefer to see ten innocents die, than to see one
>guilty man spared. Then again, you're a sad, obsessive, sick, lying,
>retarded, barely literate immigrant fuckwit.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-be
rlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:45:12 +0000
>Lines: 28
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <o26sva...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1042390219 20109897 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
And of course deathies were producing similar accounts of how
dangerous and evil Anthony Porter is, until the day he was
proved innocent.
Is it impossible that Brisbon will one day be proved innocent too?
Peter Morris
"Kwag7693" <kwag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030112120713...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> And by reciprocal reasoning, why should we ever punish anyone for fear of
> punishing the innocent? Why not spare all guilty persons out of the fear
of
> depriving an innocent of his life, liberty or property unjustly?
There's a big difference.
An innocent man wrongly put in prison can be released, and compensated
for the years he has lost. An innocent man wrongly fined can have his
money returned with interest.
But what are you going to do for anman wrongly executed?
JIGSAW1695
From: "Peter Morris" no...@m.please
Date: 1/15/2003 11:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <b05ccg$kgp$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
===============================
Bury him*
Jigsaw
*Provided there is ever any conclusive evidence that such an event ever
occured,
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:qggsva...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:09:47 GMT, dans l'article <LbiU9.107639$hK4.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Anthony Giorgianni <anth...@worldnet.att.net> a dit ...
>
> >
> > But what is wrong with putting the guy in a cell by himself and letting him
> > think about what he did as he watching his entire life go by? I say
> > executing him is letting him off too easy... and if, in the process, you
> > execute someone who is innocent, then you suddenly have taken an innocent
> > life. Then what?
>
>
> --
>Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church'
|isn't for you.
>
Quoting from that beautiful reference to my post provided by desi
which described him perfectly --
'Cancerous' is almost a complement when one views most of desi's
comments -- other forms spring more easily to mind -- it is a parasitic
diarrhea of the brain... it is crazy chick disease transferred to our
thinking process -- it is a swarm of latrine flies setting on our ability
to process information --- it is maggots feasting on the bodies of
numberless victims of murder. It is madness. utter madness. It is
Desmond Coughlan."
Kwag7693
Date: 1/15/03 11:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
>An innocent man wrongly put in prison can be released, and compensated
>for the years he has lost. An innocent man wrongly fined can have his
>money returned with interest.
>But what are you going to do for anman wrongly executed?
Make sure only to only execute people of whose guilt one can be certain.
Kevin
Peter Morris
They only convict for ANY crime when guilt is 'certain'
Trouble is, they keep turning out wrong.
Kwag7693
Date: 1/16/03 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> Make sure only to only execute people of whose guilt one can be certain.
>
>They only convict for ANY crime when guilt is 'certain'
>
>Trouble is, they keep turning out wrong.
Then they aren't certain. Certainty doesn't admit of still being wrong.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" isn't a terrific standard anyway. And given the
quality of the reasoning I have found in a "jury of my peers", I think the
"reasonable" part is highly suspicious.
Kevin
Peter Morris
> From: "Peter Morris" no...@m.please
> Date: 1/16/03 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >> Make sure only to only execute people of whose guilt one can be
certain.
> >
> >They only convict for ANY crime when guilt is 'certain'
> >
> >Trouble is, they keep turning out wrong.
>
> Then they aren't certain. Certainty doesn't admit of still being wrong.
Given 100 'guilty' verdicts, how would you determine which ones
are certain, and which ones aren't?
Kwag7693
Date: 1/16/03 10:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> Then they aren't certain. Certainty doesn't admit of still being wrong.
>
>Given 100 'guilty' verdicts, how would you determine which ones
>are certain, and which ones aren't?
I would guess by the evidence arrayed against the accused. I don't like lay
juries; the ability to validly induce and deduce, much less to understand
instructions of law, are not prerequisites for sitting in judgement of a man's
life which I find ludicrous.
Kevin
Fred
> From: "Peter Morris" no...@m.please
> Date: 1/16/03 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
>
> Then they aren't certain. Certainty doesn't admit of still being
wrong.
> "Beyond reasonable doubt" isn't a terrific standard anyway. And
given the
> quality of the reasoning I have found in a "jury of my peers", I
think the
> "reasonable" part is highly suspicious.
It is a serious criminal offence in Canada to attempt to contact a
juror for information on a case, or for a juror to comment. However,
using mock juries, a number of tests were run to see how well the
possible jurors made judgements. The results were not good.
F
Kwag7693
Date: 1/16/03 11:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>It is a serious criminal offence in Canada to attempt to contact a
>juror for information on a case, or for a juror to comment. However,
>using mock juries, a number of tests were run to see how well the
>possible jurors made judgements. The results were not good.
>
>F
Now that is a study I am interested in. Have any links?
Kevin
Fred
Regrettably no, but a search might hit it. I just remember it being
reported on the news. Partisan joking aside, I suspect this is
repeated in most countries. I do remember a case in the US in which a
man was convicted of murder of his child because the jury decided he
had a bad temper. They decided he had a bad temper because they saw,
in one of the evidence photos, that the door to the child's room had
been punched in. It was never brought up at trial and, in fact, the
door was like that when the family moved in to the home. Fortunately,
the state supreme court overturned his conviction, after which, as is
their wont, the police stopped looking for the killer. Shades of the
Ramseys.
F
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b04fg2$abq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
ALL innocent!!!" But to the RATIONAL person... Brisbon is as
certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun is still shining
somewhere on our planet.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b07fdb$r37$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
convict if the accused 'alibi' is "I was captured by aliens (sic) at the
time I murdered that guy."
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >
> Not as long as we have you screaming ''They'll all innocent, I tell you...
> ALL innocent!!!" But to the RATIONAL person... Brisbon is as
> certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun is still shining
> somewhere on our planet.
And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony Porter.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:19:12 +0000
>
>le Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:16:40 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
><b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>
>>> Not as long as we have you screaming ''They'll all innocent, I tell you...
>>> ALL innocent!!!" But to the RATIONAL person... Brisbon is as
>>> certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun is still shining
>>> somewhere on our planet.
>
>> And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony Porter.
>
>Heh, it's quite fun really, isn't it ?
>
>We have deathies screaming 'There were witnesses !!' ... and with a
>*thwack!*, we slap them down with just two words ... Anthony Porter.
>
>Then they whinge, 'But it's an open and shut case !!' ... and with a
>*thwack!*, we slap them down with just two words ... Anthony Porter.
>
>Next, they cry, 'He's guilty as sin !!' ... and with a *thwack!*, we slap
>them down with just two words ... Anthony Porter.
>
>They just can't win, can they ? LOL ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:19:12 +0000
>Lines: 27
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <0nai0b....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b04fg2$abq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><asNV9.133819$j8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043115738 26915196 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Poor Desi, drunk again! The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
'argument' you've ever presented here. Do YOU think Henry
Brisbon is innocent? Name me ONE person, who believes that?
Certainly not Ryan, since he would be 'morally' bound to pardon,
rather than commute. In fact, the argument is, that Governor
Ryan believes that ALL those he commuted are GUILTY... 'beyond
a reasonable doubt.' Since he would morally have had to pardon
if he did NOT believe that to be true. I find you know very little about
the motivation behind the commutations.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:0nai0b....@lievre.voute.net...
> le Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:16:40 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article <b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris
<no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
> >> ALL innocent!!!" But to the RATIONAL person... Brisbon is as
> >> certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun is still shining
> >> somewhere on our planet.
>
> > And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony Porter.
>
>
> We have deathies screaming 'There were witnesses !!' ... and with a
> *thwack!*, we slap them down with just two words ... Anthony Porter.
>
> Then they whinge, 'But it's an open and shut case !!' ... and with a
> *thwack!*, we slap them down with just two words ... Anthony Porter.
>
> Next, they cry, 'He's guilty as sin !!' ... and with a *thwack!*, we slap
> them down with just two words ... Anthony Porter.
>
> They just can't win, can they ? LOL ...
>
your 'argument.' They're only 'misunderstood.' Such as Henry
Brisbon is 'misunderstood.' It is typical of you to presume to
compare Henry Brisbon with Anthony Porter. It is so stupid...
it defies every concept of rationality. Which shows 'your' (not
all abolitionists, since none having any intelligence would
find any comparison between the two in respect to presumed
innocence) arguments are based on our personal total irrationality.
But tell us again about how we are more in danger from a convicted
but released murderer, than we are from the next person we happen
to meet on the street. Does the word 'ignorant' mean anything to
you? Of course not... you still can't look in the mirror.
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
> http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
Am I obsessed with fighting 'evil'? Damn... I'm 'Superman' when
it comes to fighting desi's 'forces of evil.' References to a post which
insightfully pronounced of desi --
"'Cancerous' is almost a compliment when one views most of
desi's comments -- other forms spring more easily to mind --
it is a parasitic diarrhea of the brain... it is crazy chick disease
transferred to our thinking process -- it is a swarm of latrine flies
settling on our ability to process information --- it is maggots
feasting on the bodies of numberless victims of murder. It is
madness. utter madness. It is Desmond Coughlan."
Every evil, vile thought that has ever swept across this group from
desi's pen, as Genghis Kahn (or Attila the Hun, if you prefer) swept
his broad scythe of rape, death and destruction, in long, broad,
excruciating strokes across Europe, stand as stark images of his
perverse character. And we stand witness to that depravity.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:asNV9.133819$j8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > > >
> > > Not as long as we have you screaming ''They'll all innocent, I tell
you...
> > > ALL innocent!!!" But to the RATIONAL person... Brisbon is as
> > > certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun is still shining
> > > somewhere on our planet.
> >
> > And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony Porter.
> >
> What's the matter with your brain, Peter?
Ah, insults. Proof that PV knows he's beaten, again.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0j5po$9hb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
rather simple concepts, and seem to be determined to 'hug'
Henry Brisbon. A comparison of the TRUE innocence of Porter (who
is certainly factually and legally 'not guilty'), and the TRUE guilt
of Henry Brisbon (who is certainly factually and legally 'guilty') is
a no-brainer. You are presuming that because Porter has been
found 'not guilty,' that concludes that Henry Brisbon is also
'not guilty.' It's a flight of fantasy. And it makes me sick to find
you so 'in love' with someone like Brisbon. Porter and Brisbon
are two independent cases. I would certainly never claim that
because 'a lot of people said that about Henry Brisbon,' meaning
the certainty of his guilt, it demonstrates ANYTHING in respect
to Anthony Porter. You have deviously tried to conclude that
BECAUSE Anthony Porter is now presumed 'not guilty,' that we
must make the same assumption about Henry Brisbon. But if
the shoe were on the other foot, and I concluded that BECAUSE
Henry Brisbon is now presumed 'guilty,' that we must make the
same assumption about Anthony Porter, you would go ballistic.
In other words.. you are once again a hypocrite.
And the CERTAINTY of Brisbon's guilty is WAY BEYOND
reasonable doubt, or you are unaware of all the instances of
murder he has committed and attempted to commit, and his
behavior at trial.
PV
Fred
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
...
Illinois said that Anthony Porter was just as guilty as Henry Brisbon
and just as deserving of the death penalty. It took outsiders to
prove that Illinois was wrong. You can have no faith in that system
while the legislature refuses to implement even the modest changes
that the law enforcement professionals were in favour of. Would you,
without a qualm, let your mother be tried in such a broken, corrupt
system?
F
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony Porter.
> > > >
> > > What's the matter with your brain, Peter?
> >
> > Ah, insults. Proof that PV knows he's beaten, again.
> >
> Not at all... Simply recognition that you are unable to grasp some
> rather simple concepts,
Hardly, I point out some fact that YOU simply refuse to see.
> and seem to be determined to 'hug'
> Henry Brisbon.
More insults. The more you insult me, the weaker you show your
position to be.
> A comparison of the TRUE innocence of Porter (who
> is certainly factually and legally 'not guilty'), and the TRUE guilt
> of Henry Brisbon (who is certainly factually and legally 'guilty') is
> a no-brainer. You are presuming that because Porter has been
> found 'not guilty,' that concludes that Henry Brisbon is also
> 'not guilty.' It's a flight of fantasy.
No, I say that its POSSIBLE he's innocent.
You are lying again PV. I do not claim he IS innocent, I just
say it's POSSIBLE.
This is the way you always work. I say something like "its
possible he's innocent". You quote me as saying "he's innocent"
Then you spew out a load of abuse.
You constantly remove key words from the things I say.
And you really can't understand why this is a lie, can you?
Do you even understand that its dishonest?
> And it makes me sick to find
> you so 'in love' with someone like Brisbon. Porter and Brisbon
> are two independent cases. I would certainly never claim that
> because 'a lot of people said that about Henry Brisbon,' meaning
> the certainty of his guilt, it demonstrates ANYTHING in respect
> to Anthony Porter. You have deviously tried to conclude that
> BECAUSE Anthony Porter is now presumed 'not guilty,' that we
> must make the same assumption about Henry Brisbon.
Rubbish. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that mistakes
were made in the case of Anthony Porter, and its POSSIBLE that
similar mistakes have been made in Brisbon's case.
> But if
> the shoe were on the other foot, and I concluded that BECAUSE
> Henry Brisbon is now presumed 'guilty,' that we must make the
> same assumption about Anthony Porter, you would go ballistic.
> In other words.. you are once again a hypocrite.
In other words, PV makes a ridiculous reversal of what I say,
then claims the precise opposite of what I say is 'hypocritical'
> And the CERTAINTY of Brisbon's guilty is WAY BEYOND
> reasonable doubt, or you are unaware of all the instances of
> murder he has committed and attempted to commit, and his
> behavior at trial.
Yeah, andthe CERTAINTY of Anthony Porter's guilt was ALSO
beyond reasonable doubt, or are you unaware of his history of
crime Except of course that he turned out not to be.
John Rennie
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
I just don't think it is possible for PV to stop behaving in
this way. It's the reason he uses the cloak of anonymity - he
just cannot control himself.
Reilly
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote
> > > You are presuming that because Porter has been found
> > > 'not guilty,' that concludes that Henry Brisbon is also
> > > 'not guilty.' It's a flight of fantasy.
> >
> > No, I say that its POSSIBLE he's innocent.
> >
> > You are lying again PV. I do not claim he IS innocent, I just
> > say it's POSSIBLE.
> >
> > This is the way you always work. I say something like "its
> > possible he's innocent". You quote me as saying "he's innocent"
> > Then you spew out a load of abuse.
> >
> > You constantly remove key words from the things I say.
> > And you really can't understand why this is a lie, can you?
> > Do you even understand that its dishonest?
And PV wonders why I think he's Necro...
A Planet Visitor
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:lerX9.35812$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net...
I'd clearly place myself or any member of my family in that system.
Your argument seems to imply that the Justice System in Illinois
should come to a complete halt, and NO ONE be considered
guilty of ANY crime because Anthony Porter was pardoned.
And in fact, Illinois DID NOT say that Anthony Porter was just
as guilty as Henry Brisbon, since Porter has been pardoned and
Brisbon is still considered guilty.
The fact that Anthony Porter was pardoned, seems to show
more that the system is working.. than broken. Governor Ryan
tried to show it was broken, as a political statement, IMHO.
I am certainly for a moratorium if the people of the State of Illinois
support such a move. I had no problem with it, and did not
post one word about it, prior to the circus conducted by Ryan.
But do not for one instant try to compare Anthony Porter with
Henry Brisbon.
What is strange, is the position I've seen some abolitionists, including
you, take in the case of Henry Brisbon. Apparently his example has
opened a raw wound in the argument of Ryan's blanket commutation,
requiring some 'grand efforts' to presume he is 'innocent' (ho ho ho).
Comparing him to Porter. Because the argument of such blanket
commutation rests on such a flimsy presumption. He murdered in
prison, and the certainty of him having committed that murder is
confirmed as much as humanly possible.
The argument of the abolitionist is that 'incarceration insures incapacitation
as well as the DP.' Few would argue that they accept the murder of
innocents to 'save' murderers (of course -- desi is the exception). While
those who murder in prison, totally disprove that argument. Thus, I would
think that abolitionists, to stay at least a bit less intent on hyperbole, would
find those such as Henry Brisbon are poisoned fruit from the tree of that
particular abolitionist argument.
To offer a more 'reasoned' and believeable argument, abolitionists might
even argue that 'murderers who murder in prison,' are the most certain to
both deserve and have proven they will murder again under ANY circumstances.
Arguing then, that ONLY those who again murder in prison after already being
convicted of a murder which would have carried a capital penalty, should be
even considered for possible execution. Making that the ONLY form of capital
murder. Instead of offering the absolutely hilarious, and totally impotent
'argument' that someone such as Henry Brisbon is 'possibly innocent,' to
defend the action of Governor Ryan based on that impotent argument of
'possible innocence.' Of course, he's 'possibly' innocent. And Stalin might
still be alive in a Gulag in Siberia. The odds are about similar.
Your contention that Henry Brisbon is 'possibly innocent,' because Anthony
Porter was pardoned is laughable. I cannot believe that any reasonable
abolitionist would try to argue that THIS is the reason Governor Ryan
commuted a sentence which probably will now NEVER be carried out.
It is obvious that you argue that trivial and impossible point because
after examining the crimes for which he was convicted, you realize
how absolutely indefensible any argument would be which presumes
he should not be executed IF he is guilty. So your only impotent
argument HAS TO BE that there is STILL that 'presumption of innocence'
which is obviously not there to the eye of any thinking human being.
So, let me ask you directly... IF you were to believe (your opinion) that Henry
Brisbon is TRULY guilty of every crime for which he was convicted... would you
believe he should be executed as the statutes of the State of Illinois provide for?
Now I expect some hem and haw in reply, since if you were to AGREE that IF
you believe he is TRULY guilty, AND you STILL do not believe he should be
executed as those statutes provide for, then your views are obviously being
expressed ONLY in the shade of your agenda as a total abolitionist. Since if
HIS crimes do not meet the level for execution, given such statutes exist, then
IMHO, NO crimes would meet that level in your view.
On the other hand, if you still 'argue' that we must PRESUME Brisbon's
'innocence' because Anthony Porter was pardoned, then 'abandon hope
all ye who enter here with attempts at reason.' Because it is obvious to
me that reason has deserted you. Presuming you still insist on that
feeble excuse of 'possible innocence' similar to the pardon granted to
Anthony Porter, it will be seen by any reasonable person as just so much
of a 'sloppy smoke screen,' to your true argument of abolition, REGARDLESS
of proof of guilt, and the statutes of a society which permit execution.
Since the cases are night and day. And presuming Henry Brisbon is
innocent presumes we can find NO ONE on this planet guilty of murder.
He is as guilty as we will ever find, most especially since our entire
justice system lives or dies on the principle of 'beyond a reasonable
doubt,' not any comparison with the doubt existing in Porter, to the
certainty of the guilt of Brisbon. IMHO.
PV
> F
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0m8io$5kc$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:pCqX9.27999$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony Porter.
> > > > >
> > > > What's the matter with your brain, Peter?
> > >
> > > Ah, insults. Proof that PV knows he's beaten, again.
> > >
> > Not at all... Simply recognition that you are unable to grasp some
> > rather simple concepts,
>
> Hardly, I point out some fact that YOU simply refuse to see.
>
can state that 'for a fact'?? I don't think so, you imbecile.
> > and seem to be determined to 'hug'
> > Henry Brisbon.
>
> More insults. The more you insult me, the weaker you show your
> position to be.
>
Actually you don't have a position, given that you've simply said
"And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony Porter."
> > A comparison of the TRUE innocence of Porter (who
> > is certainly factually and legally 'not guilty'), and the TRUE guilt
> > of Henry Brisbon (who is certainly factually and legally 'guilty') is
> > a no-brainer. You are presuming that because Porter has been
> > found 'not guilty,' that concludes that Henry Brisbon is also
> > 'not guilty.' It's a flight of fantasy.
>
> No, I say that its POSSIBLE he's innocent.
>
Well... let's consider that. On what do you base such a statement?
Apparently on the fact that Anthony Porter was pardoned. But
this presumes that EVERYONE... EVERY PERSON EVER found guilty
is 'possibly' innocent. But shit... we already KNEW that. We KNOW
there is no CERTAINTY of guilt. We operate our justice system knowing
full well the 'possibility' of innocence. And we also know the 'possibility'
of being struck by a stray meteor. We don't stay in caves... waiting
for that possibility, because we recognize the limited chance of it
happening. Your argument therefore disintegrates into a presumption
that the entire justice system MUST be abolished, because they are
ALL 'possibly' innocent. If you are going to say 'possibly' innocent
you certainly need to show more proof than the fact that someone
ELSE was found innocent, even if they were first found guilty. Since that
happens frequently, and we don't commute EVERYONE because of
that one.
Thus, you have to do MORE to justify a comparison between Porter
and Brisbon, because there is NO ABSOLUTE INNOCENCE or
GUILT. We just don't know ABSOLUTELY. And the Justice
System recognizes this... but you seem not to.
> You are lying again PV. I do not claim he IS innocent, I just
> say it's POSSIBLE.
>
And I say that EVERY person on this planet is 'possibly' innocent.
So what??? That has nothing to do with anything. Every convicted
person is 'possibly' innocent.
And actually, you didn't even say that.. you just made a one-sentence
clumsy statement in your first post which most certainly IMPLIED
that Brisbon was the SAME as Porter. Your total words in that
post were -- "And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony
Porter." If you try to weasel out of that by saying you weren't
COMPARING the 'innocence' of Porter, to a presumption that
Brisbon was also the same, then you are still the Peter I know.
Clearly, as far as 'possible' goes, Porter can 'possibly' still be
guilty. In ABSOLUTE terms, not factual or legal. But therein
lies the difference between the two. Porter is factually and legally
'not guilty.' Brisbon is factually and legally 'guilty.'
> This is the way you always work. I say something like "its
> possible he's innocent". You quote me as saying "he's innocent"
> Then you spew out a load of abuse.
>
It's simply that it makes no sense to use an 'argument' which is
a truism, as presuming we must dismantle the Justice System.
Would you complain if I used the truism that 'no executed murderer
ever murdered again,' as presuming that provide 'proof' that the
DP should not be dismantled?
> You constantly remove key words from the things I say.
> And you really can't understand why this is a lie, can you?
> Do you even understand that its dishonest?
>
What was the 'key word' I removed? Since I believe your ENTIRE
first post consisted of
"And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony
Porter."
and your second with
"Ah, insults. Proof that PV knows he's beaten, again."
Those words still exist in this post. If you can show me where I 'removed'
a 'key word' let me know. Otherwise, it's just more bullshit from you.
>
> > And it makes me sick to find
> > you so 'in love' with someone like Brisbon. Porter and Brisbon
> > are two independent cases. I would certainly never claim that
> > because 'a lot of people said that about Henry Brisbon,' meaning
> > the certainty of his guilt, it demonstrates ANYTHING in respect
> > to Anthony Porter. You have deviously tried to conclude that
> > BECAUSE Anthony Porter is now presumed 'not guilty,' that we
> > must make the same assumption about Henry Brisbon.
>
> Rubbish. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that mistakes
> were made in the case of Anthony Porter, and its POSSIBLE that
> similar mistakes have been made in Brisbon's case.
>
And I'm saying we do not commute OTHERS on the evidence of
a DIFFERENT person. We consider each individual. You seem
to arguing that EVERYONE must be commuted world-wide, since
every justice system understands there are the possibility of
mistakes. Let me repeat what I posted to another. And pose
the same question to you --
What is strange, is the position I've seen some abolitionists, including
you, take in the case of Henry Brisbon. Apparently his example has
opened a raw wound in the argument of Ryan's blanket commutation,
requiring some 'grand efforts' to presume he is 'innocent' (ho ho ho).
Comparing him to Porter. Because the argument of such blanket
commutation rests on such a flimsy presumption.
The argument of the abolitionist is that 'incarceration insures incapacitation
as well as the DP.' Few would argue that they accept the murder of
innocents to 'save' murderers (of course -- desi is the exception). While
those who murder in prison, totally disprove that argument. Thus, I would
think that abolitionists, to stay at least a bit less intent on hyperbole, would
find those such as Henry Brisbon are poisoned fruit from the tree of that
particular abolitionist argument. He murdered in prison, and the certainty
of him having committed that murder is confirmed as much as humanly possible.
To offer a more 'reasoned' and believable argument, abolitionists might
> > But if
> > the shoe were on the other foot, and I concluded that BECAUSE
> > Henry Brisbon is now presumed 'guilty,' that we must make the
> > same assumption about Anthony Porter, you would go ballistic.
> > In other words.. you are once again a hypocrite.
>
> In other words, PV makes a ridiculous reversal of what I say,
> then claims the precise opposite of what I say is 'hypocritical'
>
Little wonder I've found you logically as dense as Uranium. You
admit my reversal is 'ridiculous,' which was my intention. As
it demonstrates a your original 'argument' that we must make
certain assumptions about Brisbon based on the facts of Porter
is 'ridiculous.'
And yet... you STILL don't get it.
> > And the CERTAINTY of Brisbon's guilty is WAY BEYOND
> > reasonable doubt, or you are unaware of all the instances of
> > murder he has committed and attempted to commit, and his
> > behavior at trial.
>
> Yeah, andthe CERTAINTY of Anthony Porter's guilt was ALSO
> beyond reasonable doubt, or are you unaware of his history of
> crime Except of course that he turned out not to be.
>
See what I mean? Apparently your 'argument' regarding Porter,
presumes we must abandon every Justice System in the world,
since someone found guilty, was later determined to be 'not
guilty' in the appeals process.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:qcyX9.313$W97.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Sometimes I find you the most reasonable poster here... and other times...
as here... I find you unreasonable, for reasons I cannot discern unless
you have let your agreement in abolition, cloud your judgment.
I no longer worry about what you or others think about my comments. If
you or others are too blind to see what's in them... that's not my fault.
Clearly Peter Morris is one of the great examples of deception in this group.
He has accused me of wishing murderers murder in prison. Yet has provided
no proof to such an outrageous lie. And his accusation is refuted by the
literally hundreds of posts I have provided which state clearly that NO
PERSON DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. Not the most depraved
murderer, deserves the same fate from another individual that he himself
has committed. Only society has the right to determine who can take
a life, and if society itself can take a life in the pursuit of justice and public
safety. And society permits no murder of ANYONE. Just a small part of
that extensive philosophy can be seen in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40AU6.428633%24o9.67976595%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
From 9 June 2001 -- quoting my words - "NO person - any person - DESERVES
to be MURDERED. The fact is ALL murder is clearly murder. There is no
distinction at murder's lower level. Everyone is INNOCENT of DESERVING
to be murdered. Even Jeffrey Daumer."
And in a post where Peter argued that the victim of Jarmarr Arnold
on DR probably 'deserved' to be murdered --- See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=_OrW6.1249%24_T2.82627%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
From 15 June 2001 -- quoting me in reply to Peter's absurd conclusion --
"PV argues that 'no one' deserves to be murdered. Apparently
Peter disagrees with this. Go figure...."
And again to Peter, where he clearly implied that Furman-commuted
prisoners were NOT 'innocent' of being deserved of murder. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=n6PT7.119399%24oj3.20809890%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
From 18 Dec 2001 -- my words again in response to Peter's absurd statement --
"EVERY murder victim is INNOCENT. No one DESERVES
to be murdered. And that's a fact. Now if you disagree
with that, then your argument, of course, is that SOME DO
deserve to be murdered because they are not innocent."
And again in yet another post to Peter --- see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6Wdf8.2221%241p6.522126%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
From 27 Feb 2002 -- my words again "Now, NO ONE, not even a
murderer sitting on DR DESERVES to be MURDERED by a fellow DR
murderer. as opposed to your belief that 'plenty of people *deserve*
to be killed, (Re:Abolitionist's Dictionary (revised edition), 2000-09-02
06:12:21 PST) where you wrote -- "I dont dispute that plenty of people
*deserve* to be killed. Only that if we give them "what they
deserve" then we become evil ourselves in the process.""
Do you see how his last words still further imply that if they *deserve*
to be killed, we cannot give them "what they deserve" yet it would
suggest that they can give 'what they deserve' to each other? Further
demonstrating that Peter doesn't actually 'care' if they murder each
other... as long as society doesn't do it.
If one searches for 'deserves to be murdered,' under my handle, one
finds twenty-seven posts, in ALL of which I CONDEMN ANY murder...
of ANYONE. There is no such thing as 'guilty' of BEING murdered.
Since NO ONE 'deserves to be murdered.'
Peter has little regard for murders which happen in prison to other prisoners.
He appears to me to be of the mind that as long as society does not execute
murderers, they are free to murder each other in prison. He has gone so far
as to provide examples of the murders committed by murderers on DR,
presuming THAT 'justifies' abolition. Does he believe those murders WOULD
NOT HAPPEN if they were not on DR? No... it means he just doesn't 'care'
if they murder each other. But to me -- Murder IS Murder. Most foul. And the total
OPPOSITE of the DP, which presumes murder is MORE foul, than the
abolitionist Peter presumes. Since it appears he can easily 'live with the
fact' that murderers murder other prisoners in prison, as long as society
does not execute them. It is something that troubles me from some other
abolitionists as well. They seem to presume that murder itself is not
so bad... as is society taking the life of that murderer.
Of course, that leads directly to his most famous post --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=avi56t%24ml6%241%40helle.btinternet.com&oe=UTF-8
And his equally famous comment -- "It has to be said four out of seven
of the victims of these murders were criminals." Now that comment in
that post is ABSOLUTELY, a clear and unequivocal view that 'prisoners
are different,' from 'ordinary citizens.' The presumption that 'it has to be
said...' because they have, to some extent -- brought it on themselves.
And his 'defense' against that macabre statement, is that it actually is
me, who wishes them to kill each other in prison. Yet he can provide
not ONE WORD, that would substantiate that claim.
And in fact, CONFIRMED his beliefs in that same post, with HIS further
comment of "It was PV, not me, that made the distinction between
'guilty' and 'innocent'"
Well, no shit, Sherlock!!! I confirm that I make such a distinction at
all times. But, I suppose we can assume Peter does not make such
a distinction!!! I have, of course, never presumed that anyone can be
'guilty' of BEING murdered. The idea is repulsive to me.. but seems
to find favor in Peter's philosophy.
Further arguments goes back to his various claims that 'the DP is murder.'
I see him harboring the philosophy of 'put them all on a deserted island,
and let nature and the murderer sort them out.' Certainly that is demonstrated
in the thread containing the post, above, where he and I discussed the
actions of Furman-commuted murderers. And continuing in that same post
above -- when the murders by those murderers committed in prison after
commutation were mentioned... He said "Secondly, they are not 'innocent'
PV's theory of how it is OK to kill 'guilty' people to save 'innocent' ones
doesn't work here"
Another absurd statement from Peter. It is not 'PV's' theory, of course.
It is a theory society holds, even in non-DP states, with law enforcement
killing 'guilty' hostage-takers to save 'innocent' hostages. And other
situations, such as ANY justified self-defense. MY THEORY!!! I'm old...
but it's a theory that pre-dates me by thousands of years. And his
words confirm that I had stated that they ARE 'innocent' of BEING
murdered!!!
Peter goes off on these stupendous tangents, and then distorts and
tries to lie his way out of his words. Always claiming "out of context."
Look at those words -- "PV's theory of how it is OK to kill 'guilty'
people to save innocent ones." We can presume Peter finds something
wrong with that theory, and believes it is OK to let 'guilty' people
kill innocent ones.
His arguments have ALWAYS relied on 'the Big Lie.' Dating back to 'the
Trolley Problem.' I quote his words BACK TO HIM... and he claims that
those words are MY feelings, even though they are HIS WORDS. And
when I note that he is lying... his reply is to call ME a liar. Yet he can
provide no words, in which he can justify saying so.
It goes back to the ARROGANCE I see from that miserable swine.
The absolute, ignorant presumption that he is right and another is
wrong. And the disgusting cheek he demonstrated yesterday to
'question' whether I am 'qualified' to attack Ryan. Does he presume
that only abolitionists from a different society are 'qualified' to speak
to that action, perhaps? The meaning behind a comment such
as that, would be if I were to say to you - 'and yet you feel qualified
to attack Blair.'
Peter is no better than desi... He is simply a miniature copy because
he does not post as frequently... but when he does, he clearly shows
his true colors. As he argues that society cannot execute the murderer,
but the murderers can murder each other, or even other prisoners...
since, in his mind... they probably deserve it. And in his words "Secondly,
they are not 'innocent.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Reilly" <lift@horizon> wrote in message news:3e2f48ad$0$27994$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote
>
> > > > You are presuming that because Porter has been found
> > > > 'not guilty,' that concludes that Henry Brisbon is also
> > > > 'not guilty.' It's a flight of fantasy.
> > >
> > > No, I say that its POSSIBLE he's innocent.
> > >
> > > You are lying again PV. I do not claim he IS innocent, I just
> > > say it's POSSIBLE.
> > >
> > > This is the way you always work. I say something like "its
> > > possible he's innocent". You quote me as saying "he's innocent"
> > > Then you spew out a load of abuse.
> > >
> > > You constantly remove key words from the things I say.
> > > And you really can't understand why this is a lie, can you?
> > > Do you even understand that its dishonest?
>
> And PV wonders why I think he's Necro...
>
he posts. This particular thread contains two posts from him
that I've responded to. His TOTAL words in those two posts
were
1) "And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony
Porter."
and the second post --
2) "Ah, insults. Proof that PV knows he's beaten, again."
In fact, I clipped exactly ZERO words from Peter. And in fact,
when it comes to clipping, Peter is the one doing so, since my
posts to his stupidity have gone as high as 55 KB, to INSURE
I do not clip his words. What Peter does, is try to put 'words'
INTO MY comments, such as desperately trying to claim
that the word 'murder' was contained in a sentence, and it
was not. And presuming that he could determine the meaning
of 'might' as I used that word. Stating that it could ONLY mean
'wish' or 'hope.' While I certainly meant it in the sense of 'perhaps,'
which does not imply a 'desire for the event, but simply that it
'might' happen, not that I 'wish' it would happen. Just a moment
ago, I posted a past comment from Peter -- that being
"It was PV, not me, that made the distinction between 'guilty'
and 'innocent'" See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=avi56t%24ml6%241%40helle.btinternet.com
Well, I would fucking HOPE SO!!! Since there IS a distinction.
Apparently Peter believes there is none. How's that for an
abolitionist?
And then he 'defended' that by stating AGAIN "PV makes a
distinction between 'guilty' people and 'innocent' people." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a5jcq4%24frk%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
I don't make this shit up... look at the posts for yourself.
Is that what one expects to hear from abolitionists?
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:NDOX9.116480$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
You deliberately misrepresented what I said.
I spoke of POSSBLE innocence, you lied and claimed I
wastalking of CERTAIN innocence.
> And in fact,
> when it comes to clipping, Peter is the one doing so, since my
> posts to his stupidity have gone as high as 55 KB, to INSURE
> I do not clip his words.
It was 55KB of direct lies and abuse. You found yourself
unable to answer the smallest point I had made, so you
changed everything.
> What Peter does, is try to put 'words'
> INTO MY comments, such as desperately trying to claim
> that the word 'murder' was contained in a sentence, and it
> was not.
The precise sentence in question was :
<<Who knows ... they might even put out a contract on desi>>
PV is deeply embarrassed by having said this, and now wishes
to pretend that it meant something other than a contract killing.
> And presuming that he could determine the meaning
> of 'might' as I used that word. Stating that it could ONLY mean
> 'wish' or 'hope.'
A direct lie from PV. I stated that the word 'might' has several
meanings one of which is the expression of a wish or hope.
That is quite definitely the sense in which PV was using it.
> While I certainly meant it in the sense of 'perhaps,'
> which does not imply a 'desire for the event, but simply that it
> 'might' happen, not that I 'wish' it would happen. Just a moment
> ago, I posted a past comment from Peter -- that being
>
> "It was PV, not me, that made the distinction between 'guilty'
> and 'innocent'" See --
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=avi56t%24ml6%241%40helle.btinternet.com
>
> Well, I would fucking HOPE SO!!!
So now you admit it, which you have tried to deny before.
YOU, not me thuinks that 'guilty' people deserve to be murdered.
> Since there IS a distinction.
> Apparently Peter believes there is none. How's that for an
> abolitionist?
For me, there is no distintion. Nobody deserves to be murdered,
guilty or innocent. But you think that guilty people deserve death.
Sometimes murderers are murdered in prison by other murderers.
When that happens, PV doesn't care, he wanted them dead anyway.
In his comments on these events, he deliberately concealed the
fact that they WERE murderers. Instead he pretended that they
were 'innocent' people. Thus he said that murderers murdered
'inniocent' people, which to him sounds worse than 'murderers
murdered other murderers' Even when confronted by the facts,
he maintained his lie claiming that they "were only guilty of
being murdered". I exposed his lie, and he is obsessed with
revenge for that.
Fred
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
....
>
> The fact that Anthony Porter was pardoned, seems to show
> more that the system is working.. than broken. Governor Ryan
> tried to show it was broken, as a political statement, IMHO.
> I am certainly for a moratorium if the people of the State of
Illinois
> support such a move. I had no problem with it, and did not
> post one word about it, prior to the circus conducted by Ryan.
Congratulations. You win the award for stupidest statement of the
month. Anthony Porter was pardoned not as a result of the system, but
despite it, by extraordinary efforts by people outside the system.
The system tried to murder him. If the system has to rely on law
students, journalism students and housewives to prevent the innocent
being killed by it, then it is truly and royally fucked up. Not that
there is any doubt about that.
F
JIGSAW1695
From: "Fred" no-...@nowhere.nohow
Date: 1/23/2003 10:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <Qq2Y9.1195$c41....@news2.telusplanet.net>
F
===============================
It was "the system" that heard the plea, weighed the evidence and freed the
convicted.
The people outside the system simply do not have the legal power to review the
case and reverse the decision.
Jigsaw
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0or77$nhk$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
corner this slimy rat. From claiming 'misrepresentation' to
claiming 'out of context.' Apparently EVERYTHING that peter
says has 'no meaning.'
>
> I spoke of POSSBLE innocence, you lied and claimed I
> wastalking of CERTAIN innocence.
>
factually and legally 'not guilty.' Brisbon is factually and
justice system. No one in his right mind (ooppss... now I
see the problem!!) can presume that Brisbon is 'possibly'
innocent because Porter was pardoned. It's the most
idiotic flight of fancy one can imagine. And it presumes that
EVERYONE has NEVER been 'actually' guilty.
> > And in fact,
> > when it comes to clipping, Peter is the one doing so, since my
> > posts to his stupidity have gone as high as 55 KB, to INSURE
> > I do not clip his words.
>
> It was 55KB of direct lies and abuse. You found yourself
> unable to answer the smallest point I had made, so you
> changed everything.
>
ho ho ho... see above [1]
>
> > What Peter does, is try to put 'words'
> > INTO MY comments, such as desperately trying to claim
> > that the word 'murder' was contained in a sentence, and it
> > was not.
>
> The precise sentence in question was :
>
> <<Who knows ... they might even put out a contract on desi>>
>
Finally... it's the first time you've EVER been 'precise.' Now you
obviously intend to tell everyone what I REALLY MEANT. See [1]
> PV is deeply embarrassed by having said this, and now wishes
> to pretend that it meant something other than a contract killing.
>
See what I mean? I don't give a shit about what YOU 'think.'
Since you've demonstrated the process has always been rather
difficult for you. The point is I pretend NOTHING... Those are
the words. YOU would now presume to say what they MEAN. In
fact, YOU are intent on distortion. Trying to put a meaning
into those words for OTHERS. Simply put the words up there,
and let others decide. But you've presumed to TELL THEM
what word to put in. A word that doesn't exist there. Thus
YOU are the liar. Those are my words... but you are lying
by presuming they MUST mean what you think they mean.
> > And presuming that he could determine the meaning
> > of 'might' as I used that word. Stating that it could ONLY mean
> > 'wish' or 'hope.'
>
> A direct lie from PV. I stated that the word 'might' has several
> meanings one of which is the expression of a wish or hope.
> That is quite definitely the sense in which PV was using it.
>
Horseshit... you argued over and over that, although it had
other meanings, MY USE could ONLY be intended as 'hope'
or 'wish.' You again INTERPRETED my use of the word,
rather than accepting it was meant otherwise in my use.
> > While I certainly meant it in the sense of 'perhaps,'
> > which does not imply a 'desire for the event, but simply that it
> > 'might' happen, not that I 'wish' it would happen. Just a moment
> > ago, I posted a past comment from Peter -- that being
> >
> > "It was PV, not me, that made the distinction between 'guilty'
> > and 'innocent'" See --
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=avi56t%24ml6%241%40helle.btinternet.com
> >
> > Well, I would fucking HOPE SO!!!
>
> So now you admit it, which you have tried to deny before.
> YOU, not me thuinks that 'guilty' people deserve to be murdered.
>
What are you babbling about? Those are YOUR words. And
you clearly STATE that "PV... made the distinction between
'guilty' and 'innocent.'" Thus, you ADMIT there that I always
HAVE made the distinction. And you go on to DENY that YOU
make such a distinction, with the use of "not me." There is
nothing there about 'murder.' There is ONLY the fact that
there is a distinction between 'guilty' and 'innocent.' OF COURSE
there is!!! The 'guilty' under law are NOT 'innocent,' and vice
versa. But NO ONE is 'guilty of BEING murdered.' They
become ONLY VICTIMS. They can be 'guilty' of COMMITTING
murder, but having been found guilty, that does not mean they
are also 'guilty of BEING murdered.' They are ONLY VICTIMS
if they are murdered.
But YOUR philosophy is that because they COMMITTED
murder they can NEVER be VICTIMS... they are simply those
who 'deserve to be murdered,' TO YOU. Throw them
together and let THEM sort it out, until they have all murdered
each other. That's YOUR 'solution.' In your "it has to be
said...these murders were criminals" In fact, they are NOT
criminals in respect to 'deserving to be murdered,' as you
presume. They are the SAME as ANY innocent who is
murdered. murder VICTIMS. NOTHING condones murder.
> > Since there IS a distinction.
> > Apparently Peter believes there is none. How's that for an
> > abolitionist?
>
> For me, there is no distintion. Nobody deserves to be murdered,
> guilty or innocent. But you think that guilty people deserve death.
>
ROTFLMAO... Quite clearly you've made a very clear DISTINCTION
between those guards murdered in prison, and the criminals murdered
in prison. You did so when you said your famous -- "It has to be
said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
There is YOUR distinction in your own words. FOUR were criminals.
THREE were not. That's called making a 'distinction' between
criminals and non-criminals. Your argument is that three were
victims...four were ''only' criminals. YOUR distinction. And
your distinction was applied to murder VICTIMS. I make no such
distinction. ALL murder VICTIMS... are simply murder VICTIMS.
You will not find one word from me that implies a distinction between
a murder victim... EVERY murder victim is INNOCENT of being
murdered. And you are CAUGHT in your own lies, yet again, with
your pathetic 'new' claim that 'For me, there is no distinction."
Because absolutely, and positively... you DID make a distinction.
You made it in the form of 'it has to be said..." The DISTINCTION
HAD TO BE SAID... BY YOU. And it stands just above. And
it refers to VICTIMS of murder. I make no distinction between
them... YOU do.
> Sometimes murderers are murdered in prison by other murderers.
> When that happens, PV doesn't care, he wanted them dead anyway.
There is a fundamental distinction between 'dead' and 'murdered.'
But, in any case, absolutely not... I never want ANYONE murdered.
You always twist words to try and make them into something else.
And I 'want' no murderer to be executed. But I also 'want' them to
not commit another murder of an innocent. Since the choices are
often accepting the 'lesser of two evil,' I 'accept' -- not 'want' -- and not
'desire' -- but ACCEPT -- that society can determine a murderer so
dangerous that the presumption of another murder being committed
by that murderer is too strong to permit the possibility of him
murdering a new innocent... and in fact he IS already a 'guilty'
murderer. Guilty OF murdering, but possible ONLY of being a
murder VICTIM if he IS murdered. And you will never be able to find one
word from me that would substantiate your great lie. Lies
we've become so accustomed to here.
> In his comments on these events, he deliberately concealed the
> fact that they WERE murderers.
What are you talking about? The Furman-Commuted murderers
were OBVIOUSLY murderers. And they were the ones who
COMMITTED the murders. IF they were among those who WERE
murdered (I believe that is false, and you have lied by claiming they
were also among those murdered)... they were INNOCENT of
BEING MURDERED. They were only murder VICTIMS. The fact
that they HAD murdered did not make them guilty of BEING MURDERED,
you imbecile. You are the one who presumed that because those
murder victims were 'criminals, then 'it has to be said...' they are
'criminals,' presuming they 'deserve' to be murdered IN YOUR VIEW.
> Instead he pretended that they
> were 'innocent' people.
So... well, thank you.. FINALLY, an admission of the truth.... I DID
state they were innocent... which you claim was 'pretending.'
Yes, I did... but I was NOT 'pretending.' They WERE innocent...
INNOCENT of BEING murdered. They were innocent murder victims.
While one can paraphrase YOUR philosophy as "guilty for a crime...
hell... must be guilty of being murdered... probably deserved it."
I'm so glad to see you finally admit that YOUR VIEW is that
murderers who are murdered in prison are NOT 'innocent' people.
Not really 'innocent' murder victims. I claim they are... they are only
victims of murder. You claim that are not 'innocent.' Thus, you
feel they 'deserve' to be murdered. Because you feel it is 'only
pretending' to call them 'innocent.'
Quite like your 'argument' of the murder of a drug-dealer and the
execution of McGinn.... they both 'deserved it' in your view. Which
caused me to hurl my lunch when you argued that little gem, a
few years back.
> Thus he said that murderers murdered
> 'inniocent' people, which to him sounds worse than 'murderers
> murdered other murderers'
No, sport.. they are EXACTLY the same. That's what I've always
argued. There is NO distinction between VICTIMS... I don't
care what their particular crime WAS... they are now VICTIMS.
Total and absolute. It was YOU who wished to over and over,
make the distinction in the difference.
> Even when confronted by the facts,
> he maintained his lie claiming that they "were only guilty of
> being murdered". I exposed his lie, and he is obsessed with
> revenge for that.
>
You lying sack of shit. That is a bold lie claiming a quote of
my words. I have NEVER used the phrase "only guilty of being
murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=only%20guilty%20of%20being%20murdered&safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=alt
.activism.death-penalty&as_uauthors=planet&lr=&hl=en
It's become so easy to PROVE you lie, over and over. Because in
the SAME thread (different post) from me to you, these are my
words, even back then --
"There is a distinction between 'guilty' people and 'innocent'
people, that's rather simplistic. But it's how we view that
guilt and innocent which is important. Neither group are
'guilty' of BEING murdered. That is simply an impossibility."
See the word 'impossibility'?
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6Wdf8.2221%241p6.522126%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=windows-1252
> > And then he 'defended' that by stating AGAIN "PV makes a
> > distinction between 'guilty' people and 'innocent' people." See --
> >
> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a5jcq4%24frk%241%40lyonesse.netcom.
> net.uk
Yes, people... take a look.. Peter is again 'upset' in that post
because I quote him.. and he whines again with his famous
"And, yes, the quote was out of context" Apparently, peter
argues his words are empty of context. Something I can believe.
Another gem from peter's post, which seems to be him falling on
his own sword, are these words from him --
"DP is killing people. therefore you have said that criminals
deserve to be killed."
Now, peter goes into another flight of fancy, since I've never
said 'criminals deserve to be killed.' This is the usual approach
peter takes... creating lying images, not even bothering to find any
words that would relate to proving what he says, simply lying
in his teeth. The fact is I might have said I feel that 'Some murderers
deserve to be executed.' I do not deny that I feel thusly... SOME
MURDERERS, not 'all' and not 'criminals.' But from that peter
presumed that all 'criminals' are 'murderers' and 'killing is about as
close to 'executed,' that he wished to go at that point... but later
on... he'd try to maybe twist it into 'murder' if he could. peter is a
liar. He has no other defense except to lie, and he realizes that now.
Poor man... so sad... so pathetic....so desi-like.
PV
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030123225616...@mb-fv.aol.com...
And did the plea emanate from the system? Do try and
concentrate, Jiggy.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> But YOUR philosophy is that because they COMMITTED
> murder they can NEVER be VICTIMS... they are simply those
> who 'deserve to be murdered,' TO YOU.
We've been through this before, PV. You said that, not me.
You are right to be ashamed of it, but to keep on denying what
you said is shameful.
I exposed your lies, that's all. The idea that listing the lies you
told somehow indicates agreement with your statement that
they deserved to die is somewhat bizzarre.
> Throw them
> together and let THEM sort it out, until they have all murdered
> each other. That's YOUR 'solution.' In your "it has to be
> said...these murders were criminals" In fact, they are NOT
> criminals in respect to 'deserving to be murdered,' as you
> presume. They are the SAME as ANY innocent who is
> murdered. murder VICTIMS. NOTHING condones murder.
And yet, in your discussion of the victims, you took great pains
to hide the fact that they were criminals. Clearly, beyond any doubt,
you thought they deserved to be murdered, so you lied and
pretended they weren't criminals. The fact that I exposed your
lies does not indicate agreement with your principles.
JIGSAW1695
From: "John Rennie" j.re...@ntlworld.com
Date: 1/24/2003 6:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <os9Y9.1913$MU3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
===============================
Regardless of where the plea "emanate(d)" from, only the judicial system could
issue a pardon.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:12:28 +0000
>
>le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:56:10 GMT, dans l'article
><K6OX9.116477$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Clearly Peter Morris is one of the great examples of deception in this
>group.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!! FuckWit discovers irony ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:12:28 +0000
>Lines: 15
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <s63s0b...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b04fg2$abq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><asNV9.133819$j8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><wJ6X9.113990$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0j5po$9hb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><pCqX9.27999$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0m8io$5kc$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><qcyX9.313$W97.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><K6OX9.116477$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043435905 30140658 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!news.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212
-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>
>
Poor Desi, yet another drunken lie! The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:47:50 +0000
>
>le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:56:08 GMT, dans l'article
><I6OX9.116473$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> The argument of the abolitionist is that 'incarceration insures
>> incapacitation as well as the DP.' Few would argue that they accept the
>> murder of innocents to 'save' murderers (of course -- desi is the
>> exception).
>
>LOL ... FuckWit seems to think that if he repeats a lie often enough,
>people will start to believe it.
>
>Of course, for those of you not familiar with the thread, FuckWit is
>referring to his claim that I would 'prefer' that Theodore Frank murder
>another child, than be executed. The thread is ''Bring Back Bill', and the
>following exchange is quite interesting ...
>
> 'Have you noticed how quotes get twisted as time passes. Desmond
> did not say that he "preferred" that Frank murdered another child
> rather than he be executed.' (John Rennie [1])
>
> 'Of course my words were quite accurate' (FuckWit [2])
>
> 'Your words were NOT accurate, he did NOT say that he
> would prefer etc..' (John Rennie [3])
>
>Sadly, as Rennie (who, despite his faults, is honest), was forced to state
>of FuckWit ...
>
> 'I have told PV that he lies, I have told him that he invents
> strawdogs, I have told him that because he does these stupid things he
> has become a laughing stock' [4]
>
>{ snip remainder of idiotic refusal to accept that 'all' death row
> prisoners are 'guilty' }
>
>[1]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=3
1&thl=1015039870,1014998728,1014881050,1014585598,1014545632,1014285135,10
14096765,1013999827,1013983844,1013746530,1013655239,1013639289&seekm=m61i
9.23010%247x3.1092843%40new
>sfep2-win.server.ntli.net#link32
>[2]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl919726680d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=I9Sh9.287542%24Rx4.3693954%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>[3]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl919726680d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=m61i9.23010%247x3.1092843%40newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net
>[4]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=laughing+stock+author:John+author:R
ennie&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Rshn9.672%24YB1.56849%40newsfep1-win.server.
ntli.net&rnum=1
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!itgate.net!news.it
.colt.net!peernews3.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net
!skynet.be!skynet.be!fu-ber
>lin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:47:50 +0000
>Lines: 45
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <6cqs0b...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b04fg2$abq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><asNV9.133819$j8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><wJ6X9.113990$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0j5po$9hb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><pCqX9.27999$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><lerX9.35812$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net>
><I6OX9.116473$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043459601 30823358 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:49:25 +0000
>
>le Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:33:49 GMT, dans l'article
><xJ6X9.113992$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> They just can't win, can they ? LOL ...
>
>> Not if one presumes there is no such thing as a murderer. Which is
>> your 'argument.' They're only 'misunderstood.'
>
>Another blatant lie. Here are all the instances of the word
>'misunderstood' in my posts since 1999 ...
>
>url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/misunderstood
>
>As you can see, at no point have I _ever_ stated that murderers are only
>'misunderstood', and as you included that word in 'quotes' (sic), you were
>accusing me of saying it. Just as you insinuated that I wanted to kill
>Jews, by using the same tactics.
>
>FuckWit, no one can stop you lying continuously, indeed we shouldn't even
>try, as it's so easy to prove that your words _are_ lies, but if you're
>going to do it, at least try to make it _a little_ believable.
>
>> Such as Henry Brisbon is 'misunderstood.' It is typical of you to
>> presume to compare Henry Brisbon with Anthony Porter.
>
>I made no such comparison, but even if I had, the analogy is sound, as you
>state that he is quite obviously guilty. So was Anthony Porter, right up
>until he was shown to be innocent. Or do you believe that everyone knew
>that he was innocent, but that they kept him in gaol for the fun of it ?
>You, and your disgusting kind who killed Martin Luther King, would have
>been chanting ...
>
> 'But to the RATIONAL person... Anthony Porter is as certainly guilty as
> we can determine that the sun is still shining somewhere on our
> planet.'
>
>> It is so stupid...
>> it defies every concept of rationality.
>
>If you had half the intelligence you claim to, you would have dropped this
>thread, but as you still cling to the 'last one standing, wins' theory,
>you'll continue to hammer away at it, until Peter, or I, or anyone else,
>gets fed up with it, and moves onto other things. Then in a couple of
>months, you'll cite this thread as one of the imaginary 'spanking's' (sic)
>that you 'inflicted' on us. It's of little importance to me. Claim that
>I'm 'afraid' of you, if you so desire (LMAO !!), but you've certainly been
>'defeated' (insofar as usenet can have 'winners') on this point.
>
>The fact is that _every_ resident of death row, across the entire 38 states
>that have them, is 'as certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun is
>still shining somewhere on our planet.' Otherwise, they wouldn't be
>there. That you can't see that, isn't really my problem.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:49:25 +0000
>Lines: 61
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <5c5s0b...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b04fg2$abq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><asNV9.133819$j8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com> <0nai0b....@lievre.voute.net>
><xJ6X9.113992$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043438002 30088470 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:11:35 +0000
>
>le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:31:25 GMT, dans l'article
><NDOX9.116480$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> And PV wonders why I think he's Necro...
>
>> In point of fact, Peter is engaged in more treacherous deception as
>> he posts. This particular thread contains two posts from him
>> that I've responded to. His TOTAL words in those two posts
>> were
>>
>> 1) "And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony
>> Porter."
>>
>> and the second post --
>>
>> 2) "Ah, insults. Proof that PV knows he's beaten, again."
>>
>> In fact, I clipped exactly ZERO words from Peter. And in fact,
>> when it comes to clipping, Peter is the one doing so, since my
>> posts to his stupidity have gone as high as 55 KB, to INSURE
>> I do not clip his words.
>
>Let's see ... you acknowledge that Peter has made two posts, the total
>contents of which are ...
>
> 'And I'm sure a lot of people said that about Anthony Porter'
>
>... and ...
>
> 'Ah, insults. Proof that PV knows he's beaten, again'.
>
>My editor saves those two phrases as 112 bytes ...
>
> des...@lievre.voute.net % ls -al drafts/peter
> -rw-r--r-- 1 desmond voute 112 Jan 24 18:56 drafts/peter
>
>Let's add, say, another 500 bytes per post (vim calculates my headers in
>this article as 647 bytes ...
>
> des...@lievre.voute.net % ls -al drafts/headers
> -rw-r--r-- 1 desmond voute 647 Jan 24 18:57 drafts/headers
>
>... but my headers are longer than most) for headers. That makes a grand
>total of 1,406 bytes, or 1.37 KB in total.
>
>Now you're telling us that in order to 'insure' (sic) that Peter's words
>are not clipped, you find it necessary to make posts that are 55 KB, i.e.
>56,320 bytes long ? In other words, your posts are 40 times as long (and
>many thousands of times as boring and long-winded) as Peter's, _solely_ to
>show us that
>you haven't clipped his words ?
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... I was tempted to say 'even _you're_ not that stupid,
>FuckWit', but you seem determined to prove me wrong.
>
>> What Peter does, is try to put 'words' INTO MY comments, such as
>> desperately trying to claim that the word 'murder' was contained in a
>> sentence, and it was not.
>
>Coming from the poster who makes a veritable career out of misinterpreting
>others' words, this is laughable.
>
>> And presuming that he could determine the meaning
>> of 'might' as I used that word. Stating that it could ONLY mean
>> 'wish' or 'hope.'
>
>Peter is big and ugly enough to look after himself, so I shan't presume to
>tell you what he meant, but my own interpretation of his words is that he
>is not claiming that the _only possible meaning_ of your words was to
>'wish', or to 'hope'. There are, of course, other possible meanings.
>However, he seems to be convinced (as am I) that in the post being
>discussed, you did not mean any of the other possibilities, and that in
>fact, you _were_ expressing a hope that I would be murdered. In short, you
>did not mean 'might', but you _did_ mean 'hope'. So far, I have seen no
>one else on news:alt.activism.death-penalty offer an interpretation that
>might differ from that.
>
>
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=cbb
26c253835af7f&seekm=ubLv9.79686%24r7.1593261%40twister.tampabay.rr.com#link1
>
>
>Is the post in question. I would be very interested to hear from a poster
>of either persuasion [1], who read those words, and who arrived at any
>conclusion _other than_ that you were 'wishing aloud' for a contract to be
>carried out on me.
>
>Anyone ?
>
>
>[1] aside from Jigsaw and the Drewl Trio, who would agree with you if you
> said that the earth was flat, that 'quote' is a noun, and that New South
> Wales _is_ across the Severn Bridge (LOL !!), if it meant disagreeing
>with
> me
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!newsfe
ed.hostname.nl!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-
for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:11:35 +0000
>Lines: 97
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <753s0b...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><asNV9.133819$j8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><wJ6X9.113990$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0j5po$9hb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><pCqX9.27999$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0m8io$5kc$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><qcyX9.313$W97.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><3e2f48ad$0$27994$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
><NDOX9.116480$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043435904 30140658 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <6cqs0b...@lievre.voute.net>
< snipped>
{ snip remainder of idiotic refusal to accept that 'all' death row
prisoners are 'guilty' }
===============================
Once again, Dezilogic falls flat on its face.
To get to death row, you have to be found legally guilty of a crime. They dont
send
"not guilty" people to prison, much less execute them.
What a fucking maroon!
A Planet Visitor
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:Qq2Y9.1195$c41....@news2.telusplanet.net...
system,' report back to me. Nor is there any such thing as 'the
system tried to murder him.' It's just so much zealot rubbish to
make such an absurd claim. The 'system,' created by society
recognizes the possibility of the loss of innocent life, for the
presumed purpose of saving more lives. In fact, the 'system'
accepts the possibility of the loss of innocent life, when it
issues you your driver's permit. A well-recognized morality
rate. In fact, over 41,000 such fatalities every year, which is
about 1 every 12 minutes. So we probably permit more loss
of innocent life EVERY 12 minutes, than we have in more than
25 years of executions post-Furman. Both through actions
controlled and permitted, which quite certainly could both be
LEGALLY abolished. The fact is no zealot screams for abolishing
driving to save those innocent lives. Because no one wishes to
give up the mobility of vehicle travel. And driving has no real
purpose other than an increased mobility factor, which provides
for this 'acceptance' of the loss of innocent life. While the
DP has a 'stated' purpose other than increased mobility. That being
to PROTECT innocent lives in the sum. The execution of an
innocent, is nothing other than any act which society authorizes
... an accident which is recognized as a possibility through the
act of the state.
Now you may call the DP anything you wish, in terms of how
horrible you see the state possibly executing another human
being. Even a guilty murderer. But be assured that if you try to
call it murder, you should never operate an automobile again,
since you could become a murderer yourself, through even an
unavoidable traffic accident. And you would certainly need to call
society a murderer for that loss of life as well. Since 'we' (and
society is 'you' and 'me') PERMITTED you and the other driver to
operate those motor vehicles. Just as society permits the entire
body of the 'system' which executes a proven murderer, including
the doctors who administer the lethal injections. In both cases,
however; they are called accidental deaths, even if the execution
of an innocent were ever to be proven. The proof of which does
not exist in the DP post-Furman. While the accidental deaths
of innocents caused through permitting personal vehicle operation
is a well established fact.
Another lengthy argument which demonstrates that execution of
an innocent is considered an accident, is society making available
immunizations from diseases, where the immunizations themselves
have a minute recognized mortality rate. Socieety does so because
of the recognition that it saves more lives than it could possibly take
through such low mortality rates. The same applies to the DP.
It just keeps getting easier and easier for me to deal with radical fanatics
such as you.
PV
> F
>
>
>
Fred
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
When a man who has committed no crime is killed deliberately and with
malice that is murder.
> It's just so much zealot rubbish to
> make such an absurd claim. The 'system,' created by society
> recognizes the possibility of the loss of innocent life, for the
> presumed purpose of saving more lives.
A farrago of nonsense. The system claims to be sufficiently perfect
to take life. The system is obviously wrong.
> In fact, the 'system'
> accepts the possibility of the loss of innocent life, when it
> issues you your driver's permit.
More rubbish.
> A well-recognized morality
> rate.
You show no sign of _any_ morality rate.
> In fact, over 41,000 such fatalities every year, which is
> about 1 every 12 minutes. So we probably permit more loss
> of innocent life EVERY 12 minutes, than we have in more than
> 25 years of executions post-Furman.
This is a truly ludicrous argument. Apparently you are going for the
blue ribbon award for stupidity.
... [ more mindless twaddle clipped] .....
F
JIGSAW1695
From: "Fred" no-...@nowhere.nohow
Date: 1/25/2003 1:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <wQpY9.7587$c41.3...@news2.telusplanet.net>
More rubbish.
> A well-recognized morality
> rate.
F
===============================
Oddly, Fred did not try to present a counter-argument to any point.
He uses such deft words as:
"A farrago of nonsense".
"More rubbish"
"ludicrous argument"
"blue ribbon award for stupidity"
But alas..... he does not argue any point at all. He presents no information to
support his claim. He offers nothing but insults.
Sort of sounds like Dezi, dosent it?
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b0rlg9$61k$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:kb6Y9.122430$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >
> > But YOUR philosophy is that because they COMMITTED
> > murder they can NEVER be VICTIMS... they are simply those
> > who 'deserve to be murdered,' TO YOU.
>
> We've been through this before, PV. You said that, not me.
> You are right to be ashamed of it, but to keep on denying what
> you said is shameful.
>
a liar. And what is shameful is the perverse methods you use
to deny your own lies. As a coward, rather than face your own
words, you continually claim 'out of context,' when they are
posted. You will never find any words from me that imply it is possible
to call the murder of a criminal, or the murder of a prisoner, or the
murder of another murderer, ANYTHING other than the 'murder
of an INNOCENT.' While you have lied over and over, claiming I
have, but have never provided any words from me that would show
I view a murder victim, as ANYTHING BUT an 'innocent murder
victim.' They are ONLY such a victim. While YOU have said in
respect to the murder of prisoners by murderers in prison --
"it has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders
were criminals"
That is IRREFUTABLE evidence that you do not see 'criminals'
as VICTIMS. They are just 'criminals.' "These murders of criminals,"
demonstrating precisely that you view 'murders of criminals' quite
different from 'murder of non-criminals,' in your EXACT words. The
other three are 'different'... they are the only 'innocent victims' to
YOU. While I have stated OVER and OVER that there is NO
distinction in respect to murder VICTIMS. Of course COMMITTING
a crime, makes one a 'criminal,' differentiating them from a 'non-criminal.'
But when a crime is COMMITTED ON anyone, that person is
ONLY an INNOCENT VICTIM... whatever that crime is, including
murder. That makes a 'criminal' an 'INNOCENT VICTIM.'
Nothing else.
> I exposed your lies, that's all. The idea that listing the lies you
> told somehow indicates agreement with your statement that
> they deserved to die is somewhat bizzarre.
>
There is no question that you have lost your presumed 'moral compass,'
lately, peter. In an absurd outburst of irrational nonsense, simply
because you've been so thoroughly boxed in by your own words,
which I keep bringing back to you... and you keep raging that
they are 'out of context.' Are ALL you words 'out of context'?
What exactly do you define as 'in context'? Are only your lies
capable of being taken 'in context'?
> > Throw them
> > together and let THEM sort it out, until they have all murdered
> > each other. That's YOUR 'solution.' In your "it has to be
> > said...these murders were criminals" In fact, they are NOT
> > criminals in respect to 'deserving to be murdered,' as you
> > presume. They are the SAME as ANY innocent who is
> > murdered. murder VICTIMS. NOTHING condones murder.
>
> And yet, in your discussion of the victims, you took great pains
> to hide the fact that they were criminals.
Ah ha... that's the way you PERCEIVED it. I only took 'great
pains' NOT to imply it made a 'difference.' You saw that as
'trying to hide the fact,' a fact which is meaningless in the
context of VICTIMS. While you find it so important. Repeating,
it is meaningless to me, in terms of an 'innocent victim.'
And one cannot be presumed to be 'hiding' something which is
meaningless to them. So yes... I can understand how you
might think I was trying to hide the fact they had been convicted
of a crime. Because it is OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE to you,
that it be noted... over and over. Which you have continued to
do. Why? Well, because you do not see them as INNOCENT
victims... you actually see them as GUILTY victims... rather
deserved of 'being murdered.' While I have said over and over...
<shouting>
NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. ALL VICTIMS ARE
INNOCENT VICTIMS.
<shouting off>
> Clearly, beyond any doubt,
> you thought they deserved to be murdered, so you lied and
> pretended they weren't criminals. The fact that I exposed your
> lies does not indicate agreement with your principles.
>
Another lie. Since you've simply created what you claim is
the 'meaning' of my words, from thin air. Words you can NEVER
provide. I didn't 'pretend' they weren't criminals. As far as being
murder VICTIMS, there is no 'pretend.' They are 'innocent' of
any crime committed ON THEIR PERSON. They are 'innocent victims.'
While you have presumed they are 'guilty victims.' You find they
'quite deserved' what they got. Just as you felt so long ago with
your comparison of the murder of a 'drug-dealer' with the execution
of McGinn. And you have most certainly tried to presume the
murders of the four innocent victims by Furman-Commuted murderers,
made them 'different' from other victims, because they were in
prison for crimes. You presumed they were 'worth less' than any
other murder victims... thinking they 'probably deserved it, anyway.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030125024216...@mb-fv.aol.com...
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:5c5s0b...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:33:49 GMT, dans l'article <xJ6X9.113992$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
<irrational raving clipped>
> The fact is that _every_ resident of death row, across the entire 38 states
> that have them, is 'as certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun is
> still shining somewhere on our planet.' Otherwise, they wouldn't be
> there. That you can't see that, isn't really my problem.
>
Of course it isn't... you have MUCH GREATER problems. Much
greater psychological problems. Like praying for murderers, and
claiming God provides retentionists, as 'playthings' for abolitionists
to stalk, torture and kill as the 'domestic cat' stalks, tortures and
kills the 'sparrow.' That is some DEEP problem you have. Delving
into that problem, is work for a therapist trained in psychotic
disorders.
desi, at some point it must be realized that a person IS guilty.
If we presume that point can never be reached, we might as well
let every murderer indiscriminately murder, and every criminal
indiscriminately rape and rob. This is the point I speak of in the
determination of guilt. You would presume it is never met. But
that only makes you an ignorant ass, unaware of the purpose of
the Justice System. And with that in evidence... I can't help you.
As Earl said ... you're a 'flat-earther.' You cannot see it is not
flat, and demand that it be so.
PV
> { snip }
>
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
> http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
Am I obsessed with fighting 'evil'? Damn... I'm 'Superman' when
it comes to fighting desi's 'forces of evil.' References to a post which
insightfully pronounced of desi --
"'Cancerous' is almost a compliment when one views most of
desi's comments -- other forms spring more easily to mind --
it is a parasitic diarrhea of the brain... it is crazy chick disease
transferred to our thinking process -- it is a swarm of latrine flies
settling on our ability to process information --- it is maggots
feasting on the bodies of numberless victims of murder. It is
madness. utter madness. It is Desmond Coughlan."
Every evil, vile thought that has ever swept across this group from
desi's pen, as Genghis Kahn (or Attila the Hun, if you prefer) swept
his broad scythe of rape, death and destruction, in long, broad,
excruciating strokes across Europe, stand as stark images of his
perverse character. And we stand witness to that depravity.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:s63s0b...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:56:10 GMT, dans l'article <K6OX9.116477$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
>
>
is irony. In fact, I expressly limited it to 'great' rather than 'greatest' with
YOU expressly in mind.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:6cqs0b...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:56:08 GMT, dans l'article <I6OX9.116473$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> > incapacitation as well as the DP.' Few would argue that they accept the
> > murder of innocents to 'save' murderers (of course -- desi is the
> > exception).
>
>
I only repeat what is rather common knowledge around here.
You have already proven that with your claim that you are willing
to 'gamble' innocent lives to save the life of a murderer. That's
written history in your words.
> Of course, for those of you not familiar with the thread, FuckWit is
> referring to his claim that I would 'prefer' that Theodore Frank murder
> another child, than be executed. The thread is ''Bring Back Bill', and the
> following exchange is quite interesting ...
>
LOL... Apparently desi is intent on 'hiding' from the REAL post in
question. That being in the thread "Question for DESMOND." See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020920212907.00727.00001451%40mb-ba.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
desi's words in speaking of freeing Frank rather than executing him --
/quote/
"Am I willing to gamble on that infinitesimally small chance that he will
kill again ?
Yes.
/unquote/
This came about as 'claification' of his first words that he would 'free
Frank' unconditionally, which was a rather unfair question. But desi's
'clarification' left little doubt that he considers NO murderers so dangerous
that he would not be willing to 'gamble' the life of an innocent victim on
that 'small' (sic) chance that he will kill again.
<snip idiotic attempt to hide behind another thread in which he
also covered himself in shit>
The fact is John Rennie asked a direct question, and instead of calling
it an 'unfair question' which it was... came up with the one word 'Yes,'
which began the whole argument. You certainly cannot DENY that
you said 'YES,' to the question -- This was in even another thread,
predating all references -- from Feb 2002, "Texas jailbreak gang member
sentenced to death" (those you had 'prayed' would make it to
Mexico), which began Everything in this dialog.. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XXy78.717%24jO5.131221%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
This was before dolly archived your posts, but I did with this one.
John Rennie asked you directly "I'll give you one more chance. Theodore
Frank is about to be executed - you can set him free. Do you?"
Your one word answer -- "Yes."
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Fred" <no-...@nowhere.nohow> wrote in message news:wQpY9.7587$c41.3...@news2.telusplanet.net...
in that fertile imagination of yours? 'Malice' BELONGS to CRIMES.
Accidents contain no malice, or they are not considered 'accidents.'
You will find no reference to the DP being administered with malice
connected, except in the most fanatical, raving drooling anti-DP
sites. If you presume that 'punishment' itself is defined in the
sense of malice, than your 'argument' (sic) is not with the DP,
but with the Justice System, which you appear to wish to dismantle,
politely asking criminals and murderers to not do so anymore.
In fact, there was a little item in today's paper, from London --
Quoting the article from the wire services --
"London -It gives new meaning to the term "Letter of the law."
A British Police Force announced Friday that it has come up with
a new measure to combat crime: A polite letter asking persistent
offenders to mend their ways. On Friday morning, 22 men and
women in Willshire, southern England, received personal letters
from Inspector Geoff Miles telling them they have a choice: Get
back on the straight and narrow or be targeted by police."
> > It's just so much zealot rubbish to
> > make such an absurd claim. The 'system,' created by society
> > recognizes the possibility of the loss of innocent life, for the
> > presumed purpose of saving more lives.
>
> A farrago of nonsense. The system claims to be sufficiently perfect
> to take life. The system is obviously wrong.
>
Actually, you're wrong Since you've simply provided an 'opinion'
without the slightest foundation. Are you presuming to abandon
the Justice System?
> > In fact, the 'system'
> > accepts the possibility of the loss of innocent life, when it
> > issues you your driver's permit.
>
> More rubbish.
>
LOL... your riposte is overwhelmingly 'articulate.' Unfortunately
it makes not a bit of sense. The state PERMITS operating a
motor vehicle. IT IS NOT a 'right.' There are over 40,000 traffic
fatalities a year, happening because society provides that 'PRIVILEGE'
to those it deems responsible. Fully realizing that SOME OF
THEM are not, and will certainly be part of that 40,000 loss
of innocent life. The fact is 'you like to drive,' and you are willing
to accept that society provides such a 'privilege.' And by so
doing you are accepting that 40,000 traffic fatalities, resulting
in the loss of innocent life, will occur each year. In fact, it would
seem your 'acceptance' of THAT loss of innocent life, and your
whining about the almost invisibly SLIGHT possibilty of even
ONE innocent being executed by the state, seems rather
hypocritical to me. Especially since 'driving' creates only
easier mobility, while the DP presumes it SAVES innocent
lives as an end result. The fact is you don't want to GIVE UP
what you feel necessary for your PERSONAL PLEASURE, but
demand that society itself give up what the citizens of that
society have considered necessary. I have no problem with
a society that abolishes the DP. I only wish they would have
no problem, other than a vocal consideration, with a society
that accepts the DP.
> > A well-recognized morality
> > rate.
>
> You show no sign of _any_ morality rate.
>
You show no sign of any intelligence rate. See --
url:http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,2336,00.html
> > In fact, over 41,000 such fatalities every year, which is
> > about 1 every 12 minutes. So we probably permit more loss
> > of innocent life EVERY 12 minutes, than we have in more than
> > 25 years of executions post-Furman.
>
> This is a truly ludicrous argument. Apparently you are going for the
> blue ribbon award for stupidity.
>
Again... an overpowering degree of 'windbag' ravings that contain no
argument which could even begin to refute my FACTS.
> ... [ more mindless twaddle clipped] .....
>
hey desi -- paying attention?? -- Fred is was one of your 'articulate
abolitionists.' ho ho ho. God help abolition if he is.
PV
> F
>
>
>
>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:24:13 +0000
>
>le 25 Jan 2003 04:46:53 GMT, dans l'article <20030124234653.05926.0000017=
>1...@mb-fv.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...=20
>
>>> { snip remainder of idiotic refusal to accept that 'all' death row
>>> prisoners are 'guilty' }
>
>> Once again, Dezilogic falls flat on its face.
>>=20
>> To get to death row, you have to be found legally guilty of a crime. Th=
>ey
>> dont send "not guilty" people to prison, much less execute them.
>>=20
>> What a fucking maroon!
>
>Yes, you are, aren't you, Jigsaw ? Whilst we can't expect you to take mo=
>re
>than a passing interest in anything that doesn't have 'Fisher Price'
>written in big green letters, do try to pay attention, Jigsaw.
>
>I was pointing out to FuckWit that his hysterical whining concerning Henr=
>y
>Brisbon, and his point that ...=20
>
> 'Henry Brisbon is as certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun
> is still shining somewhere on our planet'
>
>... is, just like most of the self-obsessed, pseudo-intellectual, infanti=
>le
>crap that he posts, devoid of any meaning, logic, or intelligence.=20=20
>
>Until his pardon and release from death row, Anthony Porter was ...=20
>
> 'as certainly guilty as we can determine that the sun is still shining
> somewhere on our planet'
>
>Otherwise, he wouldn't have been on death row. However, he was innocent.
>Now, that FuckWit (and you) should seek to make a case for execution, bas=
>ed
>on a particular prisoner being 's certainly guilty as we can determine th=
>at
>the sun is still shining somewhere on our planet', is certainly no less
>dimwitted than the rest of what the two of you post, in your r=F4le as th=
>e
>newsgroup's 'Beavis and Butthead' impersonaters.
>
>Neither you nor FuckWit seem to be able to comprehend simple English. We
>know that FuckWit doesn't speak it as a native language, but what about
>you?
>
>--=20
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:24:13 +0000
>Lines: 54
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <dmedg-...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <6cqs0b...@lievre.voute.net>
><20030124234653...@mb-fv.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043598493 31818017 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:b0rlg9$61k$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:kb6Y9.122430$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > >
> > > But YOUR philosophy is that because they COMMITTED
> > > murder they can NEVER be VICTIMS... they are simply those
> > > who 'deserve to be murdered,' TO YOU.
> >
> > We've been through this before, PV. You said that, not me.
> > You are right to be ashamed of it, but to keep on denying what
> > you said is shameful.
> >
> Yes, we have... And I've proved over and over that you are just
> a liar. And what is shameful is the perverse methods you use
> to deny your own lies. As a coward, rather than face your own
> words, you continually claim 'out of context,' when they are
> posted. You will never find any words from me that imply it is possible
> to call the murder of a criminal, or the murder of a prisoner, or the
> murder of another murderer, ANYTHING other than the 'murder
> of an INNOCENT.' While you have lied over and over, claiming I
> have, but have never provided any words from me that would show
> I view a murder victim, as ANYTHING BUT an 'innocent murder
> victim.' They are ONLY such a victim. While YOU have said in
> respect to the murder of prisoners by murderers in prison --
PV, you lied. The fact that you lied says a lot about you.
See, you read a report about the Furman commuted prisonners.
The report said that the prisonners murdered four prisonners
in prison.
Now, you changed that. You made a point of claiming that they
were 'innocent' You deliberately concealed the fact that they
were criminals.
Why did you do that? Because you thought it would sound more
convincing that way. You think that the murder of an "innocent"
person is a better argument for the DP than the murder of a
criminal.
The fact that you lied, that you deliberately concealed this fact
in your comments is proof beyond doubt that YOU think
they "deserved to be murdered"
I exposed your lies, showing the fact that you tried so hard to
conceal. They were not the "innocent" people you were
claiming, they were peiople that YOU wanted dead.
You can scream all you want, that exposing your lies
proves that I agree with you. I dont. I thought from the start
that your concept was sick beyond belief.
You can scream all you want, and deny that you ever thought
that. the fact is, you did, and that's why you lied.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b14qme$qo9$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> See, you read a report about the Furman commuted prisonners.
> The report said that the prisonners murdered four prisonners
> in prison.
>
victim' guards.
> Now, you changed that. You made a point of claiming that they
> were 'innocent' You deliberately concealed the fact that they
> were criminals.
>
committed a crime. My point has always been... and you have
disagreed with this point... that they are 'innocent victims.' There
is no way a convicted criminal or even a convicted murderer can
be a 'guilty victim.' This is what YOU'VE argued. That they
DESERVED to be murdered... in your words 'It has to be said...."
In 27 different posts, according to google, I have said in various
forms that "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
> Why did you do that? Because you thought it would sound more
> convincing that way. You think that the murder of an "innocent"
> person is a better argument for the DP than the murder of a
> criminal.
>
I think there is no difference in respect to victims. You obviously
find criminals as 'deserving' to be victims. I find no one deserves
to be a victim of a crime.
> The fact that you lied, that you deliberately concealed this fact
> in your comments is proof beyond doubt that YOU think
> they "deserved to be murdered"
>
I've never hid anything. Nor have I lied. How could I think
they 'deserved to be murdered,' when every comment I've
ever made has been that 'NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED'? Those EXACT words are contained in a
post of mine from May 30, 2001, and have been repeated
22 times since then.
> I exposed your lies, showing the fact that you tried so hard to
> conceal. They were not the "innocent" people you were
> claiming, they were peiople that YOU wanted dead.
>
I understand your views... although I find them disgusting.
You believe they were not 'innocent victims.' They were
people you felt deserved to be murdered. There are no
cases of my presuming I wanted them dead. It is impossible
to support the DP for 'innocent victims.' But obviously,
you support them being murdered. Because, in your
words -- 'It has to be said...."
> You can scream all you want, that exposing your lies
> proves that I agree with you. I dont. I thought from the start
> that your concept was sick beyond belief.
>
I find the hysteria coming from you, sport. It doesn't bother
me at all that you are so depraved that you would find that
criminals in prison 'deserve to be murdered.'
> You can scream all you want, and deny that you ever thought
> that. the fact is, you did, and that's why you lied.
You've already said that . But everyone can see where the
lies are coming from. Just do a search on my words "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED," in google, and see who is
lying.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
FACT: You lied.
You deliberately misrepresented the information.
You claimed that the victims were not criminals.
You said they deserved to live BECAUSE they were not criminals.
You deliberately concealed the fact that they were criminals murdered
in prison.
You lied, because you said that innocents are worth more than criminals.
You did this because you think crimiminals don't deservre to be saved.
You did this because you think that criminals DESERVE to be murdereed.
That's a fact.
The fact that you lied proves that you think criminals deserve to be
murdered.
Pointing out the fact that you lied does not mean that I agree with you,
no matter how many times you make the claim, your own stated opinion
that criminals are worth less than innocent people is disgusting to me.
And screaming that you never agreed with yourself is simply ridiculous.
You lied, that proves your opinion.
That's an undeniable fact.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:59:55 +0000
>
>le Sun, 26 Jan 2003 05:14:38 GMT, dans l'article
><29KY9.131568$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> desi's words in speaking of freeing Frank rather than executing him --
>>
>> /quote/
>> "Am I willing to gamble on that infinitesimally small chance that he will
>> kill again ?
>>
>> Yes.
>> /unquote/
>
>Indeed, and the word 'prefer' is nowhere to be seen in there, you lying
>piece of shit. Now run along and make your customary claims of 'victory'.
>
>{ snip claim of 'victory' }
>
>Oops ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
>desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:59:55 +0000
>Lines: 25
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <bkejg-...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b04fg2$abq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><asNV9.133819$j8.35...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0iai7$h76$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><wJ6X9.113990$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0j5po$9hb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><pCqX9.27999$o8.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><lerX9.35812$536.1...@news2.telusplanet.net>
><I6OX9.116473$Sa3.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><6cqs0b...@lievre.voute.net>
><29KY9.131568$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1043794990 33643480 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b160lc$5ji$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:hCqZ9.845$Ev1....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> FACT: You lied.
>
the eyes. You're the liar, sport.
> You deliberately misrepresented the information.
>
False.
> You claimed that the victims were not criminals.
>
False. I clearly recognized they were 'criminals,' but were 'innocent
victims,' thus making them NO DIFFERENT from the guards.
> You said they deserved to live BECAUSE they were not criminals.
>
No.. I said they DID NOT DESERVE to be murdered, thus they deserved
to live FREE from being murdered.
> You deliberately concealed the fact that they were criminals murdered
> in prison.
>
Horseshit... I've always said that all those murdered by Furman-commuted
murderers in prison were 'innocent victims.' Their past character has
no MEANING in respect to being murdered. I know that YOU find it
quite appropriate to support MURDER in prisons, and murder of drug
dealers (as in McGinn). But I adamantly refused to support murder
happening to ANYONE.
> You lied, because you said that innocents are worth more than criminals.
>
Actually, that's been YOUR refrain... with your EXACT comment of
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
Followed by you pitiful excuse that you were taken "out of context" by the
quote. See ==
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=avi56t%24ml6%241%40helle.btinternet.com
> You did this because you think crimiminals don't deservre to be saved.
>
Criminals deserve to serve the sentences they were given for the crimes
they committed. Not to serve sentences for crimes committed AGAINST
THEM. They are INNOCENT of 'being murdered.' 'Saving' has nothing
to do with it... and I presume you intend to wrap yourself in the flag of
the 'Savior,' now. While presuming there is 'nothing wrong' with murderers
murdering 'criminals,' because they aren't 'actually innocent.'
> You did this because you think that criminals DESERVE to be murdereed.
>
Never... never... never... 23 TIMES google reports my exact words as
"NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=no%20one%20deserves%20to%20be%20murdered&safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=
alt.activism.death-penalty&as_uauthors=Planet&lr=&hl=en
in my posts dating back to May 30, 2001.
> That's a fact.
>
That you're a liar? Of course, it's a fact.
> The fact that you lied proves that you think criminals deserve to be
> murdered.
>
LOL... hysterical raving gets you nothing, sport. You'll find no words
from me justifying your crazy accusation, which even you realize is a
lie. You wouldn't know 'proof' if it bit you. The various offers you've
made in different arguments of presuming 'proof' have all been ludicrous.
This one is no different.
> Pointing out the fact that you lied does not mean that I agree with you,
> no matter how many times you make the claim, your own stated opinion
> that criminals are worth less than innocent people is disgusting to me.
>
Hardly... you seem to enjoy the thought of murderers murdering those
you see as 'criminals,' as long as society doesn't legally execute them.
Perhaps you and desi should get together and collaborate on a new
'gladiator' contest between those criminals.
> And screaming that you never agreed with yourself is simply ridiculous.
> You lied, that proves your opinion.
>
ho ho ho... Everyone can see who is 'screaming,' sport. And the whining
from you is positively pathetic.
> That's an undeniable fact.
>
You will simply not 'wear me down,' as you presume to do, by continuing
to vomit your foul disgusting lies, peter. I will call you the liar that you are...
until hell freezes over. And prove it, each time I do, by quoting your own
words. Which everyone now sees. While you whine that they are 'out of
context.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:bkejg-...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Sun, 26 Jan 2003 05:14:38 GMT, dans l'article <29KY9.131568$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >
> > /quote/
> > "Am I willing to gamble on that infinitesimally small chance that he will
> > kill again ?
> >
> > Yes.
> > /unquote/
>
> piece of shit. Now run along and make your customary claims of 'victory'.
>
The words 'willing to gamble' certainly ARE. And this is what I keep
hammering on. You are 'WILLING TO GAMBLE' the lives of innocents.
PV
> { snip claim of 'victory' }
>
> Oops ...
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:561kg-...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Wed, 29 Jan 2003 04:14:05 GMT, dans l'article <hyIZ9.9311$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
>
> > Actually, that's been YOUR refrain... with your EXACT comment of
> >
> > "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
> > criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
> > a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
>
> worth than innocents.
>
Then WHY does it 'have to be said'? And clearly the entire thrust
of his comments is that THEY ARE CRIMINALS. Certainly finding
them 'different' from others. In fact, he EMPHASIZES that it is
'reasonable' to speculate that they were ALSO Furman-commuted
criminals.' Gee... I guess that makes them WORTH EVEN LESS
than 'ordinary criminals' in his mind. The victim is INNOCENT. peter
has argued incessently that the victim IS NOT INNOCENT.. since four
out of seven WERE CRIMINALS. HIS WORDS.
Yet VICTIMS are NO DIFFERENT. Except for what you believe (and
him), of course, as you only sees the murderer as the victim, while the
real 'victim' cannot be honored in your POV.
PV
> In short ... you lied. Again.
>
yada...yada...yada...
> { snip remainder of claim to have 'won', when in fact the entire population
> of news:alt.activism.death-penalty sees the opposite }
LOL... It seems that you've been the one taking some heat from various
sources today, desi. I LOVE it. I believe the word for the day is ---
HYPERBOLE -- something you ALWAYS engage in.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:p2glg-...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:12:39 GMT, dans l'article <rhKZ9.10343$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> >> > desi's words in speaking of freeing Frank rather than executing him --
> >> >
> >> > /quote/
> >> > "Am I willing to gamble on that infinitesimally small chance that he will
> >> > kill again ?
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >> > /unquote/
>
> >> Indeed, and the word 'prefer' is nowhere to be seen in there, you lying
> >> piece of shit. Now run along and make your customary claims of 'victory'.
>
> > The words 'willing to gamble' certainly ARE. And this is what I keep
> > hammering on. You are 'WILLING TO GAMBLE' the lives of innocents.
>
> the matter is that you lied. You claimed that I stated that I would have
> 'prefer[red]' the murder of an innocent child, to the execution of Theodore
> Frank. I didn't. By anyone's standards, that is a lie. Even John Rennie
> called you on it, and for him to disagree with you, means that you've gone
> too far in your dishonesty. So 'hammer on' (sic) as much as you wish.
> Just don't be surprised that you're regarded as the ...
> _____ _ __ ___ _
> | ___| _ ___| | _\ \ / (_) |_
> | |_ | | | |/ __| |/ /\ \ /\ / /| | __|
> | _|| |_| | (__| < \ V V / | | |_
> |_| \__,_|\___|_|\_\ \_/\_/ |_|\__|
>
> ... of news:alt.activism.death-penalty.
>
LOL... desi... reduced to scrawling frantically, using balloon-type
grade-school doodling... to avoid accepting the obvious facts within
his words. All that pathetic effort to deny his OWN WORDS.
Symbolically expressing his petulant fury, as befits his role
as the master of the pitiful screech and the high-pitched whine,
envied by every 5-year-old shopping with his mother.
The words... HIS WORDS... that he is 'willing to gamble' the lives of
innocents on what he 'presumes' is the infinitesimally small chance
that Theodore Frank... see
url:http://www.wtv-zone.com/LadyMaggie/php/AmySueStory.html
will kill again. Of course, everyone knows that desi has pronounced
that we may not honor the victim. I do not 'make-up' the words of desi,
I simply note them, and tell everyone my opinion of what they mean.
These particular words of desi... seem absolutely crystal-clear to
me... he is "willing to gamble" the life of another innocent on his
belief that Theodore Frank will not murder again, if released to the
general population.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> le Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:38:45 GMT, dans l'article <FRXZ9.12842$mA2.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> _____ _ __ ___ _
> >> | ___| _ ___| | _\ \ / (_) |_
> >> | |_ | | | |/ __| |/ /\ \ /\ / /| | __|
> >> | _|| |_| | (__| < \ V V / | | |_
> >> |_| \__,_|\___|_|\_\ \_/\_/ |_|\__|
> >>
> >> ... of news:alt.activism.death-penalty.
>
> > LOL... desi... reduced to scrawling frantically, using balloon-type
> > grade-school doodling...
>
> _______ __ _ _ _
> | |_ \ \ /\ / / / __/ _` | '_ \|/| __| / __| __/ _ \| '_ \
> | _| \ V V / | (_| (_| | | | | | |_ \__ \ || (_) | |_) |
> |_| \_/\_/ \___\__,_|_| |_| \__| |___/\__\___/| .__/
> |_|
> _ _
> | |_ _(_)_ __ __ _
> | | | | | | '_ \ / _` |
> | | |_| | | | | | (_| |_ _ _
> |_|\__, |_|_| |_|\__, (_|_|_)
> |___/ |___/
>
> > to avoid accepting the obvious facts within
> > his words.
>
> crying !!
>
The 'Ayotallah's' words... in fact, his EXACT words, which he would try and
contend meant something else, when it is obvious what he intended with
his words ---
"I engage in 'abuse' of deathies as a matter of course. That's what they're
there for. `echo $DEITY` gave them to us, much as She gave sparrows to
the domestic cat. They're our playthings. They have no relevance in the
real world, except to remind us of the dark side to human nature, that can
exist in all of us. They're like child rapists. Nazis. Torturers of
small animals."
<Clipped pathetic whining from the Ayotallah that 'I didn't ask abolitionists
to view rettentionists as playthings to torture and kill, as the cat tortures
and kills the sparrow.' Although anyone with the slightest ability to
recognize what a cat DOES to a sparrow, quickly realizes the 'Ayatollah
is a monster.>
See --
http://www.things.org/~muffy/pages/kitties/death.html
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:b160lc$5ji$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:hCqZ9.845$Ev1....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > FACT: You lied.
> >
> FACT??? You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it smacked you twit
> the eyes. You're the liar, sport.
So whu are you unable to prove ONE lie I ever told?
> > You deliberately misrepresented the information.
> >
> False.
True.
> > You claimed that the victims were not criminals.
> >
> False. I clearly recognized they were 'criminals,' but were 'innocent
> victims,' thus making them NO DIFFERENT from the guards.
You are lying again. You stated they had committed NO crime.
Your words were : They were only guilty of being murdered, nothing
else. That's the claim you made.
And you made that claim BECAUSE you think criminals deserve to be
murdered.
> > You said they deserved to live BECAUSE they were not criminals.
> >
> No.. I said they DID NOT DESERVE to be murdered, thus they deserved
> to live FREE from being murdered.
You ONLY said that AFTER i exposed your lies.
> > You deliberately concealed the fact that they were criminals murdered
> > in prison.
> >
> Horseshit... I've always said that all those murdered by Furman-commuted
> murderers in prison were 'innocent victims.' Their past character has
> no MEANING in respect to being murdered. I know that YOU find it
> quite appropriate to support MURDER in prisons, and murder of drug
> dealers (as in McGinn). But I adamantly refused to support murder
> happening to ANYONE.
Except that you want Desmoned to be murdered.
> > You lied, because you said that innocents are worth more than criminals.
> >
> Actually, that's been YOUR refrain... with your EXACT comment of
>
> "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
> criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
> a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
Which was in response to YOUR claim that they weren't criminals,
and because they aren't criminals they deserve to be saved, but crininals
(according to you) don't deserve to be saved.
So I pointed out that you were lying, and these were criminals that
you had said don't deserve to be saved.
The fact that I pointed that out does not indicate agreement with your
theory that criminals deserve to be murdered. Your stated theory that
criminals deserve to be murdered, but only innocent people deserve
to be saved has always disgusted me.
> Followed by you pitiful excuse that you were taken "out of context" by the
> quote. See ==
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=avi56t%24ml6%241%40helle.btinternet
.com
>
> > You did this because you think crimiminals don't deservre to be saved.
> >
> Criminals deserve to serve the sentences they were given for the crimes
> they committed. Not to serve sentences for crimes committed AGAINST
> THEM. They are INNOCENT of 'being murdered.' 'Saving' has nothing
> to do with it... and I presume you intend to wrap yourself in the flag of
> the 'Savior,' now. While presuming there is 'nothing wrong' with
murderers
> murdering 'criminals,' because they aren't 'actually innocent.'
>
> > You did this because you think that criminals DESERVE to be murdereed.
> >
> Never... never... never... 23 TIMES google reports my exact words as
> "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." See
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=no%20one%20deserves%20to%20be%20m
urdered&safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=
> alt.activism.death-penalty&as_uauthors=Planet&lr=&hl=en
> in my posts dating back to May 30, 2001.
>
> > That's a fact.
> >
> That you're a liar? Of course, it's a fact.
>
> > The fact that you lied proves that you think criminals deserve to be
> > murdered.
> >
> LOL... hysterical raving gets you nothing, sport.
Stop doing it, then
> You'll find no words
> from me justifying your crazy accusation, which even you realize is a
> lie. You wouldn't know 'proof' if it bit you. The various offers you've
> made in different arguments of presuming 'proof' have all been ludicrous.
> This one is no different.
>
> > Pointing out the fact that you lied does not mean that I agree with you,
> > no matter how many times you make the claim, your own stated opinion
> > that criminals are worth less than innocent people is disgusting to me.
> >
> Hardly... you seem to enjoy the thought of murderers murdering those
> you see as 'criminals,' as long as society doesn't legally execute them.
> Perhaps you and desi should get together and collaborate on a new
> 'gladiator' contest between those criminals.
>
> > And screaming that you never agreed with yourself is simply ridiculous.
> > You lied, that proves your opinion.
> >
> ho ho ho... Everyone can see who is 'screaming,' sport. And the whining
> from you is positively pathetic.
>
> > That's an undeniable fact.
> >
> You will simply not 'wear me down,' as you presume to do, by continuing
> to vomit your foul disgusting lies, peter. I will call you the liar that
you are...
> until hell freezes over. And prove it, each time I do, by quoting your
own
> words. Which everyone now sees. While you whine that they are 'out of
> context.'
As indeed they are.
Unless you admit that they wetre ijn response to your claim that only
'innocent'
people deserve to be saved, and your claim that 'guilty' people deserve to
die,
they are out of context. And your claim that they indicate agreement with
your
evil theories is another lie.
>
> PV
>
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:561kg-...@lievre.voute.net...
> > le Wed, 29 Jan 2003 04:14:05 GMT, dans l'article
<hyIZ9.9311$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > >> You lied, because you said that innocents are worth more than
criminals.
> >
> > > Actually, that's been YOUR refrain... with your EXACT comment of
> > >
> > > "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders
were
> > > criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it
is
> > > a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted
criminals."
> >
> > Nowhere in there, does he mention or even _imply_ that criminals have
less
> > worth than innocents.
> >
> Then WHY does it 'have to be said'?
Because I was exposing the fact that you were lying.
You said that "innocent" people "deserve" to be saved and "guilty"
people "deserve to die". Having said that, you pretended that some
"guilty" people were "innocent", deliberately concealing the fact that
they were criminals. Yo told this lie because you don't think that "guilty"
people "deserve" to be saved. I pointed out the fact that you were lying.
That's all. Exposing your lies has never indicated sympathy with your
vile opinions, which even you are now ashamed of.
.
> And clearly the entire thrust
> of his comments is that THEY ARE CRIMINALS. Certainly finding
> them 'different' from others.
The fact is YOU had said they are, not me.
Having made the statrement that "guilty" people are different from
"innocent" ones, you then concealed the fact that the victims were
in your words, "guilty"
> In fact, he EMPHASIZES that it is
> 'reasonable' to speculate that they were ALSO Furman-commuted
> criminals.' Gee... I guess that makes them WORTH EVEN LESS
> than 'ordinary criminals' in his mind. The victim is INNOCENT. peter
> has argued incessently that the victim IS NOT INNOCENT.. since four
> out of seven WERE CRIMINALS. HIS WORDS.
On the contrary, in YOUR words. You said that criminals don't deserve
to be saved. Having said that, you lied, and claimed the victims of these
crimes weren't criminals. I exposed your lie. Exposing your lie does
not indicate that I agree with your theory.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b1mc5m$jf5$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:rhKZ9.10344$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> news:561kg-...@lievre.voute.net...
> > > le Wed, 29 Jan 2003 04:14:05 GMT, dans l'article
> <hyIZ9.9311$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
> > <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
> > >
> > > { snip }
> > >
> > > >> You lied, because you said that innocents are worth more than
> > > >> criminals.
> > > > Actually, that's been YOUR refrain... with your EXACT comment of
> > > >
> > > > "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders
> > > > were
> > > > criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it
> > > > is
> > > > a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted
> > > > criminals."
> > >
> > > Nowhere in there, does he mention or even _imply_ that criminals have
> > > less
> > > worth than innocents.
> > >
> > Then WHY does it 'have to be said'?
>
> Because I was exposing the fact that you were lying.
>
Actually, you believed "It has to be said..." for the very obvious reason
that you find the criminals as 'less valuable' than the 'guard.' They
rather 'deserved to be murdered,' while the 'guards did not.'
> You said that "innocent" people "deserve" to be saved and "guilty"
> people "deserve to die".
Rubbish... you don't have a clue as to what you're even trying to say
here... with a sentence so convoluted and meaningless. Of course
'innocent' people 'deserve to be saved.' And guilty people deserve
the punishment which society provides. But there is no meaning
to differentiating between a 'criminal' and a 'non-criminal' when either
are MURDERED. They are BOTH 'innocent victims.' Both equally
aggrieved by the murderer, and BOTH equally UNDESERVED of being
murdered. You are the ONLY one trying to presume there is a
'difference' in their MURDER.
> Having said that, you pretended that some
> "guilty" people were "innocent", deliberately concealing the fact that
> they were criminals.
Not 'some.' ALL!!! ALL are 'innocent of BEING murdered.' The entire
concept of ANYONE 'deserving to be murdered,' is repugnant to me.
And that is why YOU have become repugnant to me.. since that
is YOUR argument. You believe that they are NOT 'innocent of
being murdered.' They deserved it... as far as you're concerned.
>Yo told this lie because you don't think that "guilty"
> people "deserve" to be saved.
I don't think that 'guilty' people should be 'saved' from SOCIETY'S
justice. Perhaps you believe they should be... 'saved' by escaping
to murder again. But there is NO SUCH THING as a 'guilty - deserves
to be murdered person.' ALL are 'innocent victims.' There is an
essential difference between murder by an individual and justice
exacted by the body of society. Or you presume that the entire
justice system should be abolished.
> I pointed out the fact that you were lying.
> That's all. Exposing your lies has never indicated sympathy with your
> vile opinions, which even you are now ashamed of.
>
ROTFLMAO... I am not ashamed of believing that "NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED." If you find that I SHOULD be ashamed of that
view, then obviously you believe that 'SOME DO DESERVE TO BE
MURDERED.' Which is what I concluded many months ago, in your
argument of the murdered drug-dealer in the McGinn execution
argument, and which continued with your "It has to be said four out of
seven of the victims of these murders were criminals." Clearly
an expression that 'criminals' are 'different' from others when they
are murdered. I find them no different in that respect from ANY
HUMAN. NO HUMAN DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
> > And clearly the entire thrust
> > of his comments is that THEY ARE CRIMINALS. Certainly finding
> > them 'different' from others.
>
> The fact is YOU had said they are, not me.
How does one express even more laughter than ROTFLMAO? Because
that's what your comment deserves. Just LOOK AT YOUR WORDS --
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals." It has been YOU... CONSTANTLY...
who has claimed there MUST BE A DIFFERENCE, when they
are murdered. They are no different to me... they are ALL 'innocent
victims.'
> Having made the statrement that "guilty" people are different from
> "innocent" ones, you then concealed the fact that the victims were
> in your words, "guilty"
>
Well, I've simply never said that... that is obviously what YOU have
said... with your CLEAR MEANING in -- "It has to be said four out of
seven of the victims of these murders were criminals." You clearly
state that 'guilty' people ARE DIFFERENT from 'innocent' ones when
it comes to them BEING MURDERED, in those few words of yours.
> > In fact, he EMPHASIZES that it is
> > 'reasonable' to speculate that they were ALSO Furman-commuted
> > criminals.' Gee... I guess that makes them WORTH EVEN LESS
> > than 'ordinary criminals' in his mind. The victim is INNOCENT. peter
> > has argued incessently that the victim IS NOT INNOCENT.. since four
> > out of seven WERE CRIMINALS. HIS WORDS.
>
> On the contrary, in YOUR words. You said that criminals don't deserve
> to be saved. Having said that, you lied, and claimed the victims of these
> crimes weren't criminals. I exposed your lie. Exposing your lie does
> not indicate that I agree with your theory.
>
Simply hysterical whining rubbish. Since 'my theory' does not include
differentiating between criminals and non-criminals in 'deserving to be
murdered.' YOURS DOES. Criminals don't deserve to be 'saved' by
escaping from prison to murder again. But criminals should be 'saved'
from BEING MURDERED. You see it just the OPPOSITE. You believe
they should be 'saved' from execution, even if they can possibly escape
and murder again. But you have no problem if they are not 'saved' from
BEING MURDERED.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b1mbma$ij2$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:hyIZ9.9311$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> news:b160lc$5ji$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > > news:hCqZ9.845$Ev1....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > FACT: You lied.
> > >
> > FACT??? You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it smacked you twit
> > the eyes. You're the liar, sport.
>
> So whu are you unable to prove ONE lie I ever told?
>
As long as you have not proven I have stated a lie, your comment
that it is 'FACT,' remains a lie. The very argument in your words,
constitutes a 'lie,' and PROVES you lie.
> > > You deliberately misrepresented the information.
> > >
> > False.
>
> True.
>
>
> > > You claimed that the victims were not criminals.
> > >
> > False. I clearly recognized they were 'criminals,' but were 'innocent
> > victims,' thus making them NO DIFFERENT from the guards.
>
> You are lying again. You stated they had committed NO crime.
> Your words were : They were only guilty of being murdered, nothing
> else. That's the claim you made.
>
would have 'deserved' being murdered. That's YOUR argument... they
were 'criminals' and DESERVED to be murdered, BECAUSE they
were criminals. In your --- "it has to be said...."
And I've said --
"But NO ONE is 'guilty of BEING murdered. They become ONLY
VICTIMS. They can be 'guilty' of COMMITTING murder, but having
been found guilty, that does not mean they are also 'guilty of BEING
murdered.' They are ONLY VICTIMS if they are murdered."
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kb6Y9.122430%24Sa3.3097828%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
In fact, I have NEVER said "They were only guilty of being murdered."
That is not the first time you have lied by misquoting me with those
exact words. You did so in the post referenced above. They are
ONLY VICTIMS. There is no such thing as a 'guilty victim.'
> And you made that claim BECAUSE you think criminals deserve to be
> murdered.
>
Liar.
> > > You said they deserved to live BECAUSE they were not criminals.
> > >
> > No.. I said they DID NOT DESERVE to be murdered, thus they deserved
> > to live FREE from being murdered.
>
> You ONLY said that AFTER i exposed your lies.
>
Liar.
> > > You deliberately concealed the fact that they were criminals murdered
> > > in prison.
> > >
> > Horseshit... I've always said that all those murdered by Furman-commuted
> > murderers in prison were 'innocent victims.' Their past character has
> > no MEANING in respect to being murdered. I know that YOU find it
> > quite appropriate to support MURDER in prisons, and murder of drug
> > dealers (as in McGinn). But I adamantly refused to support murder
> > happening to ANYONE.
>
> Except that you want Desmoned to be murdered.
>
Distortion of my words. And obviously a lie. Since he is a 'non-entity'
in any personal sense to me. He is simply a representation of evil in
his posts... as you have become. I would certainly find nothing to
be concerned about if 'his words' were killed here. Since that is ALL
he is to me. And in a figurative sense of defeating an opponent totally
and conclusively, it's obvious that I 'murder' desi, in every one of his
arguments. In fact, there are very few here who have not 'murdered'
desi at one time or another, in that sense.
> > > You lied, because you said that innocents are worth more than criminals.
> > >
> > Actually, that's been YOUR refrain... with your EXACT comment of
> >
> > "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
> > criminals. The report does not specify what their crimes were, but it is
> > a reasonable speculation that they were also Furman-commuted criminals."
>
> Which was in response to YOUR claim that they weren't criminals,
> and because they aren't criminals they deserve to be saved, but crininals
> (according to you) don't deserve to be saved.
>
No... my claim was that they did not 'deserve to be murdered,' and were
'innocent victims,' rather than criminals, deserving to be murdered. You
made the obvious choice that they were criminals who DID deserve to
be murdered, from the fact they were 'criminals.'
> So I pointed out that you were lying, and these were criminals that
> you had said don't deserve to be saved.
>
Another obvious lie. But you made sure to 'point out' that they were
'criminals' who deserved what they got.
> The fact that I pointed that out does not indicate agreement with your
> theory that criminals deserve to be murdered.
That's YOUR theory. Every post I've ever created, has never presumed
that 'criminals deserve to be murdered.' That's YOUR VIEW.
> Your stated theory that
> criminals deserve to be murdered, but only innocent people deserve
> to be saved has always disgusted me.
>
LOL... Look in the mirror, sport. Because you've ALWAYS presumed
that 'criminals' rather deserve what they get... beginning way back when
you argued that the 'drug dealer' deserved to be murdered, in the McGinn
execution dialog.
LOL... I just offer YOUR OWN words back at you -- Your words --"It has to
be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals." Go
on... tell everyone again how your words are 'out of context.' ho ho ho.
As indeed they represent your EXACT feelings -- "It has to be said four out
of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals." Obviously,
this implies there is a 'difference' in a 'victim of murder.' The guards
are 'innocent victims of murder,' to you. The criminals are 'criminal victims of
murder,' to you. The latter... 'deserve it' as far as you're concerned.
> Unless you admit that they wetre ijn response to your claim that only
> 'innocent'
> people deserve to be saved, and your claim that 'guilty' people deserve to
> die,
> they are out of context. And your claim that they indicate agreement with
> your
> evil theories is another lie.
ROTFLMAO... You can run... but you can't hide... from YOUR OWN WORDS.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:b1mbma$ij2$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:hyIZ9.9311$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > news:b160lc$5ji$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > > > news:hCqZ9.845$Ev1....@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > FACT: You lied.
> > > >
> > > FACT??? You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it smacked you twit
> > > the eyes. You're the liar, sport.
> >
> > So whu are you unable to prove ONE lie I ever told?
> >
> I believe I am calling YOU a liar, because you have called ME ONE.
> As long as you have not proven I have stated a lie, your comment
> that it is 'FACT,' remains a lie. The very argument in your words,
> constitutes a 'lie,' and PROVES you lie.
>
> > > > You deliberately misrepresented the information.
> > > >
> > > False.
> >
> > True.
> >
> Prove it... you liar.
There were a whole load of lies you told at the time, but the big one goes
like this:
Peter: And by the way, weren't there a number of Furman-commuted
prisonners who actually turned out to be innocent a few years
later?
PV: No.
St. George: Really? I'd just _love_ to see your source on this one, PV!
PV < exact quote>
My source is "The Death Penalty in America." Edited by Hugo
Bedau. Chapter 10 - A National Study of the Furman-Commuted
Inmates-Assessing the Threat to Society from Capital Offenders.
... If you have information as to any of the 315 who had not been
released and where later found to be innocent, it is not in the
study. So perhaps YOU would enlighten us. Or perhaps you're
talking through your ass.<unquote>
Copy of PV's message here: http://tinyurl.com/5amf
Read it, folks, and you will see a lie more dishonest than 100 posts
from Sharp.
In fact an examination of the PV's source quoted above reveals the following
information.
<quote> However four imates on death row at the time of Furman were
innocent according to a study by Bedau and Radelet. These four
individuals could possibly have been executed had it not been for
Furman <unquote>
and also
<quote> In addition, four innocent prisonners would have been
put to death. The question then becomes whether saving lives of the
seven victims was worth the execution of four innocent inmates <unquote>
So, The report emphasises strongly that innocents were found among the
commutees. PV told a direct lie, and claimed there was no information about
that.
PV claims that I lie, and he tells the truth. I challenge him to come up
with
ONE lie I told that is even 1% as foul and disgusting as that one he told.
There was a whole bunch of other lies he told too. He has posted his claims
re: the study many times, always changing the facts to suit his purpose.
Here
are some of the lies he has told constantly.
He claimed that every single one the inmates were murderers. In fact,
many of them had been sentenced to death for rape or armed robbery.
Quite apart from the innocent ones.
He claimed that there were 300 of them. In fact, there were over 600.
He claimed that applying the DP would have saved the life of these
criminals, murdered in prison. Highly dubious, since they seem tio have
been
murderers that PV wanted executed.
Finally, PV's comments deliberately disguised the fact that they were
criminals murdered in prison, and instead emphasised a claim that they
were "innocent." He did so because he thinks executing criminals to
save "innocents" is good, but obviously he also thinks that executing
criminals to save other criminals isn't so good. therefore, he lied, and
pretended that the criminals that were murdered weren't criminals at all.
In fact, he told the lie because he thinks that criminals DESERVE to be
murdered.
Listing the lies he told does NOT indicate agreement with him on the last
point.
Spewing out the accusation he makes against me is a desperate attempt
to draw attention away from the biggest lie ever told in the history of
AADP.
And he twists my words, the same way he twists the words of the report.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:39:51 +0000
>
>le Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:27:58 GMT, dans l'article
><2WC%9.37966$mA2.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> I believe I am calling YOU a liar, because you have called ME ONE.
>> As long as you have not proven I have stated a lie, your comment
>> that it is 'FACT,' remains a lie.
>
>Which means, of course, that your constant hammering away at calling me a
>'liar', without providing one ounce of proof that I have ever 'uttered' an
>untruth in this newsgroup, makes you ... a liar.
>
>Not that anyone will be surprised.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!eusc
.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:39:51 +0000
>Lines: 23
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <77b3h-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0or77$nhk$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><kb6Y9.122430$Sa3.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0rlg9$61k$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><ajsY9.175489$j8.43...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b14qme$qo9$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><hCqZ9.845$Ev1....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b160lc$5ji$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><hyIZ9.9311$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b1mbma$ij2$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><2WC%9.37966$mA2.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1044315789 38370320 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Sez you, and it disgusts me.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:77b3h-...@zeouane.org...
> le Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:27:58 GMT, dans l'article <2WC%9.37966$mA2.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> > As long as you have not proven I have stated a lie, your comment
> > that it is 'FACT,' remains a lie.
>
> 'liar', without providing one ounce of proof that I have ever 'uttered' an
> untruth in this newsgroup, makes you ... a liar.
>
your continued lies and insults you provided in claiming you 'knew'
that Judge Zobel did not have the POWER to overturn the verdict,
and then your admission that he did, while still arguing that insults
and lies offered in 'good faith,' do not require an apology.
You've also lied about the firebombing of your flat, since you have
said BOTH that Don Kool DID IT... and then DENIED saying he had
done so. And certainly your 'Baltimore County Police' invention is
one of the more disgusting lies ever perpetrated on this group, since
it accuses another poster of ACTUALLY committing a crime, and
being imprisoned because of YOUR involvement.
You have committed many lies, by denying your words, when they
are recalled from the post of another. You well know they are YOUR
words, but would hope to hide behind having turned off your archive.
> Not that anyone will be surprised.
>
Readers here would be 'surprised' if you ever told the truth, desi.
PV
> --
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the
background. There on the left... see it, desi? Those two hidden eyes
of the 'provider of the Universal Right to Life,' peering from the brush.
How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything' right
that all 'life' possesses? Too bad that 'your Church' isn't for that child.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b1nfhu$25f$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b1n4u9$jsg$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
Quite clearly I misspoke, having read that study and missed this part --
"However, four inmates on death row at the time of Furman were innocent
according to a study by Bedau and Radelet." Now, clearly Bedau and
Radelet are NOT the criminal justice system. And much of their claims
of 'innocent' (a term which makes no sense anyway, since the justice
system uses 'not guilty' which does not presume 'innocence') have been
torn apart by various investigators. So perhaps YOU can provide the
NAMES, so I can determine for myself, rather than take 'your word'
which has been covered in grime so often, and determine for myself
as to whether the Justice System found them 'not guilty' or Bedau and
Radelet found them 'innocent.'
> and also
>
> <quote> In addition, four innocent prisonners would have been
> put to death. The question then becomes whether saving lives of the
> seven victims was worth the execution of four innocent inmates <unquote>
>
Hardly necessary to ask... since 7 > 4. And the seven is now proven
to be vastly understated, with the addition of others who were released
and murdered again, besides McDuff.
> So, The report emphasises strongly that innocents were found among the
> commutees. PV told a direct lie, and claimed there was no information about
> that.
>
No information was provided. I would rather accept information from
the Justice System rather than Bedau and Radelet, since they have
been proven wrong before. And I believe this is part of their claim that
they had to retract... admitting that they had not 'proven' innocence.
Without the SPECIFIC names, and the information, one is unable to
determine the accuracy of the Bedau and Radelet claim. While
certainly the claims of those who murdered in the group of 558 is
hardly debatable.
> PV claims that I lie, and he tells the truth. I challenge him to come up
> with
> ONE lie I told that is even 1% as foul and disgusting as that one he told.
>
That would be the lie where you claimed you had not stated that
criminals are 'different' from non-criminals when it comes to murder.
In denying your 'It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals." Which clearly states EXACTLY that.
>
> There was a whole bunch of other lies he told too. He has posted his claims
> re: the study many times, always changing the facts to suit his purpose.
> Here
> are some of the lies he has told constantly.
>
>
> He claimed that every single one the inmates were murderers. In fact,
> many of them had been sentenced to death for rape or armed robbery.
> Quite apart from the innocent ones.
>
Rubbish... I NEVER claimed that 'every single one of the inmates were
murderers.' I claimed that every single murder committed by those who
committed murders in prison were committed by commuted murderers,
and not commuted rapists. This is in the study -- Table 10-5. Where
all six institutional murders were shown as committed by commuted
murderers and not commuted rapists. In fact, one of the more telling
statistics is the fact that 77 commuted murderers of all murderers
shown in that table ESCAPED from prison. There is no telling how
many murders they committed, which we might never know about.
> He claimed that there were 300 of them. In fact, there were over 600.
>
More rubbish. There were 558 total Furman-commuted in the study.
I was referring to the particular comment in the study, which reads
"Of these 558 Furman-commuted inmates, 315 (56.5%) have not
been released from prison." Obviously none of the others could
conceivable have committed the murders in prison I was speaking
of, or most certainly they would not have been released. Thus 315,
committed the six prison murders I was speaking of. Or do you
believe they could commit murder in prison, and THEN still be
released? You are trying to claim 558 were responsible for those
6 murders, but that's impossible. Thus you're simply providing
a deceptive lie.
> He claimed that applying the DP would have saved the life of these
> criminals, murdered in prison. Highly dubious, since they seem tio have
> been
> murderers that PV wanted executed.
>
Obviously, another lie... one you have repeated over and over. Since
it is almost mathematically impossible that those 315 who killed
4 prisoners, killed each other. They were spread too far and distant
among a total population of ALL prisoners in the U.S. You simply
invented that, because you are a liar.
> Finally, PV's comments deliberately disguised the fact that they were
> criminals murdered in prison, and instead emphasised a claim that they
> were "innocent."
Once again... you prove that you rather support 'murder in prison,'
since you contend they are 'different.' Yet, they are 'innocent victims.'
> He did so because he thinks executing criminals to
> save "innocents" is good,
Obviously, another lie... since I believe executing SOME MURDERERS
(not executing criminals), is the lesser of two evils, since some of
those murderers will certainly go on to murder new innocents if not
executed. Nothing is 'good' about murder, or execution. Although
you seem to believe that 'murderers murdering criminals,' is 'better'
than 'society executing some murderers.'
> but obviously he also thinks that executing
> criminals to save other criminals isn't so good.
Actually.. that one has me shaking my head... since it simply
doesn't really say anything. As I said, there is NOTHING 'good'
about the DP... it is the 'lesser of two evils.' But you seem to
believe there is 'something good' about letting them sort themselves
out by murdering each other in prison.
> therefore, he lied, and
> pretended that the criminals that were murdered weren't criminals at all.
They were 'innocent victims.' You've found them to be 'guilty victims.'
Something incomprehensible to me.
> In fact, he told the lie because he thinks that criminals DESERVE to be
> murdered.
>
Actually, that's YOUR concept. I've ALWAYS said "NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED."
> Listing the lies he told does NOT indicate agreement with him on the last
> point.
>
Thank God that I also don't agree with your conclusion that 'criminals
deserve to be murdered, but not executed.'
> Spewing out the accusation he makes against me is a desperate attempt
> to draw attention away from the biggest lie ever told in the history of
> AADP.
>
ho ho ho... How desperate can peter get?
> And he twists my words, the same way he twists the words of the report.
>
You've twisted it... every bit and more than I've ever done.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
No, you quote SOME of my words, clipping important ones out.
Then you take what's left and come to the bizarre conclusion
that I was agreeing with you,m when I never did.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b1o9ju$m8$3...@helle.btinternet.com...
need only read that simple sentence you've provided to recognize
how disturbed you have become. Since if I claimed you 'were agreeing
with me,' there would be no reason we would be arguing. And I would be
claiming to be as equally perverse as you are if I were to claim that.
I quote your IMPORTANT WORDS. The ones where you claim that
'criminals' are DIFFERENT from 'others' when it comes to them
BEING MURDERED. A point which I certainly DO NOT 'agree with.'
With your EXACT words -- "It has to be said four out of seven of the
victims of these murders were criminals."
See how you imply the 'victims of these murders' were NOT innocent,
but were criminals? Thus, they are NOT 'innocent victims' to you...
as they are to me. They are 'criminal victims' to you. A totally
repugnant thought to me. Since a 'victim' has not committed a
criminal act to make him a victim. He is ALWAYS an 'innocent victim.'
This is 'the HEART' of our DISAGREEMENT, since I certainly DO NOT
AGREE that 'innocence victims,' are 'guilty of BEING murdered,'
because they are 'criminals'... as you have implied.
PV
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:01:26 +0000
>
>le Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:12:02 GMT, dans l'article
><SQI%9.57$AQ3....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>>> > I believe I am calling YOU a liar, because you have called ME ONE.
>>> > As long as you have not proven I have stated a lie, your comment
>>> > that it is 'FACT,' remains a lie.
>
>>> Which means, of course, that your constant hammering away at calling me a
>>> 'liar', without providing one ounce of proof that I have ever 'uttered' an
>>> untruth in this newsgroup, makes you ... a liar.
>
>> Your lies have been well documented here.
>
>For 'well documented', read 'repeated _ad nauseam_ by FW'. LOL !!
>
>> For one quick example
>> your continued lies and insults you provided in claiming you 'knew'
>> that Judge Zobel did not have the POWER to overturn the verdict,
>> and then your admission that he did, while still arguing that insults
>> and lies offered in 'good faith,' do not require an apology.
>
>Insults offered in good faith, are of course not acceptable, and had I
>insulted you without good reason, I would have apologised. However, as I
>have pointed out to other posters ... sorry, 'poster's' (sic) in the past,
>the truth is not an insult. Thus calling you a retarded, gibbering,
>sadistic, perverted old fuckwit, is not an insult.
>
>As for 'lies', I have spanked you concerning this issue before. If one
>argues in good faith concerning any particular aspect of jurisprudence, one
>cannot be said to be 'lying'. In your desperate desire to 'score points',
>you've accused every single abolitionist here of 'lying'. It seems that
>one only need 'make a mistake', in order to be termed a 'liar'.
>
>> You've also lied about the firebombing of your flat, since you have
>> said BOTH that Don Kool DID IT... and then DENIED saying he had
>> done so.
>
>I pointed out right at the beginning that it was Scooter-Boy's [1] posting
>of my former address that resulted in the firebombing of the flat. You
>were posting as 'necro*' at that time, so you should certainly recall the
>episode.
>
>> And certainly your 'Baltimore County Police' invention
>
>It is only an 'invention' in your eyes. You can certainly state that you
>don't believe it, but then as no one bothers his arse what you think about
>anything, you'll be left with your 'e-mails to self' to ponder over.
>
>> is one of the more disgusting lies ever perpetrated on this group, since
>> it accuses another poster of ACTUALLY committing a crime, and being
>> imprisoned because of YOUR involvement.
>
>And yet you still haven't called the Baltimore County Police Department, as
>you _explicitly stated you were going to do_. Why not remind us all again
>of how you 'don't care' about it ? No, wait, I have a better idea: why not
>intentiona^H^H^Haccidentally mis-spell the officer's name again, to see if
>I pick up on it ?
>
>> You have committed many lies, by denying your words, when they are
>> recalled from the post of another. You well know they are YOUR words,
>> but would hope to hide behind having turned off your archive.
>
>Prove I have lied.
>
>{ snip }
>
>[1] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!nyc
mny1-snh1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!colt.net!peernews3.
colt.net!news0.de.colt.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e11
7.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!no
>t-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Illinois commutations
>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:01:26 +0000
>Lines: 75
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <mr06h-b...@zeouane.org>
>References: <CJgU9.70633$Sa3.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b0rlg9$61k$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><ajsY9.175489$j8.43...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b14qme$qo9$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><hCqZ9.845$Ev1....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b160lc$5ji$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><hyIZ9.9311$mA2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><b1mbma$ij2$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><2WC%9.37966$mA2.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com> <77b3h-...@zeouane.org>
><SQI%9.57$AQ3....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1044403682 39543390 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:mr06h-b...@zeouane.org...
> le Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:12:02 GMT, dans l'article <SQI%9.57$AQ3....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> >> > I believe I am calling YOU a liar, because you have called ME ONE.
> >> > As long as you have not proven I have stated a lie, your comment
> >> > that it is 'FACT,' remains a lie.
>
> >> Which means, of course, that your constant hammering away at calling me a
> >> 'liar', without providing one ounce of proof that I have ever 'uttered' an
> >> untruth in this newsgroup, makes you ... a liar.
>
> > Your lies have been well documented here.
>
>
'believing them.'
> > For one quick example
> > your continued lies and insults you provided in claiming you 'knew'
> > that Judge Zobel did not have the POWER to overturn the verdict,
> > and then your admission that he did, while still arguing that insults
> > and lies offered in 'good faith,' do not require an apology.
>
> Insults offered in good faith, are of course not acceptable, and had I
> insulted you without good reason, I would have apologised. However, as I
> have pointed out to other posters ... sorry, 'poster's' (sic) in the past,
> the truth is not an insult. Thus calling you a retarded, gibbering,
> sadistic, perverted old fuckwit, is not an insult.
>
But it was not the truth... plain and simple... it was a perpetual
lie... and a humilitating admission of having provided insults in those
lies... hardly 'good faith.' And I was prepared to not speak of it again.
Until you made it crystal clear that no apology was included in your
admission of providing insults and lies.. because you claimed 'good
faith.' What is 'good faith' about providing insults along with your lies?
At that point NOTHING will keep me from repeating whenever I feel like
it... your petty insults, lies, meek admission of those insults and lies,
and then your defiant 'excuse' that even though you provided such
petty insults and lies... they were in 'good faith.' How can you possibly
BE so stupid???????????
> As for 'lies', I have spanked you concerning this issue before. If one
> argues in good faith concerning any particular aspect of jurisprudence, one
> cannot be said to be 'lying'.
ROTFLMAO... To listen to you tell it... you can call me a liar, and
then admit that you were wrong... and call that 'good faith.' Once
again -- you pathetic, little man -- you try to provide 'vintage desi'
nectar, which you confuse with Dom Perignan (sic).
The dialog --
You wrote --
"Psst, LDB? Tell us again about how O.J. Simpson was 'convicted of murder
in a civil court' ... or even better, how Judge Zobel 'could have simply overturned'
Louise Woodward's Second-Degree Murder conviction, if he had wanted to ..." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827213015.06523.00000825%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..See the insutlt??
You wrote --
"The Judge was _not_ empowered to 'overturn' the verdict. All he
could do was to reduce it to manslaughter. Which is what he did." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827213012.06523.00000822%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong.. Obviously presuming to state a 'factual lie.'
You wrote --
"This is plainly not the case. Rule 25(b)(2) allows a trial judge, to
_reduce_ the verdict, but not to overturn it." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020827212944.06523.00000798%40mb-dh.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong.. Again presenting a 'factual lie.'
You wrote --
"If the defence had asked Zobel to deliver his ruling wearing eyeshadow
and pink polka dot pyjamas, suspended upside down from Air Force
One at 100 ft ASL, would LDB think that Rule 25[b][2] 'empowered'
him to comply ?" See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212940.09778.00000981%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong.. See the insult??
You wrote --
"ROTFLMAO !!!! Did you get that in your copy of _Law for Dummies_ ?
Because a judge denies a motion, it means that he was 'empowered'
to grant it ?
Oh Lord, this is _delicious_ !!! This is _wonderful_ !!!
You idiot ... you crass, classless, profoundly dense man. Oh, I
can't stop laughing ..." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212939.09778.00000980%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz.... wrong..See the gross insult???
You wrote --
"Before you start making a fool of yourself ... oops, too late ... you
might like to consider what everyone has been trying to tell you for
nigh on 48 hours now, i.e. that the ruling shows no such thing. All
it shows is that the defence _asked_ Judge 'Sobel' (sic) to do that.
Rule 25[b][2] doesn't allow this, and so he had to deny the ruling."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212946.09778.00000986%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzz... wrong.... See the insult???
You wrote --
"his 'come-and-spank-me' inability to digest and analyse legal
texts and decisions ... his belief that Rule 25[b][2] (which he hadn't
even _heard of_, until JPB and I gave him a 'heads-up') gave Judge Zobel
the power to overturn the second degree murder conviction, handed down in
the Commonwealth v. Woodward case." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212952.09778.00000992%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzzz... wrong. And look who was 'being spanked at the words rolled out.
You wrote --
"In, fact, the beautiful 'double-whammy' that I dealt you last night, was
that I pre-empted you with Judge Zobel's ruling, and that said ruling
shows that Rule 25[b][2] only allows a judge to reduce a murder conviction
to a lesser offence." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020828212956.09778.00000995%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Yeah.. quite a 'double-whammy.' If you believe spanking yourself is
a 'whammy.'
AND OOOPSSSS... here comes the 'kicker' from you -- after digging
your own grave, you hoped to crawl out of that cockroach existence,
and fully display your mental disabilities with --
"Based on my original reading of Rule 25[b][2], I stated that Judge Zobel
could not have overturned the guilty verdict, and that the only option
open to him, was to reduce the verdict of second degree murder, to a
lesser charge, namely that of manslaughter.
Upon further investigation, however, it would appear that he was, in
fact, authorised to both reduce the verdict, and (if necessary) quash
it completely. An e-mail that I received last night, from the Massachusetts
Bar Association, would appear to confirm this view.
Unless new information comes to light, I thus confirm that, _as far as
I am able to ascertain_, PV is right." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020830212952.10684.00000094%40mb-cu.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
Buzzzz..... you were now unmasked for the legal illiterate you are. All
those insults gone to waste, as you realized you had been talking
through your ass.
Now, take a look at your words -- the insults you heaped on me, when
you had LIED. And then you expected to come away with NO APOLOGY?
By 'justifying' not needing to apologize for your lies and insults because
they were offered in 'good faith.' See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020902212912.27149.00001383%40mb-cg.aol.com
How DOES one offer lies and insults in 'good faith,' desi?
> In your desperate desire to 'score points',
> you've accused every single abolitionist here of 'lying'. It seems that
> one only need 'make a mistake', in order to be termed a 'liar'.
>
Actually... that itself is a lie. Since I've never accused many abolitionists
here of 'lying.' Not John Rennie, Not Mr. D. Not Donna, Not Mark,
Not John Spragge... to name only a few. They have misspoken at
times... as we all have. Including myself. But I've never believed they did
so with the FULL INTENTION of lying, as you and dirtbag, and peter... to
name the 'unholy trinity,' of lies. I don't believe that there are any
INTENTIONAL LIARS here, except that 'unholy trinity.'
> > You've also lied about the firebombing of your flat, since you have
> > said BOTH that Don Kool DID IT... and then DENIED saying he had
> > done so.
>
> I pointed out right at the beginning that it was Scooter-Boy's [1] posting
> of my former address that resulted in the firebombing of the flat. You
> were posting as 'necro*' at that time, so you should certainly recall the
> episode.
>
LOL... you can be a MONSTROUS LIAR when you wish to do so, desi.
Proven there in your own words -- You use the lie (and you KNOW
it's a lie), of claiming I posted as 'necro,' because you have no other
resource except lies... just as you fumbled with all the different personas
you assigned (and still do) to Don Kool. It's a pathetic defense mechanism
against the words of a particular poster you can't handle, so you claim
he is another -- and you can then attack the words from THAT poster.
'Articulate'???? Don't make me laugh.
You claimed Don HAD your flat firebombed...on a great number of occasions,
and once even denied saying it only a few hours later -- You wrote --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021110212937.12309.00001154%40mb-fo.aol.com&oe=UTF-8
"Some of the 'tricks' that this person has got up to, were to have my flat firebombed
because I disagreed with his views on the death penalty. "
Do you see the words 'HAVE MY.' That states a direct INVOLVEMENT in
that fantasy invention of yours.
And then only a few moments later in --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020720212941.22384.00000259%40mb-fo.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Where you stated -- "Eh ? What are you talking about ? The firebombing ?
I did _not_ claim that Drewl was responsible for that."
But go ahead... lie and deny they are not 'your words,' because you don't
post to AOL. Prove you are the hypocrite that I've already proven you to be.
> > And certainly your 'Baltimore County Police' invention
>
> It is only an 'invention' in your eyes. You can certainly state that you
> don't believe it, but then as no one bothers his arse what you think about
> anything, you'll be left with your 'e-mails to self' to ponder over.
>
Actually, I can STATE you lie. Since you have continually refused
to do anything but accuse... without the slightest documentation or
proof. And it's a behavior I've not seen from anyone here, other than
you... I may call someone a liar if I believe they have lied. But I would
never accuse someone of ACTUALLY being a 'convicted criminal,' without
also providing proof of such an outrageous (the English language fails
here) accusation. I have seen the very early posting between the
two of you, and recognize that he drove you to distraction, as I am doing. I
am prepared for you to begin accusing me of some personal attack
on you, because you are so pathetic.
> > is one of the more disgusting lies ever perpetrated on this group, since
> > it accuses another poster of ACTUALLY committing a crime, and being
> > imprisoned because of YOUR involvement.
>
> And yet you still haven't called the Baltimore County Police Department, as
> you _explicitly stated you were going to do_.
Actually, I never said I would... thus you lie again. And why would it be
MY responsibility to prove the truth of your statement? You must prove you
are telling the truth. Until then, it remains a disgusting lie. An unfounded
disgusting accusation of another poster having been imprisoned because
of your efforts (has the FBI tried to recruit you yet?).
> Why not remind us all again
> of how you 'don't care' about it ?
Oh... I 'care' that you lie... for the sake of those who might believe you do
not. I keep pointing those lies out for everyone. The 'Baltimore County
Police' is a rather big one.
> No, wait, I have a better idea: why not
> intentiona^H^H^Haccidentally mis-spell the officer's name again, to see if
> I pick up on it ?
I showed you where I had found a name similar to the one you provided, from the
net presence of the 'Baltimore County Police.' Since it is NOT the one
you used in your lie... it has no meaning here... and is simply another
smoke-screen to hide your lie. PROVE YOUR STATEMENT. Don't
worry about what _I_ found on the net. And don't try to use anything
that I provided, since whatever I did, does not prove anything you claim.
Nor is it my responsible to confirm or disprove your unproven disgusting
claim. It remains an unproven lie, until you provide proof.
> > You have committed many lies, by denying your words, when they are
> > recalled from the post of another. You well know they are YOUR words,
> > but would hope to hide behind having turned off your archive.
>
> Prove I have lied.
>
LOL.... Been there... done that... about a hundred times now. See above,
for further examples.
> { snip }
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
No, you cut out the important words.
> The ones where you claim that
> 'criminals' are DIFFERENT from 'others' when it comes to them
> BEING MURDERED. A point which I certainly DO NOT 'agree with.'
I never said that. You said that, and conclude that I agree with you, but I
don't.
> With your EXACT words -- "It has to be said four out of seven of the
> victims of these murders were criminals."
And you cut out the important words, where i point out that
YOU wanted them executed.
> See how you imply the 'victims of these murders' were NOT innocent,
> but were criminals? Thus, they are NOT 'innocent victims' to you...
Bullshit. I pointed out that they were people that YOU wanted to kill.
They were criminals that YOU wanted to execute.
The fact that I point out that YOU want to kill them does not
indicate support for your foul concept.
However, if you want to say that your desire to kill them is the same
as thinking they deserved to be murdered, you can do so.
Every time you accuse me of agreeing with you, you make it plain
what your own opinions are.
Fact is, Peeves old chap, your opinion that they deserved to be
murdered is disgusting to me.
> as they are to me. They are 'criminal victims' to you.
No, I pointed out the FACT that they are people that YOU wanted dead.
> A totally
> repugnant thought to me.
YOU wanted them dead, I didn't.
> Since a 'victim' has not committed a
> criminal act to make him a victim. He is ALWAYS an 'innocent victim.'
You say that now, but only after I forced you to.
> This is 'the HEART' of our DISAGREEMENT, since I certainly DO NOT
> AGREE that 'innocence victims,' are 'guilty of BEING murdered,'
> because they are 'criminals'... as you have implied.
In fact, I said the opposite.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:b1qvh7$pvg$3...@helle.btinternet.com...
taken out of context, but a continuous CONNECTION of those words,
meant to form a meaningful comment. That comment being "It has
to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
> > The ones where you claim that
> > 'criminals' are DIFFERENT from 'others' when it comes to them
> > BEING MURDERED. A point which I certainly DO NOT 'agree with.'
>
> I never said that. You said that, and conclude that I agree with you, but I
> don't.
>
evil argument is something I agree with. "NO ONE DESERVES TO
BE MURDERED." That's mine. Yours is "It has to be said four out
of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
> > With your EXACT words -- "It has to be said four out of seven of the
> > victims of these murders were criminals."
>
> And you cut out the important words, where i point out that
> YOU wanted them executed.
>
How pathetic... how totally pathetic. Trying to deny your own words.
>
> > See how you imply the 'victims of these murders' were NOT innocent,
> > but were criminals? Thus, they are NOT 'innocent victims' to you...
>
> Bullshit. I pointed out that they were people that YOU wanted to kill.
> They were criminals that YOU wanted to execute.
>
Obviously 'criminals' in prison serving sentences other than the DP
are ONLY THOSE THAT YOU THINK DESERVE MURDER. Can't you
understand that? I do not want ANYONE MURDERED. Nor do
I 'want' criminals serving sentences other than the DP to be
executed. Nor do I 'want' any execution 'personally.' I simply
support my society DECIDING who should be executed. And if
my society has determined NOT to execute someone (ANYONE), I
certainly cannot conceivably 'want' them to be executed, since
that is murder. You believe criminals DESERVE to be murdered
by other criminals... why? Because 'It has to be said..."
> The fact that I point out that YOU want to kill them does not
> indicate support for your foul concept.
>
You're a very sick man, peter. I want to 'kill' no one. Nor do I
believe you do either. But you are in fact, now ACCUSING ME of
PERSONALLY wanting to kill another person. Can you possibly
see HOW DISGUSTING YOU HAVE BECOME? Because you
have totally LOST this argument? You are claiming I want to
PERSONALLY be a murderer. The point is you don't CARE if
criminals are murdered in prison... as you said -- "It has
to be said..." BUT, of course, I would never be so utterly sick in the
head that I would claim YOU PERSONALLY want to kill them...to
become a murderer, as you have now accused me. You simply
don't CARE if someone ELSE murders them. But you have now
called me a murderer, in a very DIRECT sense...
Which means YOU LOSE... you sick fuck. I care very much about
MURDER in or out of prisons. Because "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED." But I would never say 'YOU WANT TO KILL THEM,'
in the personal sense that you have attacked me with those very
words. It reminds me of the other instance where you were defeated,
and your only response could be the most evil and disgusting thought
in your mind, to try and extract you from that defeat... calling me a
coward. It seems you've ratcheted up your sickness, now presuming
it represents 'reason' to claim that I PERSONALLY want to kill.
> However, if you want to say that your desire to kill them is the same
> as thinking they deserved to be murdered, you can do so.
>
> Every time you accuse me of agreeing with you, you make it plain
> what your own opinions are.
>
> Fact is, Peeves old chap, your opinion that they deserved to be
> murdered is disgusting to me.
>
I finally have become aware of just how insidious you actually are.
How do you face yourself in 'real life'? The fact is you don't CARE
if they are murdered... and I've proven that fact... and as your
'defense,' you have now stooped to the lowest among the low...
joining the ranks of joe1orbit... a sickening smell permeates your
post... accusing me of a desire to be a PERSONAL murderer, in
pursuit of an argument in which you have been totally destroyed.
Something you cannot handle.
>
>
> > as they are to me. They are 'criminal victims' to you.
>
> No, I pointed out the FACT that they are people that YOU wanted dead.
>
Obviously, a lie.
> > A totally
> > repugnant thought to me.
>
> YOU wanted them dead, I didn't.
>
Obviously, a lie.
> > Since a 'victim' has not committed a
> > criminal act to make him a victim. He is ALWAYS an 'innocent victim.'
>
> You say that now, but only after I forced you to.
>
Obviously, a lie.
> > This is 'the HEART' of our DISAGREEMENT, since I certainly DO NOT
> > AGREE that 'innocence victims,' are 'guilty of BEING murdered,'
> > because they are 'criminals'... as you have implied.
>
> In fact, I said the opposite.
Obviously, a lie.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > I never said that. You said that, and conclude that I agree with you,
but I
> > don't.
> >
> I never said you agreed with me. I would be evil to presume your
> evil argument is something I agree with. "
On the contrary, your entire argument was based on the priniple that
"innocent" people are "worth more" than "guilty" ones.
But having said that, you lied.
You lied and called some innocent people "guilty" claiming that none
of them were innocent, when you knew they were.
You lied and said that some rapists were "murderers" , to make them
seem more "guilty" than they actually were.
And some criminals who were "guilty" and by YOUR stated opinion
"not worth anything", which I disagreed with, you lied and claimed
were "innocent" You lied and said they had committed no crimes.
You lied and said they are "only guilty of being murdered"
The fact that I exposed your lies does not indicate agreement
with your principles.
You can scream all you like and claim that YOU don't agree with
your principles either, that you always knew how evil they were when
you said them. This does not change the fact that they are yours, not
mine.
And you are right. They are evil.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:K0n0a.24394$QQ4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> > I never said that. You said that, and conclude that I agree with you,
>but I
>> > don't.
>> >
>> I never said you agreed with me. I would be evil to presume your
>> evil argument is something I agree with. "
>
>On the contrary, your entire argument was based on the priniple that
>"innocent" people are "worth more" than "guilty" ones.
>
LOL... On the contrary, I have never based anything on such as silly
argument. You've ALWAYS been the one making such a distinction
in respect to murders committed on criminals in prison and murders committed
on guards in prison. This is the EXACT meaning of your words "It has to be
said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals." Now,
this particular sentence of yours SPEAKS DIRECTLY to those murders
committed in prison. And you were quite sure that there was a DIFFERENCE
between the 'criminals' and the 'guards.' Certainly YOU views the 'criminals'
are 'worth less' than the 'guards.'
>But having said that, you lied.
>
>You lied and called some innocent people "guilty" claiming that none
>of them were innocent, when you knew they were.
>
Rubbish... I refuse to 'take the word' of Bedau and Radelet, without
independent confirmation.
>You lied and said that some rapists were "murderers" , to make them
>seem more "guilty" than they actually were.
>
Why do you lie, peter? You know perfectly well that it was YOU who
claimed some of the rapists were 'murderers.' Clearly, I've always
referred you to the Furman-commuted inmates study. And now I
intend to show you Table 10-5 from that study, which clearly shows
that NO rapists committed further murders, even at the time of the study,
while ALL murders in prison were committed by previous murderers,
four against other prisoners and two against prison staff -- See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/bedau.jpg
I have scanned this in from the study itself, Table 10-5.
>And some criminals who were "guilty" and by YOUR stated opinion
>"not worth anything", which I disagreed with, you lied and claimed
>were "innocent" You lied and said they had committed no crimes.
>You lied and said they are "only guilty of being murdered"
>
You lying sack of shit... See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kb6Y9.122430%24Sa3.3097828%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
Quoting MY WORDS --
-----------------------------------
"What are you babbling about? Those are YOUR words. And
you clearly STATE that "PV... made the distinction between
'guilty' and 'innocent.'" Thus, you ADMIT there that I always
HAVE made the distinction. And you go on to DENY that YOU
make such a distinction, with the use of "not me." There is
nothing there about 'murder.' There is ONLY the fact that
there is a distinction between 'guilty' and 'innocent.' OF COURSE
there is!!! The 'guilty' under law are NOT 'innocent,' and vice
versa. But NO ONE is 'guilty of BEING murdered.' They
become ONLY VICTIMS. They can be 'guilty' of COMMITTING
murder, but having been found guilty, that does not mean they
are also 'guilty of BEING murdered.' They are ONLY VICTIMS
if they are murdered."
-----------------------------------------
Clearly I said just the opposite of what your provide as a lie -- I said
"But NO ONE is 'guilty of BEING murdered" Just the OPPOSITE
of what you claim. You have misquoted me in exactly the opposite
meaning on a few other occasions than just now. With that same
distorted claim.
>The fact that I exposed your lies does not indicate agreement
>with your principles.
>
I do believe anyone looking at the post I offer, and also
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2WC%259.37966%24mA2.759764%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
where you also misquote me, in just the opposite sense, will find
out who the liar is here. And apology from me... would be necessary...
but is hardly expected, given how freely you lie.
>You can scream all you like and claim that YOU don't agree with
>your principles either, that you always knew how evil they were when
>you said them. This does not change the fact that they are yours, not
>mine.
>
>And you are right. They are evil.
>
Finally.. you admit your thoughts are evil. Most evil is your presumption that
the lives of criminals in prison are 'different' from the lives of the 'guards' in
respect to them being MURDERED. They rather 'deserve' it, is what you
seem to be saying.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:25:04 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
> LOL... On the contrary, I have never based anything on such as silly
> argument. You've ALWAYS been the one making such a distinction
> in respect to murders committed on criminals in prison and murders
committed
> on guards in prison. This is the EXACT meaning of your words "It has to
be
> said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
No, the EXACT meaning of my words was to point out the fact that you
were lying.
And the reason you lied is quite obvious. You DONT CARE about
prisoners murdered in prison. You think it is NOT a good argument for
the DP. You think "innocent" people are "more valuable" than prisonners.
Therefore, you denied that they WERE prisoners. You claimed they
had committed NO crimes, that they were only "guilty of being murdered"
because you think they deserved to be murdered.
All I did was expose your lies, this one and many others. You can scream
about itall you want, but thre fact remains,b you based your argument on
the idea that prisonners deserve to be murdered. The fact that you lied
proves this beyond doubt.
You claim that because I exposed your lies I must share your evil opinion.
This is not true.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:besb4v0fqv7h7seu3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:25:04 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
>wrote:
>
>> LOL... On the contrary, I have never based anything on such as silly
>> argument. You've ALWAYS been the one making such a distinction
>> in respect to murders committed on criminals in prison and murders
>committed
>> on guards in prison. This is the EXACT meaning of your words "It has to
>be
>> said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
>
>
>No, the EXACT meaning of my words was to point out the fact that you
>were lying.
>
No... the exact meaning of your words was to DIFFERENTIATE between
'criminals' and 'guards,' in respect to those under discussion being MURDERED.
They were expressly confirmed as DIFFERENT by you, in respect to
their VALUE... Your words again "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
of these murders were criminals." There is no possible way to misinterpret
your MEANING.
The victims = the murdered victims
Four of the seven = criminals
QED = Four of those seven are DIFFERENT in respect to being murdered victims.
They are of less value than the others.
>And the reason you lied is quite obvious. You DONT CARE about
>prisoners murdered in prison.
Quite the opposite... As you argue that I never presumed they were criminals in
respect to their being murdered, it's rather obvious that I care as much about
them being murdered as I do about ANY human. And "NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED."
> You think it is NOT a good argument for
>the DP.
Don't even know what you intend to imply there. You seem to be becoming
hysterical again.
>You think "innocent" people are "more valuable" than prisonners.
Once again... that's YOU. I think "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
And I certainly don't believe there is a DIFFERENCE between murder VICTIMS.
They are ALL THE SAME. You have even agreed that this is the way I feel,
since you've recognized that I only claim criminals are 'innocent victims,' in
respect to ANY murder victim.
>Therefore, you denied that they WERE prisoners.
Rubbish... I've never needed to SAY they were 'prisoners,' since "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." It simply is not necessary to SAY, since
they are 'INNOCENT murder victims,' one and all.
> You claimed they
>had committed NO crimes, that they were only "guilty of being murdered"
>because you think they deserved to be murdered.
Another lie... The words "guilty of being murdered," without being taken out of the
context of 'NOT being guilty of being murdered' are nowhere to be found
in ANY post of mine here. You will need to provide the quote you claim or
others will presume you cannot do so.
I have said "no one is guilty of being murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZllU9.72003%24Sa3.1667728%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said - in respect to both criminals and non-criminals -- "Neither group are
'guilty' of BEING murdered. That is simply an impossibility." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6Wdf8.2221%241p6.522126%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
I've said "One cannot be 'guilty' of being murdered. " See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=KJo19.169955%24XH.3866149%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I've said "While NO ONE is 'guilty' of being murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EsA19.37594%24s8.875494%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I've said "The worst drug-dealer cannot be 'guilty' of BEING murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Nsl79.318625%24XH.7089646%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I've said "There is no such thing as 'guilty' of BEING murdered."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dIpT9.99906%24j8.2651167%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>All I did was expose your lies, this one and many others.
All you've done so far... is expose your own.
> You can scream
Hardly... I simply provide PROOF... while I allow you to do all the 'screaming' of
lies. You simply cannot and will not offer a URL which shows I have said "guilty of
being murdered," in respect to ANYONE. Thus you are simply a liar.
>about itall you want, but thre fact remains,b you based your argument on
>the idea that prisonners deserve to be murdered. The fact that you lied
>proves this beyond doubt.
>
The fact that you now lie.. does a great disservice to abolition... since the
philosophy seems to be 'riddled with corruption,' and liars, lately.
>You claim that because I exposed your lies I must share your evil opinion.
>This is not true.
LOL... Damn... you can be devious in your lies.
PV
>
>
Desmond Coughlan
{ snip }
>>You can scream all you like and claim that YOU don't agree with your
>>principles either, that you always knew how evil they were when you said
>>them. This does not change the fact that they are yours, not mine.
>>
>>And you are right. They are evil.
> Finally.. you admit your thoughts are evil.
Here we can see 'in real time', another FuckWit lie being formed. Peter
refers to FuckWit's principles, and then posts 'And you are right. They are
evil'. FW's response is to state, 'Finally.. you admit your thoughts are
evil'.
In a couple of weeks, perhaps less, this exchange will have been warped,
and FW will claim, 'You even ADMITTED [sic] that your thoughts are evil.
Your EXACT [sic] words -- "And you are right. They are evil"'
In other words, he will try to force Peter into defending a statement that
Peter never made.
This post will be proof of FW's original words, lest they be too difficult
to find, in amongst all the other thrashings that Peter has been dealing
out to FW this past week or so.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 12:06:32 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >news:besb4v0fqv7h7seu3...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:25:04 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> LOL... On the contrary, I have never based anything on such as silly
> >> argument. You've ALWAYS been the one making such a distinction
> >> in respect to murders committed on criminals in prison and murders
> >committed
> >> on guards in prison. This is the EXACT meaning of your words "It has
to
> >be
> >> said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
> >
> >
> >No, the EXACT meaning of my words was to point out the fact that you
> >were lying.
> >
> No... the exact meaning of your words was to DIFFERENTIATE between
> 'criminals' and 'guards,' in respect to those under discussion being
MURDERED.
No, the exact meaning of my words was to point out that YOU do so,
and then that you lied as to who was which, that you were lying BECAUSE
you think that criminals deserve to be murdered.
Pointing out your lies has never meant that I agree with you.
Just passing by
> le Sun, 09 Feb 2003 07:06:46 GMT, dans l'article <besb4v0fqv7h7seu3...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >>You can scream all you like and claim that YOU don't agree with your
> >>principles either, that you always knew how evil they were when you said
> >>them. This does not change the fact that they are yours, not mine.
> >>
> >>And you are right. They are evil.
>
> > Finally.. you admit your thoughts are evil.
>
> Here we can see 'in real time', another FuckWit lie being formed. Peter
> refers to FuckWit's principles, and then posts 'And you are right. They are
> evil'. FW's response is to state, 'Finally.. you admit your thoughts are
> evil'.
>
> In a couple of weeks, perhaps less, this exchange will have been warped,
> and FW will claim, 'You even ADMITTED [sic] that your thoughts are evil.
> Your EXACT [sic] words -- "And you are right. They are evil"'
>
> In other words, he will try to force Peter into defending a statement that
> Peter never made.
>
> This post will be proof of FW's original words, lest they be too difficult
> to find, in amongst all the other thrashings that Peter has been dealing
> out to FW this past week or so.
I fully endorse that. I recognise the above described process as an
all too familiar pattern that I have witnessed in PV's postings here.
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Sun, 09 Feb 2003 07:06:46 GMT, dans l'article <besb4v0fqv7h7seu3...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>You can scream all you like and claim that YOU don't agree with your
>>>principles either, that you always knew how evil they were when you said
>>>them. This does not change the fact that they are yours, not mine.
>>>
>>>And you are right. They are evil.
>
>> Finally.. you admit your thoughts are evil.
>
>Here we can see 'in real time', another FuckWit lie being formed. Peter
>refers to FuckWit's principles, and then posts 'And you are right. They are
>evil'. FW's response is to state, 'Finally.. you admit your thoughts are
>evil'.
>
Well... I consider anyone who believes that criminals DESERVE to be
murdered as evil. As for me -- I have ALWAYS SAID "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." I believe about 30 times now
in my posting history having used those EXACT WORDS. It seemed
to me that peter was simply finally accepting the fact he is evil. Now,
if we could only do 'something about you.'
But seriously, desi... do you think ANYONE would expect you to READ
MY WORDS, and perhaps understand them, without mindlessly taking
peter's side?
Anyone... Anyone...
overpowering silence....
>In a couple of weeks, perhaps less, this exchange will have been warped,
>and FW will claim, 'You even ADMITTED [sic] that your thoughts are evil.
>Your EXACT [sic] words -- "And you are right. They are evil"'
His EXACT words were "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals." Now given my statement (30 times), and his statement,
we can clearly see that he DOESN'T believe that 'no one deserves to be
murdered.'
I have said ---
"no one is guilty of being murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZllU9.72003%24Sa3.1667728%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said - in respect to both criminals and non-criminals --
"Neither group are 'guilty' of BEING murdered. That is simply an impossibility." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6Wdf8.2221%241p6.522126%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
I have said --
"One cannot be 'guilty' of being murdered. " See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=KJo19.169955%24XH.3866149%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said --
"While NO ONE is 'guilty' of being murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EsA19.37594%24s8.875494%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said
"The worst drug-dealer cannot be 'guilty' of BEING murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Nsl79.318625%24XH.7089646%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said --
"There is no such thing as 'guilty' of BEING murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dIpT9.99906%24j8.2651167%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
If you want to see 'out of context;' peter has presumed to 'quote me' as saying
"guilty of being murdered" --- leaving off EVERY instance of my having expressly
stated that in the NEGATIVE sense.
"no one is" --
"neither group are" --
"one cannot be" --
"While NO ONE is"--
"The worst drug-deater cannot be" --
"There is no such thing as" --
peter has taken those quotes of mine and constructed THESE words of his from my
quotes --
/quote/
"You claimed they had committed NO crimes, that they were only "guilty of being
murdered" because you think they deserved to be murdered."
/unquote/ See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b25g87%24c7a%244%40venus.btinternet.com
See how he presumes to provide DIRECT QUOTES, but commits the most
grievous of distortions? I defy you to be honest here, examine his words, and
mine from the posts I've provided, and see that he has essentially lied and distorted
the meaning of every quote I have provided. I know that you are incapable of doing
so... but I concern myself more with any 'eye of the beholder,' who might look at MY
TRUE QUOTES, and how peter has distorted them by placing 'four words,' rather
than a complete sentence or thought, as a 'quote' from me. Clearly, no one expects
you to 'take my side in this,' since peter is 'one of your disciples.'
>In other words, he will try to force Peter into defending a statement that
>Peter never made.
Peter has NEVER been able to defend the particular statement I have quoted
OVER AND OVER... which represents a COMPLETE THOUGHT... and not
'out of context. That statement AGAIN being "It has to be said four out of seven of
the victims of these murders were criminals." WHY does it HAVE TO BE
SAID... in respect to MURDER VICTIMS? And that represents a COMPLETE
SENTENCE. Not a 'fragment,' which leaves off any negative implication. Aren't they
'innocent of BEING murdered.'? One can only conclude that peter does NOT think so...
they are otherwise... and he believes deserve to be murdered... because they are
criminals. Now peter... will take MY words... and form the 'argument' that
_I_ believe criminals 'deserve to be murdered,' leaving off the essential element
that it is what HE BELIEVES.
>
>This post will be proof of FW's original words, lest they be too difficult
>to find, in amongst all the other thrashings that Peter has been dealing
>out to FW this past week or so.
>
LOL... SLURP...SLURP... SLURP... you don't have to worry desi... peter is
too much of your clone, to ever 'desert' you.
PV
>--
>Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
A Planet Visitor
LOL... Perhaps you can explain peter's words of yesterday, where he stated
to me --
/quote/
"You claimed they had committed NO crimes, that they were only "guilty of being
murdered" because you think they deserved to be murdered."
/unquote/ See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b25g87%24c7a%244%40venus.btinternet.com
While I have said ---
"no one is guilty of being murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZllU9.72003%24Sa3.1667728%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said - in respect to both criminals and non-criminals --
"Neither group are 'guilty' of BEING murdered. That is simply an impossibility." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6Wdf8.2221%241p6.522126%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
I have said --
"One cannot be 'guilty' of being murdered. " See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=KJo19.169955%24XH.3866149%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said --
"While NO ONE is 'guilty' of being murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EsA19.37594%24s8.875494%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said
"The worst drug-dealer cannot be 'guilty' of BEING murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Nsl79.318625%24XH.7089646%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
I have said --
"There is no such thing as 'guilty' of BEING murdered." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dIpT9.99906%24j8.2651167%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
If you want to see 'out of context;' peter has presumed to 'quote me' as saying
"guilty of being murdered" --- leaving off EVERY instance of my having expressly
stated that in the NEGATIVE sense.
"no one is" --
"neither group are" --
"one cannot be" --
"While NO ONE is"--
"The worst drug-dealer cannot be" --
"There is no such thing as" --
Apparently it is true that 'there is no honor among thieves.' And if you were
the least bit 'honorable,' you would recognize the distortions used by peter
is EVERY 'argument.' From his pathetic insistence that a statement posed
in the negative, such as 'The DP does not deter,' MUST be true since one
does not need to 'prove a negative.' ho ho ho. To his 'deduction' that a
1% recidivism rate for released murderers doesn't translate into 1% per
year, but divided by 50 years... bringing the 'unbelievable phony figure of
peter's recidivism' to an annual rate of 0.02%. Making it appear that only
1 out of every 5,000 murderers released are recidivist, at a recidivist rate
of 1%. peter ' Phony-baloney' morris... has NEVER approached a problem
honestly.
PV