Choices, choices
Donna Evleth
there is still a moral issue here. Brushing it under the rug by saying that
the court does not need to consider the ultimate result of medicating the
prisoner does not make that issue go away. On the other hand, calling
eligibility for execution "the only unwanted consequence of the medication"
is a rather surrealistic statement. But then the death penalty is itself
rather surrealistic.
Donna Evleth
Feb. 11
ARKANSAS:
State Can Make Inmate Sane Enough to Execute
The federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled yesterday that officials in
Arkansas can force a prisoner on death row to take antipsychotic
medication to make him sane enough to execute. Without the drugs, the
prisoner, Charles Laverne Singleton, could not be put to death under a
United States Supreme Court decision that prohibits the execution of the
insane.
Yesterday's 6-to-5 decision is the 1st by a federal appeals court to
allow such an execution.
"Singleton presents the court with a choice between involuntary
medication followed by an execution and no medication followed by
psychosis and imprisonment," Judge Roger L. Wollman wrote for the
majority in ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.
Judge Wollman said the 1st choice was the better one, at least when the
drugs were generally beneficial to the prisoner. He said courts did not
need to consider the ultimate result of medicating the prisoner.
"Eligibility for execution is the only unwanted consequence of the
medication," he wrote.
Judge Gerald W. Heaney, in dissent, said there was a third choice. He
would have allowed Mr. Singleton to be medicated without fear of execution.
"I believe," he wrote, "that to execute a man who is severely deranged
without treatment, and arguably incompetent when treated, is the pinnacle
of what Justice Marshall called `the barbarity of exacting mindless
vengeance.' " Judge Heaney added that the majority's holding presented
doctors with an impossible ethical choice.
Mr. Singleton killed a grocery store clerk in Arkansas in 1979 and was
sentenced to death that year. His conviction was affirmed in 1981 by the
Arkansas Supreme Court.
In 1986, the United States Supreme Court held in an opinion by Justice
Thurgood Marshall, that the execution of the insane was barred by the
Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
Mr. Singleton's mental health began to deteriorate in 1987. He said he
believed his prison cell was possessed by demons and that a prison doctor
had implanted a device in his ear.
In December 2001, he wrote to the appeals court to inform it that he did
not believe his victim was dead and that she was "somewhere on earth
waiting for me her groom."
Based on extensive medical evaluations describing Mr. Singleton as
psychotic, his lawyers have argued that he is mentally incompetent and
thus cannot be executed. Drugs alleviate his symptoms, however, and
Judges Wollman and Heaney differed yesterday on whether they rendered Mr.
Singleton sane or merely masked his psychosis.
The Supreme Court has held that prisoners may be forced to take
antipsychotic medications in some situations. Prisoners who are forced to
take medications to ensure that they are competent to stand trial are
entitled to a hearing to consider the medical appropriateness of the
treatment, the risk the defendant poses to himself and others, and the
drug's effect on the defendant's appearance, testimony and communications
with his lawyer.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether prisoners may be medicated in
order to make them competent to be executed.
Over the years, Mr. Singleton has sometimes taken antipsychotic
medication voluntarily and has sometimes been forced to take it. Arkansas
officials argued that Mr. Singleton must be medicated because he posed a
danger to himself and to others.
Mr. Singleton's lawyers responded by saying, in Judge Wollman's
characterization, that forcible medication "becomes illegal once an
execution date is set because it is no longer in his best medical
interests."
The majority decision yesterday said Mr. Singleton's interest in being
free of unwanted medication must be balanced against society's interest
in punishing criminal offenders. It overturned a ruling by a three-judge
panel of the court, which had commuted Mr. Singleton's death sentence
because he could not understand his punishment without being medicated.
Judge Heaney, in dissent, noted that the majority's decision gave doctors
hard choices.
"Needless to say," he wrote of the majority's holding, "this leaves those
doctors who are treating psychotic, condemned prisoners in an untenable
position: treating the prisoner may provide short-term relief but
ultimately result in his execution, whereas leaving him untreated will
condemn him to a world such as Singleton's, filled with disturbing
delusions and hallucinations."
Judge Heaney's opinion was joined by 3 other judges. Judge Diana Murphy
dissented on a different ground. She said the record was not clear on
whether Singleton was psychotic and that it was premature to take up the
case.
The American Medical Association's ethical guidelines prohibit giving
medical treatment that would make people competent to be executed, said
Dr. Howard Zonana, who teaches psychiatry and law at Yale.
"You can't treat someone for the purpose of executing them," he said.
Jeffrey Marx Rosenzweig, Mr. Singleton's lawyer, said that he was
considering asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case,
which he said presented an important question of constitutional law.
"To what extent," he asked, "can a government take invasive, involuntary
action using medical personnel who are sworn to heal, save and treat when
the result of their medical application and experience is not healing,
treating and saving but instead has the result of causing execution?"
Kelly Kristine Hill of the Arkansas attorney general's office, who
represented the state, said the court's ruling was limited and correct.
"The ethical decisions involving doctors are difficult ones," she
acknowledged, "but they are not ones for the courts."
(source: New York Times)
Richard J
> Choices, choices... Despite the decision of the federal appeals court,
> there is still a moral issue here. Brushing it under the rug by saying that
> the court does not need to consider the ultimate result of medicating the
> prisoner does not make that issue go away. On the other hand, calling
> eligibility for execution "the only unwanted consequence of the medication"
> is a rather surrealistic statement. But then the death penalty is itself
> rather surrealistic.
>
> Donna Evleth
Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of itself.
Teflon
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <3E4905BF...@hotmail.com>, Richard J
<ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
It may be a cynical thing to say, but I know enough about prisons, incuding
maximum security prisons, to feel that you are right.
But why do I keep thinking that there must be a better solution somehow,
somewhere? Don't ask me what it is, though.
Donna Evleth
>
JIGSAW1695
From: Richard J ric...@hotmail.com
Date: 2/11/2003 9:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3E4905BF...@hotmail.com>
Teflon
===============================
Better yet, commute his snetence on the condition that he moves to
France...permenantly.
He will fit in nicely there.
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
Date: 2/11/2003 10:34 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <iohnh-7...@zeouane.org>
le 11 Feb 2003 15:05:52 GMT, dans l'article
<20030211100552...@mb-mh.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com>
a dit ...
{ snip }
> Better yet, commute his snetence on the condition that he moves to
> France...permenantly.
>
> He will fit in nicely there.
Stalker Alert ! Stalker Alert !
Desmond Coughlan
===============================
With that comment made, Dezi falls back into the sleep from which he was
aroused by a nightmare in which Dolly the Sheep, and the goat he was milking
failed to respond to his advances.
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <l1knh-f...@zeouane.org>
le 11 Feb 2003 16:06:02 GMT, dans l'article
<20030211110602...@mb-fu.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com>
a dit ...
{ snip }
> > Stalker Alert ! Stalker Alert !
> With that comment made, Dezi falls back into the sleep from which he was
> aroused by a nightmare in which Dolly the Sheep, and the goat he was
> milking failed to respond to his advances.
Well done, Jigsaw ! Now, in order to make your already crushing defeat all
the more ignominious ... you have to claim that _you_ invented the 'dolly'
name, and that it wasn't billybob's invention.
Desmond Coughlan
===============================
What crushing defeat Dezi? Afraid I cant lay claim to inventing the name
"dolly" however. It came from one our many ardent detractors.
Peter Morris
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E4905BF...@hotmail.com...
So lets get this straight, Richard. You're claiming that he deserves to
be murdered?
You are starting to sound like Planet Visitor.
Peter Morris
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:ij8oh-...@zeouane.org...
> le Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:57:03 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
<b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
> >> commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
> >> general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas
has.
> >> If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of
> >> itself.
>
> > So lets get this straight, Richard. You're claiming that he deserves to
> > be murdered?
> >
> > You are starting to sound like Planet Visitor.
>
> deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty
for
> DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
> that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
> can't.
Exactly. And that's precisely why PV felt the need to lie about it,
deliberately concealing the fact that the victims of certain crimes were
themselves murderers.
And he claims the fact that I exposed his lies is proof that I agree
with him and Richard.
Richard J
No. I'm saying if his lawyers do not want him medicated, we should
oblige them.
Teflon
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:34:11 +0000
>
>le 11 Feb 2003 15:05:52 GMT, dans l'article
><20030211100552...@mb-mh.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695
><jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Better yet, commute his snetence on the condition that he moves to
>> France...permenantly.
>>
>> He will fit in nicely there.
>
>Stalker Alert ! Stalker Alert !
>
>--
>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!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: Choices, choices
>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:34:11 +0000
>Lines: 20
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <iohnh-7...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3E4905BF...@hotmail.com>
><20030211100552...@mb-mh.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1044977891 45055237 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, yet another drunken lie! 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: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:13:09 +0000
>
>le 11 Feb 2003 16:06:02 GMT, dans l'article
><20030211110602...@mb-fu.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695
><jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> > Stalker Alert ! Stalker Alert !
>
>> With that comment made, Dezi falls back into the sleep from which he was
>> aroused by a nightmare in which Dolly the Sheep, and the goat he was
>> milking failed to respond to his advances.
>
>Well done, Jigsaw ! Now, in order to make your already crushing defeat all
>the more ignominious ... you have to claim that _you_ invented the 'dolly'
>name, and that it wasn't billybob's invention.
>
>--
>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!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!diablo.theplanet.net!zen.net.uk!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: Choices, choices
>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:13:09 +0000
>Lines: 23
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <l1knh-f...@zeouane.org>
>References: <iohnh-7...@zeouane.org>
><20030211110602...@mb-fu.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1044980291 44850061 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:04:02 +0000
>
>le Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:57:03 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
><b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
>>> commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
>>> general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
>>> If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of
>>> itself.
>
>> So lets get this straight, Richard. You're claiming that he deserves to
>> be murdered?
>>
>> You are starting to sound like Planet Visitor.
>
>Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty for
>DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
>that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
>can't.
>
>
>[1] Deathie Cocksucker Scum
>--
>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!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.d
hcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:04:02 +0000
>Lines: 32
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <ij8oh-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e48b6c0$0$4875$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
><3E4905BF...@hotmail.com> <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045001321 45415120 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Richard J
> le Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:17:50 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article <b2c0at$e7f$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
>
>>>deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty
>>>for DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the
>>>regret that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody.
>>>Hint: you can't.
>>
>
>>Exactly. And that's precisely why PV felt the need to lie about it,
>>deliberately concealing the fact that the victims of certain crimes were
>>themselves murderers.
>
>
> dies in prison. If it's done in the death chamber, there's the sexual
> element, of course (heightened to almost orgasmic proportions if the
> condemned cries, or struggles, or pleads for his 'mammy'), but even if the
> person concerned is murdered or commits suicide (the latter option isn't as
> much 'fun' for the deathies, as there isn't the same aspect of infliction
> of blind terror on the killer), there is general celebration. If a person
> _accused_ of murder is killed before trial (i.e. _innocent until proven
> guilty_), whether it be at the hands of a police officer during his arrest,
> or whilst in custody, the reaction is normally, 'Saved the taxpayer the
> cost of a trial'.
>
> These people seriously want the world to believe that they are concerned
> about the preservation of life ? LM-A-O !!
>
>>And he claims the fact that I exposed his lies is proof that I agree
>>with him and Richard.
>
>
> abolitionist would state that murderers somehow 'deserve' to be murdered;
> it would be against our whole philosophy. Second, none of your posts has
> contained words or sentiments even _remotely_ suggesting that you think
> that those who are murdered in prison, are somehow deserving of that fate.
>
Actually, Desmond, I only get wood thinking about all the anguish an
execution causes abolitionists.
Teflon
Peter Morris
Would you care to explain precisely what you meant by that remark, Richard?
Take care of itself in what way?
Peter Morris
>
> Actually, Desmond, I only get wood thinking about all the anguish an
> execution causes abolitionists.
>
So, in fact you are a sadistic bastard who gets off on the misery of
innocent people? And this is the guy that is universally acknowledged
as being the most reasonable of retentionists.
Richard J
He would either wind up in a prison ward for nuts, act sane if this is a
show, or the other prisoners would take care of him. More than likely,
if he is nuts and a danger to himself or at danger from other prisoners,
he would wind up in administrative segregation for his own protection.
Any of the above is OK by me. It's natural selection at its best.
Teflon
Richard J
I don't consider abolitionist innocent people. They deliberately choose
to adopt their stand just as I deliberately choose mine. Besides, I was
being sarcastic in response to Desmond's oft repeated claim that
'deathies' become sexually aroused by the thought of an execution.
How come I don't see you rail against that foolishness, Peter?
Teflon
Peter Morris
What does this mean, exactly? I hate to put words in your mouth,
but it sounds like you are talking about murder. Is that correct?
> More than likely,
> if he is nuts and a danger to himself or at danger from other prisoners,
> he would wind up in administrative segregation for his own protection.
> Any of the above is OK by me.
Including being murdered? That's okay by you?
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <3sdqh-...@zeouane.org>
le Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:32:54 -0600, dans l'article
<3E4A5B16...@hotmail.com>, Richard J <ric...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>>>Actually, Desmond, I only get wood thinking about all the anguish an
>>>execution causes abolitionists.
>> So, in fact you are a sadistic bastard who gets off on the misery of
>> innocent people? And this is the guy that is universally acknowledged
>> as being the most reasonable of retentionists.
> I don't consider abolitionist innocent people. They deliberately choose
> to adopt their stand just as I deliberately choose mine. Besides, I was
> being sarcastic in response to Desmond's oft repeated claim that
> 'deathies' become sexually aroused by the thought of an execution.
>
> How come I don't see you rail against that foolishness, Peter?
Read some of today's posts, Richard, and you'll see why. 'I wanna see that
rope streeeeetch' ... 'poop running down his leg' ... 'who loves to see
that purple tongue ??'
Desmond Coughlan
===============================
Dezi is so dumb he does not know when he is being trolled. Somehwere, out in
cyberspace, there are a few hundred people yelling "G O T C H A" in unison.
LOL
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<no...@m.please> wrote:
Your irony filter was turned up to "full" when you posted that wasn't
it, Beardy?
Hook, line and flotation prevention device.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Richard J
What they would do , they would do. A sympathetic prisoner might
protect him while another type would make him his bitch. Another might
just murder him out of hand. He might be nuts enough they would just
leave him alone.
>
>
>>More than likely,
>>if he is nuts and a danger to himself or at danger from other prisoners,
>>he would wind up in administrative segregation for his own protection.
>>Any of the above is OK by me.
>
>
> Including being murdered? That's okay by you?
What happens, happens. I don't have too many feelings for murderers,
and little sympathy.
Teflon
Peter Morris
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
message news:jonathan-B708E6...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <b2de3p$8hb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Peter Morris"
> <no...@m.please> wrote:
>
> > "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E49F0...@hotmail.com...
>
> > > Actually, Desmond, I only get wood thinking about all the anguish an
> > > execution causes abolitionists.
>
> > So, in fact you are a sadistic bastard who gets off on the misery of
> > innocent people? And this is the guy that is universally acknowledged
> > as being the most reasonable of retentionists.
>
> Your irony filter was turned up to "full" when you posted that wasn't
> it, Beardy?
Actually, I was being ironic. Were you?
What makes you think I have a beard?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<no...@m.please> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> in
> message news:jonathan-B708E6...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <b2de3p$8hb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Peter Morris"
> > <no...@m.please> wrote:
> >
> > > "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3E49F0...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > > > Actually, Desmond, I only get wood thinking about all the anguish
> > > > an
> > > > execution causes abolitionists.
> >
> > > So, in fact you are a sadistic bastard who gets off on the misery of
> > > innocent people? And this is the guy that is universally acknowledged
> > > as being the most reasonable of retentionists.
> >
> > Your irony filter was turned up to "full" when you posted that wasn't
> > it, Beardy?
>
> Actually, I was being ironic. Were you?
Ow. Fuck. I really must remember not to point that gun at my foot.
dirtdog
wrote :
> What makes you think I have a beard?
You sound beardy.
--
------------------------
w00f - dirtdog in France
dirtdog @ fruffrant.com
------------------------
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:17:50 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article <b2c0at$e7f$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>>> deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty
>>> for DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the
>>> regret that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody.
>>> Hint: you can't.
>
>> Exactly. And that's precisely why PV felt the need to lie about it,
>> deliberately concealing the fact that the victims of certain crimes were
>> themselves murderers.
>
>There is a general feeling of joy in the retentionist camp when a murderer
>dies in prison.
Actually, that was peter's reaction... when he mentioned that "It has to
be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
That said, close to two years ago... and he has STILL not changed his
view. While I have said "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED,"
a total of THIRTY-EIGHT times, in my posting history. Having first said
that in response to peter's absurd conclusion that "It has to be said...."
and continuing until today. There is no joy in peter's heart when society
executes a murderer. But there is great joy in his heart, when murderers
can _take care of business_ on other criminals in prison. As for me,
executions bring no joy to me... they are sometimes a _necessary evil_,
because of the alternative of not executing. While ANY murder fills me
with the greatest disgust. Since it is the act of an individual outside of
any law, that is the act of murder.
> If it's done in the death chamber, there's the sexual
>element, of course (heightened to almost orgasmic proportions if the
>condemned cries, or struggles, or pleads for his 'mammy'),
You mean like the self-gratifying _sexual high_ you had, when you
described the murder of a 17-year-old girl, in excruciatingly explicit
detail? ... down to the fact she wore no panties and as she fell her
pubic area was exposed... and you thought: _why don't I describe
how the murderer wishes he had raped the bitch_?
Remember your words --
-------------------------------------------
"He fires once. 43 seconds passed from the time she noticed the
man's presence, until he fired. The bullet, a .38 calibre Remington,
crosses the distance between the gun and her head, at 8,200 feet
per second, and and two thousandths of a second later, punches
a hole in her skull, barely a centimetre above
the supra-orbital margin; ripping a trail backwards
through the left temporal lobe, before exiting between
the occipatal and the right parietal bones.
Unconsciousness is instantaneous.
Tiffany slumps forward onto the desk, and the weight of
her body pulls her sideways off of her seat, and onto
the floor. As she falls, her skirt rides up over her
hips. The man notes that she isn't wearing panties.
'I shoulda raped her first, the whore ...'
----------------------------------------------------
I can actually picture the stain forming at the inseam of
your pants, as you drool over the keyboard, picturing
what you describe. You're a very sick man, desi.
> but even if the
>person concerned is murdered or commits suicide (the latter option isn't as
>much 'fun' for the deathies, as there isn't the same aspect of infliction
>of blind terror on the killer), there is general celebration.
That would be peter's reaction... of course.
> If a person
>_accused_ of murder is killed before trial (i.e. _innocent until proven
>guilty_), whether it be at the hands of a police officer during his arrest,
>or whilst in custody, the reaction is normally, 'Saved the taxpayer the
>cost of a trial'.
>
That would be peter's reaction... of course. He rather implied that
more than two years ago, in his description of the murder of a drug-dealer,
comparing it as no different than the execution of McGinn... saving the
taxpayer some money, because he believed he would feel _rather
satisfied_ that the drug-dealer was dead, even if it was a murder.
>These people seriously want the world to believe that they are concerned
>about the preservation of life ? LM-A-O !!
>
My list, desi... my list.
>> And he claims the fact that I exposed his lies is proof that I agree
>> with him and Richard.
>
LOL... why would I contend you agree with me, since I hold that "NO
ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." And you have consistently
stated you DO NOT AGREE WITH ME. Try doing a search on that
phrase, and my handle, sport.
>As far as I'm concerned, you're preaching to the choir. To begin with, no
>abolitionist would state that murderers somehow 'deserve' to be murdered;
>it would be against our whole philosophy.
That is why peter is not ACTUALLY an abolitionist. He's a moralizing
twit, who becomes confused with his own words, and changes his meaning
as he goes along.
> Second, none of your posts has
>contained words or sentiments even _remotely_ suggesting that you think
>that those who are murdered in prison, are somehow deserving of that fate.
>
Ummm... that would be his words that -- "Executing hundreds of criminals to
save the lives of a small number of other criminals does not make sense, to me."
Clearly... he doesn't CARE about those criminals murdered in prison... he is
more concerned about their murderers. Go on, desi... tell me you _can't find
him saying those words_. While peter will say --- _out of context_.
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.
> 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 the face of humanity, 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
news:uusl4v406cq4ncaom...@4ax.com...
You can say it thirty eight million times, if you want, and it wont erase
the fact that your argument was based on the belief that they deserved to be
murdered.
> Having first said
> that in response to peter's absurd conclusion that "It has to be said...."
I was pointing out that you were lying, and doing so BECAUSE you think
that murderers deserve to be murdered.
This has never meant that I agree with you.Your statement that murderers
deserve to be murdered has always been deeply disgusting to me.
Of course, you now deny that you ever thought it, while it is obvious that
you did, and still do.
Peter Morris
> >>More than likely,
> >>if he is nuts and a danger to himself or at danger from other prisoners,
> >>he would wind up in administrative segregation for his own protection.
> >>Any of the above is OK by me.
> >
> >
> > Including being murdered? That's okay by you?
>
> What happens, happens. I don't have too many feelings for murderers,
> and little sympathy.
>
Simple question, do you think that murderers deserve to be murdered?
Richard J
I think murderers deserve to be executed. If they are murdered while
serving a life sentence by other prisoners, the prisoners saved the
taxpayers some money.
Teflon
Peter Morris
So essentially you approve of murder, you murderer lover.
I have always opposed that.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:52:35 +0000
>
>le 12 Feb 2003 18:45:30 GMT, dans l'article <20030212134530.05111.0000068=
>0...@mb-cn.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...=20
>
>>> Read some of today's posts, Richard, and you'll see why. 'I wanna see
>>> that rope streeeeetch' ... 'poop running down his leg' ... 'who loves =
>to
>>> see that purple tongue ??'
>
>> Dezi is so dumb he does not know when he is being trolled. Somehwere, o=
>ut
>> in cyberspace, there are a few hundred people yelling "G O T C H A" in
>> unison.
>
>Ah, a 'collective' invocation of gimmick no=B0 2 ... post inane, infantil=
>e
>(or in this case, sexually depraved) cack, and when called on it, claim '=
>I
>was only trolling !'
>
>FuckWit would be proud of you, Jigsaw.
>
>--=20
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _=20
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- 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: Choices, choices
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:52:35 +0000
>Lines: 30
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <johqh-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3sdqh-...@zeouane.org>
><20030212134530...@mb-cn.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 1045076312 45465234 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:46:11 +0000
>
>le Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:32:54 -0600, dans l'article
><3E4A5B16...@hotmail.com>, Richard J <ric...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>
>>>>Actually, Desmond, I only get wood thinking about all the anguish an
>>>>execution causes abolitionists.
>
>>> So, in fact you are a sadistic bastard who gets off on the misery of
>>> innocent people? And this is the guy that is universally acknowledged
>>> as being the most reasonable of retentionists.
>
>> I don't consider abolitionist innocent people. They deliberately choose
>> to adopt their stand just as I deliberately choose mine. Besides, I was
>> being sarcastic in response to Desmond's oft repeated claim that
>> 'deathies' become sexually aroused by the thought of an execution.
>>
>> How come I don't see you rail against that foolishness, Peter?
>
>Read some of today's posts, Richard, and you'll see why. 'I wanna see that
>rope streeeeetch' ... 'poop running down his leg' ... 'who loves to see
>that purple tongue ??'
>
>--
>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!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!fu-berlin.de!u
ni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:46:11 +0000
>Lines: 29
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <3sdqh-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e48b6c0$0$4875$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
><3E4905BF...@hotmail.com> <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><ij8oh-...@zeouane.org> <b2c0at$e7f$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><b91ph-...@zeouane.org> <3E49F0...@hotmail.com>
><b2de3p$8hb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com> <3E4A5B16...@hotmail.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045072412 43044739 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 05:05:15 +0000
>
>le Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:17:50 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
><b2c0at$e7f$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>>> deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty
>>> for DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the
>>> regret that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody.
>>> Hint: you can't.
>
>> Exactly. And that's precisely why PV felt the need to lie about it,
>> deliberately concealing the fact that the victims of certain crimes were
>> themselves murderers.
>
>There is a general feeling of joy in the retentionist camp when a murderer
>dies in prison. If it's done in the death chamber, there's the sexual
>element, of course (heightened to almost orgasmic proportions if the
>condemned cries, or struggles, or pleads for his 'mammy'), but even if the
>person concerned is murdered or commits suicide (the latter option isn't as
>much 'fun' for the deathies, as there isn't the same aspect of infliction
>of blind terror on the killer), there is general celebration. If a person
>_accused_ of murder is killed before trial (i.e. _innocent until proven
>guilty_), whether it be at the hands of a police officer during his arrest,
>or whilst in custody, the reaction is normally, 'Saved the taxpayer the
>cost of a trial'.
>
>These people seriously want the world to believe that they are concerned
>about the preservation of life ? LM-A-O !!
>
>> And he claims the fact that I exposed his lies is proof that I agree
>> with him and Richard.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, you're preaching to the choir. To begin with, no
>abolitionist would state that murderers somehow 'deserve' to be murdered;
>it would be against our whole philosophy. Second, none of your posts has
>contained words or sentiments even _remotely_ suggesting that you think
>that those who are murdered in prison, are somehow deserving of that fate.
>
>--
>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!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de
!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 05:05:15 +0000
>Lines: 47
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <b91ph-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e48b6c0$0$4875$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
><3E4905BF...@hotmail.com> <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><ij8oh-...@zeouane.org> <b2c0at$e7f$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045026815 45189879 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
LOL... And perhaps go against desi. Don't be silly. And another reason
is that he rather prefers that murderers be kept alive to murder other
prisoners, to _thin the herd_, so to speak.
PV
>Teflon
A Planet Visitor
>
>"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3E4905BF...@hotmail.com...
>> Donna Evleth wrote:
>> > Choices, choices... Despite the decision of the federal appeals court,
>> > there is still a moral issue here. Brushing it under the rug by saying
>that
>> > the court does not need to consider the ultimate result of medicating
>the
>> > prisoner does not make that issue go away. On the other hand, calling
>> > eligibility for execution "the only unwanted consequence of the
>medication"
>> > is a rather surrealistic statement. But then the death penalty is
>itself
>> > rather surrealistic.
>> >
>> > Donna Evleth
>>
>> Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
>> commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
>> general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
>> If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of
>itself.
>
>So lets get this straight, Richard. You're claiming that he deserves to
>be murdered?
>
No... that would be you. You're a big believer in _put them all together_
and let them sort it out for themselves.
>You are starting to sound like Planet Visitor.
>
Actually Planet Visitor has stated categorically that "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." You have again confused your
wishes with mine.
PV
>
>
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:57:03 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
>>> commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
>>> general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
>>> If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of
>>> itself.
>
>> So lets get this straight, Richard. You're claiming that he deserves to
>> be murdered?
>>
>> You are starting to sound like Planet Visitor.
>
>Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty for
>DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
>that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
>can't.
Again, you are caught in another lie.... Since I expressly said on June 9, 2001,
these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
"Hello... NO person - any person - DESERVES to be MURDERED. The
fact is ALL murder is clearly murder. There is no distinction at murder's lower
level. Everyone is INNOCENT of DESERVING to be murdered. Even
Jeffrey Daumer." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=RKxU6.428391%24o9.67808513%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
I expect a complete apology and an admission of an error in your statement
of fact. I'm waiting..... Or was this also _in good faith_? ho ho ho
I'm waiting....
BTW -- Spank... spank...spank...
PV
>--
>Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church
|isn't for you'
A Planet Visitor
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
>news:ij8oh-...@zeouane.org...
>> le Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:57:03 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
><b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>>
>> { snip }
>>
>> >> Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
>> >> commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
>> >> general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas
>has.
>> >> If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of
>> >> itself.
>>
>> > So lets get this straight, Richard. You're claiming that he deserves to
>> > be murdered?
>> >
>> > You are starting to sound like Planet Visitor.
>>
>> Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>> deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty
>for
>> DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
>> that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
>> can't.
>
>Exactly. And that's precisely why PV felt the need to lie about it,
>deliberately concealing the fact that the victims of certain crimes were
>themselves murderers.
>
Actually, desi is a f***ing liar. Since I expressly said on June 9, 2001,
these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
"Hello... 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."
BTW --- That's simply another construct of what I've been saying all along,
that you have never provided a single bit of evidence to the contrary -- that
being "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>And he claims the fact that I exposed his lies is proof that I agree
>with him and Richard.
LOL... Why would I agree with someone who doesn't care about criminals
that are murdered by murderers in prison? That's YOUR argument, when
you posted "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small
number of other criminals does not make sense, to me." See... those
murdered criminals are _really not that important to you_ if you can save
the lives of their murderers.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Richard said that, as you used to. I disagreed with him, as I disagreed
with
you when you said it.
Since you now claim that you never agreed with your own words, can
you explain why you are not condemning Richard for repeating the same
sentiment?
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> Actually Planet Visitor has stated categorically that "NO ONE
> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." You have again confused your
> wishes with mine.
Hardly, PV, there is undeniable proof that YOU, like all deathies think
that criminals deserve to be murdered.
First of all, lets consider Richard Jackson's words. He thinks the
same you do, but at least he has the courage to say it openly. There
is no doubt that you feel the same way he does.
<< Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of itself
>>
When asked to explain ewhat he meant he said
<<the other prisoners would take care of him... What they would do ,
they would do. A sympathetic prisoner might protect him while another
type would make him his bitch. Another might just murder him out of
hand...>>
When asked whether he supports murder in prison, the reply was
<<What happens, happens. I don't have too many feelings for murderers,
and little sympathy.>>
So, Richard has said directly that he feels that prisonners deserve to be
murdered. This is a common idea among deathies, and one that you share,
beyond a doubt.
First of all, Richard has said stuff like this many times, as have other
deathies,
and you have NEVER atacked him for doing so. This is proof that you don't
disagree with him.
Secondly, the fact is that you based your entire argument around the concept
that murderers deserve to be murdered. You deliberately lied BECAUSE
you think so. The fact that you lied proves it beyond doubt.
You read a report about the behaviour of the Furman-commuted prisoners.
The report spoke against execution, but you lied and changed the data to
suit
your own evil agenda. By changing the data, you made it seem in favour of
the DP.
First of all, the report says that 600 prisoners had their sentence
overturned.
You lied, and said it was 300, it being much easier to justify killing 300
people than 600.
Secondly, a large percentage of those 600 were rapists or armend robbers.
You lied and said that ALL of them were murderers. Many deathies oppose
executing rapists, so you lied and claimed they were murderers.
Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
were later proved innocent. You lied and said there were NONE. This is
because
even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
Fourth, the report said that these prisonners murdered four other murderers
in prison. This is no good to you. After all, the deathies don't care about
that,
do they. You knew that if you told them about in-prison murders, the
deathies
simply wouldn't care, as Richard has said. So you lied and claimed that
they
were not crimianals at all. You stated that they are only guilty of being
murdered,
and nothing else.
Based on the standards that Richard Jackson has displayed, the report speaks
against the DP. The report says that executing four innocent people would
have
saved the lives of two prison guards and four murderers. But the deathies
wouldn't care about saving murderers' lives. OTOH, they would care about
innocent people being executed, and conclude that the DP kills more innocent
people than it saves. So you lied, and said that executing murderers and no
innocents would have saved six innocents and no murderers. This sounds much
more convincing to the likes of Richard Jackson.
In fact, you lied because deathies think that criminals deserve to be
murdered.
That's the truth, plain and simple.
Of course, I exposed your lies and held you up to public ridicicule for your
dishonesty, and you are obsessed with hate for that. You twist my words, the
same way you twisted the words of the report, to make it seem like I agree
with
you, when I don't.
You also claim that you never agreed with yourself. You lied to make the
data
fit Richard's standards, yet you claim that you don't share those
standards. You
say that the whole concept on which you based your argument is evil, and
you
always despised it. At the very least this makes you a dreadful hypocrite,
as well
as fundamentally dishonest.
Saying over and over that you think nobody deserves to be murdered
does not erase what you originally wrote, or make it any less evil.
Pointing out the fact that you lied does not make me agree with you.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:17:50 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
> >Exactly. And that's precisely why PV felt the need to lie about it,
> >deliberately concealing the fact that the victims of certain crimes were
> >themselves murderers.
> >
> Actually, desi is a f***ing liar. Since I expressly said on June 9, 2001,
> these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
>
> "Hello... 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."
>
> BTW --- That's simply another construct of what I've been saying all
along,
> that you have never provided a single bit of evidence to the contrary --
that
> being "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
This is of course a reversal of what you thought previously.
First of all, lets consider Richard Jackson's words. He thinks the
same you do, but at least he has the courage to say it openly. There
is no doubt that you feel the same way he does.
<< Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
datafit Richard's standards, yet you claim that you don't share those
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Of course, this is a reversal of what you previously said.
First of all, lets consider Richard Jackson's words. He thinks the
same you do, but at least he has the courage to say it openly. There
is no doubt that you feel the same way he does.
<< Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
A Planet Visitor
Never... Your argument was based on the CLEAR fact that you would
SACRIFICE some numbers of criminals to those who would murder them,
to keep those murderers from being executed --- by arguing _what's a few
criminals murdered in prison if we can save a larger number of murderer lives.'
Since you once said with YOUR WORDS --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>> Having first said
>> that in response to peter's absurd conclusion that "It has to be said...."
>
>I was pointing out that you were lying, and doing so BECAUSE you think
>that murderers deserve to be murdered.
>
You were simply trying to cover up your lies. Since not ONCE have you
provided a URL link to any post of mine that substantiates your claim,
while I CONTINUALLY refer to your EXACT WORDS, and cite the
reference to those words. See above.
>This has never meant that I agree with you.Your statement that murderers
>deserve to be murdered has always been deeply disgusting to me.
>
I would hope you would agree with me... since I've said "NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED." But you now obviously deny agreeing with that
principle. Thus, you MUST believe _some_ deserve to be murdered.
How sad...
>Of course, you now deny that you ever thought it, while it is obvious that
>you did, and still do.
>
I deny it, because it is untrue. Nor can you show where you are not lying.
And look at your words... "and still do." You must realize what a horrible
lie that is, since our entire argument of the past few days has focused on
my "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." Thus you can hardly
claim "and still do." You're just a proven liar, peter. But clearly, YOUR
words show that the murder of criminals in prison, is NOT AS IMPORTANT
as saving a greater number of those who would murder them. See your
words... above.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3E4B1ECF...@hotmail.com...
>> Peter Morris wrote:
>> > "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3E4ACD6A...@hotmail.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>More than likely,
>> >>>>if he is nuts and a danger to himself or at danger from other
>prisoners,
>> >>>>he would wind up in administrative segregation for his own protection.
>> >>>>Any of the above is OK by me.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Including being murdered? That's okay by you?
>> >>
>> >>What happens, happens. I don't have too many feelings for murderers,
>> >>and little sympathy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Simple question, do you think that murderers deserve to be murdered?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I think murderers deserve to be executed. If they are murdered while
>> serving a life sentence by other prisoners, the prisoners saved the
>> taxpayers some money.
>
>So essentially you approve of murder, you murderer lover.
>I have always opposed that.
>
No, peter.. actually that's a lie on your part. You do NOT oppose murder
in prison of a small number of prisoners, if a greater number of murderers
can be kept from execution -- again YOUR WORDS --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
You are quite willing to SACRIFICE that "small number of other criminals,"
to prevent "Executing hundreds of criminals."
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom
.
> >net.uk
> >> That said, close to two years ago... and he has STILL not changed his
> >> view. While I have said "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED,"
> >> a total of THIRTY-EIGHT times, in my posting history.
> >
> >You can say it thirty eight million times, if you want, and it wont erase
> >the fact that your argument was based on the belief that they deserved to
be
> >murdered.
> >
> Never... Your argument was based on the CLEAR fact that you would
> SACRIFICE some numbers of criminals to those who would murder them,
This, coming from the man who claims that anyone who agrees with him
must be evil.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> No, peter.. actually that's a lie on your part. You do NOT oppose murder
> in prison of a small number of prisoners, if a greater number of murderers
> can be kept from execution -- again YOUR WORDS --
>
> "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
other
> criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.
net.uk
>
> You are quite willing to SACRIFICE that "small number of other criminals,"
> to prevent "Executing hundreds of criminals."
you can twist my words all you want, PV. The fact still remains proved
that you think criminals deserve to be murdered.
Here's the proof.
First of all, lets consider Richard Jackson's words. He thinks the
same you do, but at least he has the courage to say it openly. There
is no doubt that you feel the same way he does.
<< Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of itself
>>
When asked to explain ewhat he meant he said
<<the other prisoners would take care of him... What they would do ,
they would do. A sympathetic prisoner might protect him while another
type would make him his bitch. Another might just murder him out of
hand...>>
When asked whether he supports murder in prison, the reply was
<<What happens, happens. I don't have too many feelings for murderers,
and little sympathy.>>
So, Richard has said directly that he feels that prisonners deserve to be
John Rennie
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:b2ha37$4kt$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
snip
> First of all, Richard has said stuff like this many times, as have other
> deathies,
> and you have NEVER atacked him for doing so. This is proof that you don't
> disagree with him.
No it isn't, Peter.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:36:20 +0000
>
>le Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:27:10 GMT, dans l'article
><hfhm4v8skoden1idk...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>>>deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty for
>>>DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
>>>that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
>>>can't.
>
>> Again, you are caught in another lie.... Since I expressly said on June
>> 9, 2001, these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
>
>{ snip }
>
>Your words matter little, FW. For a start, you're a proven liar. Peter
>has shown to the satisfaction of any reasonable person and probably a few
>deathies too, that you lied about your 'concern' for those who were
>murdered in gaol.
>
>{ snip }
>
>> BTW -- Spank... spank...spank...
>
>Ah, that's the spirit, eh ??!! Get your 'ass' (sic) tanned, and then claim
>victory. What's the expression, again ? SG Seminal Axiom 6) ? LOL !!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:36:20 +0000
>Lines: 36
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <kptth-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e48b6c0$0$4875$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
><3E4905BF...@hotmail.com> <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><ij8oh-...@zeouane.org> <hfhm4v8skoden1idk...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045187004 46977401 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!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!ne
wsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!n
ot-for-mail
Peter Morris
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:IPX2a.1529$7G2....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Yes it is, John.
Richard says directly that he doesn't care if a murderer is murdered. He
has made similar statements many times in the past, as have most other
deathies, including PV.
Now, PV constantly quotes at me a remark I made two years ago, which
he claims means the same thing, (although it really meant the opposite) He
constantly attacks me for it, obsessing over it.
Yet despite the number of times that Richard has said he doesn't care if a
murderer is murdered, PV has never critisised him for this.
This is a clear indication that PV doesn't really care if someone actually
says
that murderers deserve to be murdered, he just is obsessed with hatred
for
me.
.
A Planet Visitor
Of course, it is NOT. Nor can you provide any proof in my past words,
of your absurd lie. Care to see another EXACT quote of mine to
YOU.. voicing the same thought??? My words to you --
"Jeffrey Daumer was MURDERED. He was an INNOCENT, because
he was murdered. IMHO, a disgusting pervert, certainly DESERVING to
be executed.. but ONLY by the State."
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dmwp6.998%2468.413056%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
That makes two times.
How's about ANOTHER. again to you -- My words --
"I DO NOT, and MORALLY COULD NOT support the MURDER of
ANYONE. Not Jeffrey Daumer, nor ANYONE."
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=T2tW6.1323%24_T2.132939%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
That makes three...
Or another --
"NO ONE... not even Jeffrey Daumer DESERVES to be MURDERED. They are innocent
in respect to NO ONE having the right to MURDER them."
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40AU6.428633%24o9.67976595%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
That makes four...
Now... you lying prick. I've looked at EVERY post that mentions the
name "Daumer" for me. Every one. And NONE speak of anything
in respect to his murder, except these, which express deplore over such
a thought. None of them. You are one sick piece of shit, to lie and imply
I ever suggested that Jeffrey Daumer should be murdered. Because "NO
ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>First of all, lets consider Richard Jackson's words. He thinks the
>same you do, but at least he has the courage to say it openly. There
>is no doubt that you feel the same way he does.
>
Crap.. In fact, you support murder of criminals IF it means a greater
number of murderers are not executed. Your words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me."
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
><< Personally, Donna, I think the best solution is to not medicate him,
>commute his sentence to life without parole, and release him into the
>general population of the harshest maximum security prison Arkansas has.
> If he is a nuts as they claim, the problem would soon take care of itself
>>>
>
>When asked to explain ewhat he meant he said
>
><<the other prisoners would take care of him... What they would do ,
> they would do. A sympathetic prisoner might protect him while another
>type would make him his bitch. Another might just murder him out of
>hand...>>
>
>When asked whether he supports murder in prison, the reply was
>
><<What happens, happens. I don't have too many feelings for murderers,
>and little sympathy.>>
>
>So, Richard has said directly that he feels that prisonners deserve to be
>murdered. This is a common idea among deathies, and one that you share,
>beyond a doubt.
>
>First of all, Richard has said stuff like this many times, as have other
>deathies, and you have NEVER atacked him for doing so. This is proof
> that you don't disagree with him.
>
Rubbish. I do not need to comment on EVERY post from every person
here, to prove I don't disagree with them. There are not enough hours in
the day to do that.
>Secondly, the fact is that you based your entire argument around the concept
> that murderers deserve to be murdered. You deliberately lied BECAUSE
>you think so. The fact that you lied proves it beyond doubt.
>
You've been shown to be a liar in that, peter. You have not provided even
ONE sentence from ONE post, that would indicate I've ever said what you
claim here. You're just a pathetic liar. A sick little prick, who has only
lies to fall back on. While I provide EXACT QUOTES, and references
to URL, which you NEVER do.
>You read a report about the behaviour of the Furman-commuted prisoners.
>The report spoke against execution, but you lied and changed the data to
>suit your own evil agenda. By changing the data, you made it seem in favour
>of
>the DP.
LOL... Just another pathetic lie.
>
>First of all, the report says that 600 prisoners had their sentence
>overturned. You lied, and said it was 300, it being much easier to justify
>killing 300 people than 600.
>
No... I said about 300 murdered 6 people in prison. And that is certainly true.
There were 558 Furman-commuted criminals, but 315 remained not released.
Do you... by ANY stretch of the imagination... believe that even one of those
murders IN PRISON was committed by a criminal who was RELEASED
from prison???? If they were part of that 558, but murdered in prison, they
would come ONLY from those who had NOT been released from prison. If
they had been released, they OBVIOUSLY did not commit ANY of those
6 murders in prison.
>Secondly, a large percentage of those 600 were rapists or armend robbers.
>You lied and said that ALL of them were murderers.
You are again, a lying sack of shit. I never said they "were all murderers,"
or anything close to that. I well knew that rapists and armed robbers were
among those Furman-commuted. You argued that one of those murders was
committed by a rapist. And I provided PROOF that all 6 were committed
by non-released murderers. See --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/bedau.jpg
>Many deathies oppose
>executing rapists, so you lied and claimed they were murderers.
I have been on record over and over, that I do not support execution for
non-murderers. IN ANY CASE. Or any circumstance. You will not find
ONE instance where I have ever stated support for the execution of ANYONE
who is not a murderer. Murder is the watershed event... without I do not
support execution. With it... it becomes an extremely remote possibility,
based on the circumstances of the crime, and the prior behavior of the murderer,
as DETERMINED BY SOCIETY. Not me.
>Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
>were later proved innocent.
No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
from you. Whether you know it or not... Bedau and Radelet do not hold
the God-like ability to rule on _innocence_. That is determined by the Justice
System. I do not deny that the Justice System might have done so... but
my point has always been that findings of Bedau and Radelet are insufficient
evidence of that innocence. Since they have made such claims before, and had
to retract them.
> You lied and said there were NONE. This is
>because even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
>
Of course, EVERYONE is "opposed to executing innocent people."
>Fourth, the report said that these prisonners murdered four other murderers
>in prison.
No.. quite the opposite. The report said four murderers had murdered four
other prisoners. Just the opposite of the way you have worded your statement.
> This is no good to you. After all, the deathies don't care about
>that, do they.
Apparently YOU don't care... Since you've said --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Aren't those your words???
> You knew that if you told them about in-prison murders, the
>deathies simply wouldn't care, as Richard has said. So you lied and claimed
>that
>they were not crimianals at all. You stated that they are only guilty of
>being
>murdered, and nothing else.
People serving time in prison are obviously criminals. But they are INNOCENT
of BEING MURDERED. They are innocent victims, and ANY OTHER
status they might hold... drug-dealers, pimps, murderers themselves, rapists,
is totally irrelevant when it comes to THEIR BEING MURDERED. They are
innocent of any crime of BEING MURDERED. Of course, you have argued
that no one should see any difference between the murder of a drug-dealer and
the execution of McGinn. Rather favoring letting them _sort it out for themselves_.
Rest of maniacal raving clipped, since it's rather obvious that I have provided
PROOF, while all that peter has provided is raving, without the slightest bit of
evidence of any words to back up that raving.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:l3gm4v4haim0nmmfg...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:32:54 -0600, Richard J <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Peter Morris wrote:
>> >> "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3E49F0...@hotmail.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Actually, Desmond, I only get wood thinking about all the anguish an
>> >>>execution causes abolitionists.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, in fact you are a sadistic bastard who gets off on the misery of
>> >> innocent people? And this is the guy that is universally acknowledged
>> >> as being the most reasonable of retentionists.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >I don't consider abolitionist innocent people. They deliberately choose
>> >to adopt their stand just as I deliberately choose mine. Besides, I was
>> >being sarcastic in response to Desmond's oft repeated claim that
>> >'deathies' become sexually aroused by the thought of an execution.
>> >
>> >How come I don't see you rail against that foolishness, Peter?
>> >
>> LOL... And perhaps go against desi. Don't be silly. And another reason
>> is that he rather prefers that murderers be kept alive to murder other
>> prisoners, to _thin the herd_, so to speak.
>
>Richard said that, as you used to. I disagreed with him, as I disagreed
>with
>you when you said it.
No... YOU said it -- quite clearly... YOUR WORDS --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me."
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>
>Since you now claim that you never agreed with your own words, can
>you explain why you are not condemning Richard for repeating the same
>sentiment?
>
Can you hear yourself, peter? Can you see how hysterical you have become?
Read your first 12 words above --> _I never agreed with my own words_
You have become a caricature of ignorance lately. Even when we had the
trolley problem, I knew you were stubborn and pigheaded and deceptive,
but I also felt you had some native intelligence, as misdirected as it was to
me. I only see you now as STUPID, and guilty of the most grievous flaws
of logic, and finding it necessary to lie. CONSTANTLY. If I spent all
my time disagreeing with EVERYONE here that I have disagreed with at
one time or another, there are not enough hours in the day. I concentrate
on abolitionists, since I am a retentionist. And I believe that it is the
responsibility of abolitionists to find flaws in retentionist arguments, more
than mine. I have a full plate -- just with the lies from desi and you and JPB.
More than that cannot be asked of me. I had often stated that I agree
with NO ONE here FULLY. So just accept the fact that if I don't remark
on something that DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH IT.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:aagm4v4t5ma28q8ek...@4ax.com...
>
>> Actually Planet Visitor has stated categorically that "NO ONE
>> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." You have again confused your
>> wishes with mine.
>
>Hardly, PV, there is undeniable proof that YOU, like all deathies think
>that criminals deserve to be murdered.
>
No, there is not, sport. If there was... everyone here is sure that you
would have already provided a reference to my words. Thus, everyone
knows you've been exposed as a liar.
>First of all, lets consider Richard Jackson's words. He thinks the
>same you do, but at least he has the courage to say it openly. There
>is no doubt that you feel the same way he does.
First of all... I am not responsible for Richard's words, or for Jigsaw's
words, or for ANY words... other than MY OWN.
>
<clipped pathetic complaints about Richard, that peter should address to
Richard and not presume with me>
>Secondly, the fact is that you based your entire argument around the concept
> that murderers deserve to be murdered. You deliberately lied BECAUSE
>you think so. The fact that you lied proves it beyond doubt.
Once again... that is a deliberate and purposeful LIE. I have never said that...
you cannot provide ONE instance of my having done so (if you could, you
would most certainly have already done so). And the further fact is that
YOU accept the murder of prisoners, if it means keeping a greater number
of murderers ALIVE... Your words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me."
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>You read a report about the behaviour of the Furman-commuted prisoners.
>The report spoke against execution, but you lied and changed the data to
>suit
>your own evil agenda. By changing the data, you made it seem in favour of
>the DP.
I never _changed_ the data.
>
>First of all, the report says that 600 prisoners had their sentence
>overturned.
>You lied, and said it was 300, it being much easier to justify killing 300
>people than 600.
>
No... I said that about 300 had murdered 6 in prison. Obviously of those
558 in the Furman-commuted study, none that had been released could
possibly have been responsible for murders committed in prison, since
they would not have been released if they had. The information from
the report reads thusly -- "Of the 558 Furman-Commuted inmates, 315
(56.5%) have not been released from prison." Obviously this is the
ONLY group that could have committed those murders IN prison,
since the others who were released would NOT have been released
had they committed one of those murders IN PRISON.
>Secondly, a large percentage of those 600 were rapists or armend robbers.
>You lied and said that ALL of them were murderers. Many deathies oppose
>executing rapists, so you lied and claimed they were murderers.
>
I never said they were _all murderers_. What I did say was that the
six murders committed in prison were committed by commuted murderers.
I well knew that rapists and armed robbers were among those
Furman-commuted. You seemed to imply that one of those murders
was committed by a rapist. And I provided PROOF that all 6 were
committed by non-released murderers. See --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/bedau.jpg
>Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
>were later proved innocent. You lied and said there were NONE. This is
>because
>even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
>
No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
from you. Whether you know it or not... Bedau and Radelet do not hold
the God-like ability to rule on _innocence_. That is determined by the Justice
System. I do not deny that the Justice System might have done so... but
my point has always been that findings of Bedau and Radelet are insufficient
evidence of that innocence. Since they have made such claims before, and had
to retract them. If you have further PROOF of actions by the Justice
System, and not the _word_ of two dedicated abolitionists, provide
it, and I will gladly admit the justice system found some of the
Furman-commuted prisoners to be 'not guilty' after their commutation.
Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned it is an unconfirmed finding.
<more hysteria about Richard... that should be addressed to Richard,
clipped>
>In fact, you lied because deathies think that criminals deserve to be
>murdered.
>That's the truth, plain and simple.
Actually, that's a _plain and simple lie_. As I said, if you had even
a hint of demonstrating that in my actual words, you would have
posted the URL which justifies your lie.
>
>Of course, I exposed your lies and held you up to public ridicicule for your
>dishonesty, and you are obsessed with hate for that. You twist my words, the
>same way you twisted the words of the report, to make it seem like I agree
>with
>you, when I don't.
You mean when you claimed that you don't care about murders
in prison, if a great number of murderers can be saved? Your words --
Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
other criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>
>You also claim that you never agreed with yourself. You lied to make the
>data
>fit Richard's standards, yet you claim that you don't share those
>standards. You
>say that the whole concept on which you based your argument is evil,
Quite the opposite.. I said it was "the lesser of two evils." Were I
to choose the other, my argument would then be based on what I
see as THE GREATER EVIL. That doesn't quite make it for me.
Of course, maybe YOU prefer the _greater of two evils_, such
as keeping a greater number of murderers alive to have them
murder a lesser number of prisoners.
> and
>you
>always despised it. At the very least this makes you a dreadful hypocrite,
>as well
>as fundamentally dishonest.
I despise MURDER. And those we execute have murdered. I
despise the thought that they might murder again. There is nothing
fundamentally dishonest about despising murder, and hoping to
reduce the number of innocents murdered. Now if YOU think
there is something _fundamentally dishonest_ about being concerned
with _innocent life_, then that's just another point we disagree upon.
>
>Saying over and over that you think nobody deserves to be murdered
>does not erase what you originally wrote, or make it any less evil.
>
Since you cannot provide what you claim I _cannot erase_, it is
already erased, because it never existed.
>Pointing out the fact that you lied does not make me agree with you.
>
I would hope that I would never agree with you... since you seem
quite willing to accept the murder of prisoners if a greater number
of murderers can be kept alive. Yes... I truly disagree with that.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:vjgm4vkvjed38bcga...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:17:50 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
>wrote:
>
>> >Exactly. And that's precisely why PV felt the need to lie about it,
>> >deliberately concealing the fact that the victims of certain crimes were
>> >themselves murderers.
>> >
>> Actually, desi is a f***ing liar. Since I expressly said on June 9, 2001,
>> these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
>>
>> "Hello... 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."
>>
>> BTW --- That's simply another construct of what I've been saying all
>along,
>> that you have never provided a single bit of evidence to the contrary --
>that
>> being "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>
>
>This is of course a reversal of what you thought previously.
>
No, it is NOT. And you can provide no evidence in any of my past
words, to offer such a deplorable accusation. You are a man without
honor.
<clip of absurd comment concerning Richard again... >
>
>Secondly, the fact is that you based your entire argument around the concept
> that murderers deserve to be murdered. You deliberately lied BECAUSE
>you think so. The fact that you lied proves it beyond doubt.
>
Once again... that is a deliberate and purposeful LIE. I have never said that...
you cannot provide ONE instance of my having done so (if you could, you
would most certainly have already done so). And the further fact is that
YOU accept the murder of prisoners, if it means keeping a greater number
of murderers ALIVE... Your words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me."
>You read a report about the behaviour of the Furman-commuted prisoners.
>The report spoke against execution, but you lied and changed the data to
>suit your own evil agenda. By changing the data, you made it seem in favour
>of
>the DP.
I never changed the data.
>
>First of all, the report says that 600 prisoners had their sentence
>overturned.
>You lied, and said it was 300, it being much easier to justify killing 300
>people than 600.
>
No... I said that about 300 had murdered 6 in prison. Obviously of those
558 in the Furman-commuted study, none that had been released could
possibly have been responsible for murders committed in prison, since
they would not have been released if they had. The information from
the report reads thusly -- "Of the 558 Furman-Commuted inmates, 315
(56.5%) have not been released from prison." Obviously this is the
ONLY group that could have committed those murders IN prison,
since the others who were released would NOT have been released
had they committed one of those murders IN PRISON.
>Secondly, a large percentage of those 600 were rapists or armend robbers.
>You lied and said that ALL of them were murderers. Many deathies oppose
>executing rapists, so you lied and claimed they were murderers.
>
No... I said that about 300 had murdered 6 in prison. Obviously of those
558 in the Furman-commuted study, none that had been released could
possibly have been responsible for murders committed in prison, since
they would not have been released if they had. The information from
the report reads thusly -- "Of the 558 Furman-Commuted inmates, 315
(56.5%) have not been released from prison." Obviously this is the
ONLY group that could have committed those murders IN prison,
since the others who were released would NOT have been released
had they committed one of those murders IN PRISON.
>Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
>were later proved innocent. You lied and said there were NONE. This is
>because even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
>
No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
from you. Whether you know it or not... Bedau and Radelet do not hold
the God-like ability to rule on _innocence_. That is determined by the Justice
System. I do not deny that the Justice System might have done so... but
my point has always been that findings of Bedau and Radelet are insufficient
evidence of that innocence. Since they have made such claims before, and had
to retract them. If you have further PROOF of actions by the Justice
System, and not the _word_ of two dedicated abolitionists, provide
it, and I will gladly admit the justice system found some of the
Furman-commuted prisoners to be 'not guilty' after their commutation.
Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned it is an unconfirmed finding.
>Fourth, the report said that these prisonners murdered four other murderers
>in prison. This is no good to you. After all, the deathies don't care about
>that, do they.
Actually... if you look at YOUR OWN WORDS, above... you
will see that YOU don't care about murders in prison, if a greater
number of murderers can be kept alive.
> You knew that if you told them about in-prison murders, the
>deathies simply wouldn't care, as Richard has said. So you lied and claimed
>that
>they were not crimianals at all. You stated that they are only guilty of
>being
>murdered, and nothing else.
Your a liar... Since you cannot provide one post from me, that would
indicate my saying what you have claimed.
>
>Based on the standards that Richard Jackson has displayed, the report speaks
>against the DP. The report says that executing four innocent people would
>have
>saved the lives of two prison guards and four murderers. But the deathies
>wouldn't care about saving murderers' lives.
I believe we've determined that _saving murderers' lives_ is of paramount
importance to you... and you are quite willing to _sacrifice_ (how noble
of you), a lesser number of criminals in prison, if a greater number of
murderers can be kept alive. See your comment above.
> OTOH, they would care about
>innocent people being executed, and conclude that the DP kills more innocent
>people than it saves. So you lied, and said that executing murderers and no
>innocents would have saved six innocents and no murderers. This sounds much
>more convincing to the likes of Richard Jackson.
Hysterical mumbo-jumbo.
>
>In fact, you lied because deathies think that criminals deserve to be
>murdered. That's the truth, plain and simple.
Actually YOU lie... and you and everyone here KNOWS it. Since
if YOU COULD justify even slightly that lie, you would be posting
the URL into every post you pathetically manufacture from that now
twisted mind of yours, having been so thoroughly whipped.
>
>Of course, I exposed your lies and held you up to public ridicicule for your
>dishonesty, and you are obsessed with hate for that. You twist my words, the
>same way you twisted the words of the report, to make it seem like I agree
>with you, when I don't.
>
What I do... and what troubles you greatly.. is I POST YOUR
EXACT WORDS. You can't even handle YOUR OWN WORDS
from the past. So you need to invent LIES, claiming I've said this
or that... but NEVER able to provide a reference to those lies in
my words.
>You also claim that you never agreed with yourself. You lied to make the
>datafit Richard's standards, yet you claim that you don't share those
>standards. You say that the whole concept on which you based your
>argument is evil, and you always despised it. At the very least this makes
>you a dreadful hypocrite, as well as fundamentally dishonest.
>
Can you hear yourself, peter? Can you see how hysterical you have become?
Read your first 12 words above --> _I never agreed with my own words_
You have become a caricature of ignorance lately. Even when we had the
trolley problem, I knew you were stubborn and pigheaded and deceptive,
but I also felt you had some native intelligence, as misdirected as it was to
me. I only see you now as STUPID, and guilty of the most grievous flaws
of logic, and finding it necessary to lie. CONSTANTLY. If I spent all
my time disagreeing with EVERYONE here that I have disagreed with at
one time or another, there are not enough hours in the day. I concentrate
on abolitionists, since I am a retentionist. And I believe that it is the
responsibility of abolitionists to find flaws in retentionist arguments, more
than mine. I have a full plate -- just with the lies from desi and you and JPB.
More than that cannot be asked of me. I had often stated that I agree
with NO ONE here FULLY. So just accept the fact that if I don't remark
on something that DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH IT.
>Saying over and over that you think nobody deserves to be murdered
>does not erase what you originally wrote, or make it any less evil.
>
Since you cannot provide what you claim I _cannot erase_, it is
already erased, because it never existed.
>Pointing out the fact that you lied does not make me agree with you.
>
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:55:31 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >news:aagm4v4t5ma28q8ek...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Actually Planet Visitor has stated categorically that "NO ONE
> >> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." You have again confused your
> >> wishes with mine.
> >
> >Hardly, PV, there is undeniable proof that YOU, like all deathies think
> >that criminals deserve to be murdered.
> >
> No, there is not, sport. If there was... everyone here is sure that you
> would have already provided a reference to my words. Thus, everyone
> knows you've been exposed as a liar.
>
> >First of all, lets consider Richard Jackson's words. He thinks the
> >same you do, but at least he has the courage to say it openly. There
> >is no doubt that you feel the same way he does.
>
> First of all... I am not responsible for Richard's words, or for Jigsaw's
> words, or for ANY words... other than MY OWN.
> >
> <clipped pathetic complaints about Richard, that peter should address to
> Richard and not presume with me>
Translation: clipped stuff that PV cannot answer.
The fact isd that Richard said the stuff PV accuses me of saying,
yet PV has no problem whatsoever with Richard saying it.
Obviously he agrees with Richard's statement that criminals deserve to be
murdered.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >Since you now claim that you never agreed with your own words, can
> >you explain why you are not condemning Richard for repeating the same
> >sentiment?
> >
> Can you hear yourself, peter? Can you see how hysterical you have become?
> Read your first 12 words above --> _I never agreed with my own words_
Exactly, your claim is ridiculous. Of course you believe your own words.
Everyone knows you believe your own words when you wrote that criminals
deserve to be murdered.
Try as you might to make people believe that you never thought what you
wrote, that IS what you believe.
I always disagreed with you.
> You have become a caricature of ignorance lately. Even when we had the
> trolley problem, I knew you were stubborn and pigheaded and
right.
,
> but I also felt you had some native intelligence, as misdirected as it was
to
> me.
Misdirected? because I claimed that murder is never moral, when
you insisted that sometimes it is?
> I only see you now as STUPID, and guilty of the most grievous flaws
> of logic, and finding it necessary to lie. CONSTANTLY.
NEVER. You have constantly accused me of lying, but have never
found a single lie I told.
Just because you are deeply ashamed of saying that criminals d
eserve to be murdered it is not a lie to quote you on it.
> If I spent all
> my time disagreeing with EVERYONE here that I have disagreed with at
> one time or another, there are not enough hours in the day. I concentrate
> on abolitionists, since I am a retentionist.
You concentrate on me out of sheer hatred.
And the fact is, when Richard or another deathie says that criminals
deserve tobe murdered you don't actually disagree with them.
> And I believe that it is the
> responsibility of abolitionists to find flaws in retentionist arguments,
more
> than mine.
As I have done.
> I have a full plate -- just with the lies from desi and you and JPB.
> More than that cannot be asked of me. I had often stated that I agree
> with NO ONE here FULLY. So just accept the fact that if I don't remark
> on something that DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH IT.
Yes it does. You claim that I think criminals deserve to be murdered.
(I never did think that, you twist my words to make it appear that I
agree with your opinion, when I was opposed to it) You claim that anyone
who agrees with your statement that criminals deserve to be murdered must
be evil. You obssess over it, day and night.
Well, Richard has said directly and explicitly that criminals deserve to be
murdered.
Why aren't you attacking him for it? Because you don't hate him. Because
you
agree with him.
It has always been about hate and revenge with you, never about logic.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> >Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
> >were later proved innocent. You lied and said there were NONE. This is
> >because
> >even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
> >
> No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
> the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
> When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
> JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
> from you.
A dismal set of lies that PV tells over and over.
First of all PV denies that he lied. Let's remind ourselves what he said.
You can see it for yourself here: http://tinyurl.com/5tsz
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: 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.
The study involved 558 Furman-commuted inmates - 315 of which
had not been released - of those 39 died, and 3 escaped and had
not been recaptured. The remaining 243 had been released to
society. Of these 191 have not been returned to prison. 147 were
on their original parole, 19 discharged their sentences, 17 successfully
completed their parole, 6 died in the community and 2 were pardoned.
52 of the 243 had been returned to prison.
So NOW, when you are cornered, you admit that the report DID say:
<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 ... Seven Furman- commuted prisonners were responsible
for seven additional murders. Certainly, execution of all 558 prisonners
would have prevented these killings. However, such a "preemptive"
strike" would not have greatly protected society. 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>
You only admit this because I exposed your lies, and if I hadn't you
would still be claiming no innocents.
This is the really big issue with you. You totally hate me for exposing
you as the liar that you are. All your obsesing about claiming
that criminals "deserve to be murdered" is a pathetic attempt to
draw attention away from your lies.
And the way you twist my words is a reflection of the way you
twisted the words of the report, the way you changed bits that didn't
suit your agenda.
As for your claim that << When I pressed you to provide the names
or where I could find that the JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined
their innocence, I received no reply from you. >> This is another lie
on several grounds.
First, you did not at the time ask me to provide details or say
anything about the JUSTICE SYSTEM. You merely made a
comment that << Bedau is not famous for accuracy in his interpretation
of what constitutes INNOCENCE.>>
Second, when you DID ask me to supply details, much later, after you
told the same lie, I was happy to provide you with details, namely to refer
you to Dudley Sharp, who identifies SEVEN on the DPIC list as being
Furman comutees, and claims they somehow don't coun't as DP cases.
AFAIK the four referred to in the report are:
David Keaton, Conviction 1971 Charges dropped 1973
"released after the actual killer was identified and convicted"
Wilbert Lee, Freddie Pitts Conviction 1963 Released 1975
They were released in 1975 when they received a full pardon
from Governor Askew, who stated he was "sufficiently convinced
that they were innocent."
Lawyer Johnson Conviction 1971 Charges dropped 1982
In 1982, the charges were dropped when a previously silent
eyewitness came forward and identified the state's chief witness as
the actual killer
Since the report was published the following have been found.
James Richardson Conviction 1968 Released 1989
Richardson was convicted for the poisoning of one of his children
Post-conviction investigation found that the neighbor who was
caring for Richardson's children had a prior homicide conviction,
and the defense provided affidavits from people to whom he had
confessed
Peter Limone Convicted 1968 Charges Dismissed 2001
The move came as a result of a Justice Department task force's
discovery of compelling new evidence that Limone and his
co-defendants Joseph Salvati, Henry Tamelo, and Louis Greco
were actually innocent of the murder of Edward Deegan
NB, Dudley has said that SEVEN on the list are Furman comutees,
but I can only find six. His ananlysis of the cases makes no claim of
guilt, only an observation that they are pre-Furman cases and nothing else.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
> the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
> When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
> JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
> from you. Whether you know it or not... Bedau and Radelet do not hold
> the God-like ability to rule on _innocence_. That is determined by the
Justice
> System. I do not deny that the Justice System might have done so... but
> my point has always been that findings of Bedau and Radelet are
insufficient
> evidence of that innocence. Since they have made such claims before, and
had
> to retract them.
Actually, they have not retracted any claims. They stand by their 23
innocent claim.
But since we're on the subject of providing PROOF for our claims,
perhaps you would like to name those alleged 6 innocent victims, and tell
us what they were in prison for.
And then, given the fact that you said there were no innocents, tell us why
we should believe you.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:vj8o4v046e4gjgpom...@4ax.com...
>
>> No, peter.. actually that's a lie on your part. You do NOT oppose murder
>> in prison of a small number of prisoners, if a greater number of murderers
>> can be kept from execution -- again YOUR WORDS --
>>
>> "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
>> other criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>> You are quite willing to SACRIFICE that "small number of other criminals,"
>> to prevent "Executing hundreds of criminals."
>
>you can twist my words all you want, PV. The fact still remains proved
>that you think criminals deserve to be murdered.
>
TWIST WORDS!!!! They ARE your words, sport. Your EXACT WORDS.
A complete thought... not _out of context_ or any other device you would presume
to use as an _excuse_.
>Here's the proof.
>
<clipped pathetic use of Richard's comments to presume it has ANYTHING
to do with the PV/peter dialog>
>So, Richard has said directly that he feels that prisonners deserve to be
>murdered. This is a common idea among deathies, and one that you share,
>beyond a doubt.
"Beyond a doubt"????? You moronic liar. You certainly cannot make a statement
such as that, without some proof from MY WORDS.
>
>First of all, Richard has said stuff like this many times, as have other
>deathies,
>and you have NEVER atacked him for doing so. This is proof that you don't
>disagree with him.
>
ho ho ho... See the comment from a _reasonable abolitionist_ who has
told you how illogical such a presumption actually is.
>Secondly, the fact is that you based your entire argument around the concept
> that murderers deserve to be murdered. You deliberately lied BECAUSE
>you think so. The fact that you lied proves it beyond doubt.
>
Ummm... you're confusing YOUR argument with mine. You have certainly
STATED that it "does not make" sense to you, to "save the lives of a small
number of other criminals..." if it means hundreds of murderers are executed.
See above, for your words.
>You read a report about the behaviour of the Furman-commuted prisoners.
>The report spoke against execution, but you lied and changed the data to
>suit
>your own evil agenda. By changing the data, you made it seem in favour of
>the DP.
>
I never _changed_ the data. You're a liar.
>First of all, the report says that 600 prisoners had their sentence
>overturned.
>You lied, and said it was 300, it being much easier to justify killing 300
>people than 600.
>
No... the report says 558, and of those 558, 315 remain in prison.
Obviously of those 558 in the Furman-commuted study, none that had
been released could possibly have been responsible for murders committed
in prison, since they would not have been released if they had. The
information from the report reads thusly -- "Of the 558 Furman-Commuted
inmates, 315 (56.5%) have not been released from prison." Obviously this
is the ONLY group that could have committed those murders IN prison,
since the others who were released would NOT have been released
had they committed one of those murders IN PRISON. And THIS
315 was the group I was referring to... since we were speaking of murders
committed in prison, by Furman-commuted prisoners. Those having been
released could hardly be responsible for any of those six murders. It would
be as asinine to include those released, as it would be to include ANY
released murderer... Furman-commuted or otherwise -- since they are
not among the group who COULD have committed those murders. You
might as well presume to include everyone on the planet, if you intend to
include those who could NOT POSSIBLY have committed those murders.
>Secondly, a large percentage of those 600 were rapists or armend robbers.
>You lied and said that ALL of them were murderers. Many deathies oppose
>executing rapists, so you lied and claimed they were murderers.
>
You're a liar. I never said they were _all murderers_. What I did say was
that the six murders committed in prison were committed by commuted
murderers. I well knew that rapists and armed robbers were among those
Furman-commuted. You seemed to imply that one of those murders
was committed by a rapist. And I provided PROOF that all 6 were
committed by non-released murderers. See --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/bedau.jpg
>Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
>were later proved innocent. You lied and said there were NONE. This is
>because even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
>
No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
from you. Whether you know it or not... Bedau and Radelet do not hold
the God-like ability to rule on _innocence_. That is determined by the Justice
System. I do not deny that the Justice System might have done so... but
my point has always been that findings of Bedau and Radelet are insufficient
evidence of that innocence. Since they have made such claims before, and had
to retract them. If you have further PROOF of actions by the Justice
System, and not the _word_ of two dedicated abolitionists -- provide
it, and I will gladly admit the justice system found some of the
Furman-commuted prisoners to be 'not guilty' after their commutation.
Otherwise, at THIS MOMENT -- as far as I'm concerned it is an unconfirmed
finding. As long as the only _evidence_ is the _questionable words_ of proven
abolitionists, it remains unproven to me. Even the report does not state
that the Bedau and Radelet claim has been VERIFIED. It simply states
"ACCORDING TO."
>Fourth, the report said that these prisonners murdered four other murderers
>in prison. This is no good to you. After all, the deathies don't care about
>that,
>do they. You knew that if you told them about in-prison murders, the
>deathies
> simply wouldn't care, as Richard has said. So you lied and claimed that
>they
>were not crimianals at all. You stated that they are only guilty of being
>murdered,
>and nothing else.
I've never stated they were "only guilty of being murdered." Those words do not
exist in any comment of mine either here or in _real life_. See -
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22only+guilty+of+being+murdered%22+group:alt.activism.death-penalty+author:planet&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N&filter=0
You will find 12 posts using those words, and ALL OF THEM... are YOUR WORDS...
ACCUSING me of having said them. But they do NOT EXIST within MY WORDS.
All of those 12 posts, contain ONLY your LIES, that I have posted those words. You
BEGAN that lie... on 23 Jan, of this year, in your post --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b0or77%24nhk%241%40helle.btinternet.com
THIS is the very first mention of you lying by deviously trying to claim you were
QUOTING me. And you will find nothing from me, either before or after that
uses those words.
>Based on the standards that Richard Jackson has displayed, the report speaks
>against the DP. The report says that executing four innocent people would
>have
>saved the lives of two prison guards and four murderers. But the deathies
>wouldn't care about saving murderers' lives. OTOH, they would care about
>innocent people being executed, and conclude that the DP kills more innocent
>people than it saves. So you lied, and said that executing murderers and no
>innocents would have saved six innocents and no murderers. This sounds much
>more convincing to the likes of Richard Jackson.
I neither lied, nor do I care about your _problem_ with Richard, since we are
supposedly trying to examine the words of ME and the words of YOU. And so
far the only EXACT quotes that have been stated, and PROVEN -- are two
comments from YOU --
1) "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
other criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
2) "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
criminals." In that same post of yours.
>
>In fact, you lied because deathies think that criminals deserve to be
>murdered.
>That's the truth, plain and simple.
>
Actually YOU lie... and you and everyone here KNOWS it. Since
if YOU COULD justify even slightly that lie, you would be posting
the URL into every post you pathetically manufacture from that now
twisted mind of yours, having been so thoroughly whipped.
>Of course, I exposed your lies and held you up to public ridicicule for your
>dishonesty, and you are obsessed with hate for that. You twist my words, the
>same way you twisted the words of the report, to make it seem like I agree
>with
>you, when I don't.
>
What I do... and what troubles you greatly.. is I POST YOUR
EXACT WORDS. You can't even handle YOUR OWN WORDS
from the past. So you need to invent LIES, claiming I've said this
or that... but NEVER able to provide a reference to those lies in
my words. You've only held yourself up to ridicule, peter. And others
here have seen how you have been reduced to such ridicule.
>You also claim that you never agreed with yourself. You lied to make the
>data
>fit Richard's standards, yet you claim that you don't share those
>standards. You
>say that the whole concept on which you based your argument is evil, and
>you
>always despised it. At the very least this makes you a dreadful hypocrite,
>as well
>as fundamentally dishonest.
>
Can you hear yourself, peter? Can you see how hysterical you have become?
Read your first 12 words above --> _I never agreed with my own words_
You have become a caricature of ignorance lately. Even when we had the
trolley problem, I knew you were stubborn and pigheaded and deceptive,
but I also felt you had some native intelligence, as misdirected as it was to
me. I only see you now as STUPID, and guilty of the most grievous flaws
of logic, and finding it necessary to lie. CONSTANTLY. If I spent all
my time disagreeing with EVERYONE here that I have disagreed with at
one time or another, there are not enough hours in the day. I concentrate
on abolitionists, since I am a retentionist. And I believe that it is the
responsibility of abolitionists to find flaws in retentionist arguments, more
than mine. And your attempts to somehow make Richard's words become
mine, are totally pathetic, and frighteningly deceptive for a supposedly_principled
abolitionist_. I have a full plate -- just with the lies from desi and you and JPB.
More than that cannot be asked of me. I have often stated that I agree
with NO ONE here FULLY. So just accept the fact that if I don't remark
on something that DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH IT.
>Saying over and over that you think nobody deserves to be murdered
>does not erase what you originally wrote, or make it any less evil.
>
Since you cannot provide what you claim I _cannot erase_, it is
already erased, because it never existed.
>Pointing out the fact that you lied does not make me agree with you.
>
I would hope that I would never agree with you... since you seem
quite willing to accept the murder of prisoners if a greater number
of murderers can be kept alive. Yes... I truly disagree with that.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Earth to Mars .... Earth to Mars.... peter has now left the logical realm of our
planet, and is presently traveling at great speed toward your planet... Beware.
PV
>
>
A Planet Visitor
>
>"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:IPX2a.1529$7G2....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>> news:b2ha37$4kt$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > First of all, Richard has said stuff like this many times, as have
>other
>> > deathies,
>> > and you have NEVER atacked him for doing so. This is proof that you
>don't
>> > disagree with him.
>>
>> No it isn't, Peter.
>
>
>Yes it is, John.
>
No it isn't, Peter. Listen to the man.
>Richard says directly that he doesn't care if a murderer is murdered. He
>has made similar statements many times in the past, as have most other
>deathies, including PV.
>
No... I have not... and it is a lie to claim that I have.
>Now, PV constantly quotes at me a remark I made two years ago, which
> he claims means the same thing, (although it really meant the opposite) He
>constantly attacks me for it, obsessing over it.
>
While you obsess over an imaginary remark that you have lied about claiming
I had made such a remark. There is no other way to take a remark that says --
""Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
That was YOUR remark, and clearly shows you don't care that much about
murder of criminals in prison, if we can _save_ a greater number of murderers
from execution.
>Yet despite the number of times that Richard has said he doesn't care if a
>murderer is murdered, PV has never critisised him for this.
That means nothing. In fact, looking at your entire past posting history,
I find the word "Hitler" occurring in only six of your posts, and NONE
of your comments implied criticisms of HIM. They were all rather defensive
of him, contending that he could not be argued in any context. So using
YOUR _stupid logic_ I imagine that means YOU SUPPORT HITLER! You
moron. Perhaps I can bring up your _support_ for him, each time you
lie and claim I support murderers.
>This is a clear indication that PV doesn't really care if someone actually
>says that murderers deserve to be murdered, he just is obsessed with hatred
>for me.
I have become rather obsessed with YOUR LIES. Since your insulting claims
of my having made remarks I've never made, ARE simply lies. I see
that same behavior from some others here... unable to handle a rational
argument without lying to support their _argument_.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Thank you... not only is peter's absurd accusation an illogical argument.. I have
ALWAYS said that "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." And
that has been my feeling throughout my life. The wiggling of peter, in his inability
to find any words of mine, that would support his lies, is demonstrated here, by
his presuming that because OTHERS have said something on that order, it
must also be my feeling. It's pathetic of him to resort to such lies, simply because
he is unable to prove his words otherwise.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> >Richard says directly that he doesn't care if a murderer is murdered. He
> >has made similar statements many times in the past, as have most other
> >deathies, including PV.
> >
> No... I have not... and it is a lie to claim that I have.
Yes you have and its a lie to claim you have not.
> >Now, PV constantly quotes at me a remark I made two years ago, which
> > he claims means the same thing, (although it really meant the opposite)
He
> >constantly attacks me for it, obsessing over it.
> >
> While you obsess over an imaginary remark that you have lied about
claiming
> I had made such a remark. There is no other way to take a remark that
says --
>
> ""Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
other
> criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.
net.uk
>
> That was YOUR remark, and clearly shows you don't care that much about
> murder of criminals in prison, if we can _save_ a greater number of
murderers
> from execution.
I stand behind that remark 100%. I highlighted a basic flaw in your logic,
which you have never been able to answer. All you can do pretend to
interpret it in a disgusting way, that is a million miles away from its true
meaning. And you still are unable to address the logical flaw of yours
I pointed out.
> >Yet despite the number of times that Richard has said he doesn't care if
a
> >murderer is murdered, PV has never critisised him for this.
>
> That means nothing.
It means everything. You are obsessed with my remark two years ago, which
YOU claim means "murderers deserve to be murdered.
Why then don't you have anything to say to someone who says so DIRECTLY?
It's not because you object to the concept that murderers deserve to be
murdered. It was your concept anyway, not mine. Its because you hate me.
How pathetic.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >
> Thank you... not only is peter's absurd accusation an illogical argument..
I have
> ALWAYS said that "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." And
> that has been my feeling throughout my life. The wiggling of peter, in
his inability
> to find any words of mine, that would support his lies, is demonstrated
here, by
> his presuming that because OTHERS have said something on that order, it
> must also be my feeling. It's pathetic of him to resort to such lies,
simply because
> he is unable to prove his words otherwise.
Bull, and indeed, shit.
Some murderers were murdered. You commented upon this, but changed the
facts. You deliberately concealed the fact that the victims were murderers.
You
described them as "innocents" and claimed that they had committed NO crimes,
that they were only "guilty of being murdered" and nothing else. You said
that
their "innocence" makes them worth more than murderers, all the while
denying
that they were murderers themselves.
You would not have done this if you didn't think that murderers desrve to be
murdered. The fact that you lied is proof of that.
All I did was expose your lies, and comment that the victims of these crimes
were the same murderers that you wanted executed. You cut out words
from my comment, and claim the remaining words shows agreement with you.
In fact my whole comment shows disgust with you.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
Translation : PV has no answer to anything I said, so he has clipped it out.
> >You read a report about the behaviour of the Furman-commuted prisoners.
> >The report spoke against execution, but you lied and changed the data to
> >suit
> >your own evil agenda. By changing the data, you made it seem in favour of
> >the DP.
> >
> I never _changed_ the data. You're a liar.
I have proved you changed the data.
>First of all, the report says that 600 prisoners had their sentence
> >overturned.
> >You lied, and said it was 300, it being much easier to justify killing
300
> >people than 600.
> >
> No... the report says 558, and of those 558, 315 remain in prison.
> .... And THIS
> 315 was the group I was referring to..
Lie. You said this was the total number of releases.
> >Secondly, a large percentage of those 600 were rapists or armend robbers.
> >You lied and said that ALL of them were murderers. Many deathies oppose
> >executing rapists, so you lied and claimed they were murderers.
> >
> You're a liar. I never said they were _all murderers_.
Yes you did. Repeatedly.
> >Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
> >were later proved innocent. You lied and said there were NONE. This is
> >because even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
> >
>No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
> the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
> When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
> JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
> from you.
Another lie, here's what you said: http://tinyurl.com/5uyi
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: I'd just _love_ to see your source on this one, PV!
APV: 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
See, that, Evil Peevil? A direct deliberate lie. You claimed that there
were NO innocents mentioned in the study, now you claim that
"the study says EXACTLY that"
As for the names of the innocents, they are already given. I refer you
yet again to Dudley Sharp's attack on the DPIC list, in which he identifies
several as Furman comutees, without claiming any of them are guilty.
Indeed, the proof of innocence in all cases seems solid.
>
> >Fourth, the report said that these prisonners murdered four other
murderers
> >in prison. This is no good to you. After all, the deathies don't care
about
> >that,
> >do they. You knew that if you told them about in-prison murders, the
> >deathies
> > simply wouldn't care, as Richard has said. So you lied and claimed that
> >they
> >were not crimianals at all. You stated that they are only guilty of being
> >murdered,
> >and nothing else.
>
> I've never stated they were "only guilty of being murdered." Those words
do not
> exist in any comment of mine either here or in _real life_.
You are in the habit of denying things that exist.
The study says "However, four inmates on death row at the time of
Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet"
Your comment was : <<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. >>
Then, having written that, you denied that you had said it. "No.. the study
says
EXACTLY that"
Then after your denial that you had been caught out in a lie, you made the
following claim <<When I pressed you to provide the names or where I
could find that the JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence,
I received no reply from you.>>
In fact, what you actually said was <<Bedau is not famous
for accuracy in his interpretation of what constitutes INNOCENCE.
And if any of those innocent were rapists, the point is lost on
me, since I have never supported executing rapists.>>
You said nothing whatsoever about the "JUSTICE SYSTEM" determining
innocence
To summarize.
1) You lied and said the study contains no information about innocents.
2) You lied and denied you had told the above lie.
3) You lied, and claimed that you asked me to provide information
about the JUSTICE SYSTEM
You have a long history of seeing things that don't exist, and not
seeing things that do exist.
Your claim that you never said they were guilty of being murdered is
just the same as that. I could spend a couple of hours searching
for it, but you would only claim that you never denied saying it.
Cut the crap, PV. We both know you said it.
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:27:10 GMT, dans l'article <hfhm4v8skoden1idk...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>>>deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty for
>>>DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
>>>that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
>>>can't.
>
>> Again, you are caught in another lie.... Since I expressly said on June
>> 9, 2001, these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
>
>{ snip }
>
>Your words matter little, FW.
LOL.... Would I expect any other comment from someone who recognizes that
his lies _matter little_ here? In fact... you certainly need to make an _admission
of an _error of fact_, which you have claimed YOU ALWAYS DO. Since I
have provided not only ONE post that clearly shows the contrary to your
argument accusing me in respect to Jeffrey Daumer... I have provided FOUR.
While YOU have provided none from me, that would JUSTIFY your accusation.
So let's look at ALL four of my posts regarding Jeffrey Daumer and how I feel
about _murder of murderers_, where I have over and over said "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
I expressly said on June 9, 2001, these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
"Hello... 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." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=RKxU6.428391%24o9.67808513%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
And in another post --
"Jeffrey Daumer was MURDERED. He was an INNOCENT, because
he was murdered. IMHO, a disgusting pervert, certainly DESERVING to
be executed.. but ONLY by the State."
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dmwp6.998%2468.413056%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
That makes two times.
And in another post --
"I DO NOT, and MORALLY COULD NOT support the MURDER of
ANYONE. Not Jeffrey Daumer, nor ANYONE."
See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=T2tW6.1323%24_T2.132939%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
That makes three times ...
Or another --
"NO ONE... not even Jeffrey Daumer DESERVES to be MURDERED. They are innocent
in respect to NO ONE having the right to MURDER them."
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40AU6.428633%24o9.67976595%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
That makes four times...
Perhaps NOW would be the proper time for you to make that _admission of an
error of fact_? I'm waiting.......
> For a start, you're a proven liar.
Actually, peter is the proven liar, since I have said over and over that "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
And he has LIED by _quoting_ me as saying "only guilty of being murdered." Those
words do not exist in any comment of mine either here or in _real life_. See -
You will find 12 posts using those words, and ALL OF THEM... are HIS WORDS...
ACCUSING me of having said them. But they do NOT EXIST within MY WORDS.
All of those 12 posts, contain ONLY his LIES, that I have posted those words. He
BEGAN that lie... on 23 Jan, of this year, in his post --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b0or77%24nhk%241%40helle.btinternet.com
THIS is the very first mention of him lying by deviously trying to claim he was
QUOTING me. And you will find nothing from me, either before or after, that
uses those words. Clearly HE LIED and has continued to LIE, regarding his
claim that I posted those words. And he has deceptively repeated his lie, through
12 more posts... while NEVER providing one example of those words. And now
you simply join in his lie. Since YOU can provide no reference to any post from
me, where I state anything of the form that peter lies about. That is what everyone
has seen, sport. Regardless of your pathetic mutual ass-wiping of each other.
All you've really shown.. is that you are a PAIR OF LIARS.
> Peter
>has shown to the satisfaction of any reasonable person and probably a few
>deathies too, that you lied about your 'concern' for those who were
>murdered in gaol.
Actually, THAT would be peter. In his very CLEAR expression of accepting a
smaller number of murders in prison, if a larger number of murderers are not
executed. These were his words --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Do you see how _saving_ "the lives of a small number of other criminals does not
make sense.." to HIM? They are EXPENDABLE to him, if a greater number of
murderers can ESCAPE execution.
>
>{ snip }
>
>> BTW -- Spank... spank...spank...
>
>Ah, that's the spirit, eh ??!! Get your 'ass' (sic) tanned, and then claim
>victory. What's the expression, again ? SG Seminal Axiom 6) ? LOL !!
>
It's been pretty well proven who has been spanked here... considering I post
EXACT words, and all that peter and you provide is _mindless drivel_, consisting
of nothing but lies. You cannot STAND it, that I use HIS OWN WORDS, to
prove he LIES. But that's rather understandable, since I have used YOUR
OWN WORDS to prove that you lie, and you hate that even more.
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.
The Late Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:02:57 +0000
>
>le Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:02:26 GMT, dans l'article
><8c2r4vol3a8klbo86...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>>>>>Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>>>>>deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty
>for
>>>>>DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
>>>>>that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
>>>>>can't.
>
>>>> Again, you are caught in another lie.... Since I expressly said on June
>>>> 9, 2001, these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
>
>>>Your words matter little, FW.
>
>> LOL.... Would I expect any other comment from someone who recognizes that
>> his lies _matter little_ here? In fact... you certainly need to make an
>_admission
>> of an _error of fact_, which you have claimed YOU ALWAYS DO. Since I
>> have provided not only ONE post that clearly shows the contrary to your
>> argument accusing me in respect to Jeffrey Daumer... I have provided FOUR.
>> While YOU have provided none from me, that would JUSTIFY your accusation.
>>
>> So let's look at ALL four of my posts regarding Jeffrey Daumer and how I
>feel
>> about _murder of murderers_, where I have over and over said "NO ONE
>> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>
>Quick, people !! FuckWit has been beaten senseless by 'JPB', and is now
>going into 'SAADPWL' [1] mode. Stand back everyone, he's going to
>explode!!
>
>{ snip SAADPWL mode, topped off with the now obligatory claim to have 'won'
>}
>
>
>[1] Spam AADP With Lies
>--
>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!cyclone.austin.rr.com!cyc
lone.tampabay.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.ne
t!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117
.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not
>-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:02:57 +0000
>Lines: 42
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <17g0i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e48b6c0$0$4875$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
><3E4905BF...@hotmail.com> <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><ij8oh-...@zeouane.org> <hfhm4v8skoden1idk...@4ax.com>
><kptth-...@zeouane.org> <8c2r4vol3a8klbo86...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045271298 47061592 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))
>
>
It is the end but the moment has been prepared for. Bwahahahahahahahaha!
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:02:26 GMT, dans l'article <8c2r4vol3a8klbo86...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>>>>>Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>>>>>deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty for
>>>>>DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
>>>>>that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
>>>>>can't.
>
>>>> Again, you are caught in another lie.... Since I expressly said on June
>>>> 9, 2001, these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
>
>>>Your words matter little, FW.
>
>> LOL.... Would I expect any other comment from someone who recognizes that
>> his lies _matter little_ here? In fact... you certainly need to make an _admission
>> of an _error of fact_, which you have claimed YOU ALWAYS DO. Since I
>> have provided not only ONE post that clearly shows the contrary to your
>> argument accusing me in respect to Jeffrey Daumer... I have provided FOUR.
>> While YOU have provided none from me, that would JUSTIFY your accusation.
>>
>> So let's look at ALL four of my posts regarding Jeffrey Daumer and how I feel
>> about _murder of murderers_, where I have over and over said "NO ONE
>> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>
>Quick, people !! FuckWit has been beaten senseless by 'JPB', and is now
>going into 'SAADPWL' [1] mode. Stand back everyone, he's going to
>explode!!
>
TRANSLATION -- John Rennie did not know what he was talking about when
he said that I made admissions of an error of facts.
>{ snip SAADPWL mode, topped off with the now obligatory claim to have 'won'
>}
This has just become so easy -- Let's reenter my destruction of desi's claim that
Jeffrey Daumer, and my feelings in respect to his murder in prison, the murder of
ANYONE in prison --
Or another --
But we are certain now that John Rennie was actually mistaken.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:lu7p4vgb6kt2m0clg...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:55:31 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>> >news:aagm4v4t5ma28q8ek...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> Actually Planet Visitor has stated categorically that "NO ONE
>> >> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." You have again confused your
>> >> wishes with mine.
>> >
>> >Hardly, PV, there is undeniable proof that YOU, like all deathies think
>> >that criminals deserve to be murdered.
>> >
>> No, there is not, sport. If there was... everyone here is sure that you
>> would have already provided a reference to my words. Thus, everyone
>> knows you've been exposed as a liar.
>>
>> >First of all, lets consider Richard Jackson's words. He thinks the
>> >same you do, but at least he has the courage to say it openly. There
>> >is no doubt that you feel the same way he does.
>>
>> First of all... I am not responsible for Richard's words, or for Jigsaw's
>> words, or for ANY words... other than MY OWN.
>> >
>> <clipped pathetic complaints about Richard, that peter should address to
>> Richard and not presume with me>
>
>Translation: clipped stuff that PV cannot answer.
Richard's views are not mine... nor do I have any responsibility for his
words. It is a strawman argument, that presumes YOU need to defend
dirtbag's comments. This has already been explained to you.
>The fact isd that Richard said the stuff PV accuses me of saying,
>yet PV has no problem whatsoever with Richard saying it.
>
TRANSLATION -- I can't handle YOUR comments, so I'll presume I can
make another's argument be yours.
>Obviously he agrees with Richard's statement that criminals deserve to be
>murdered.
I don't even know what Richard has said in that regard. What I DO KNOW
is what I've said... and which you CANNOT HANDLE. That being "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." If he disagrees with that, then you'll need
to address that with him, since that is my opinion, and always has been. But
what is also certain, is that YOU have said --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
Which certainly means that YOU accept murder in prison of criminals, if
a greater number of murderers are SAVED from execution.
PV
>
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:4a7p4voeubmih3grj...@4ax.com...
>
>> >Since you now claim that you never agreed with your own words, can
>> >you explain why you are not condemning Richard for repeating the same
>> >sentiment?
>> >
>> Can you hear yourself, peter? Can you see how hysterical you have become?
>> Read your first 12 words above --> _I never agreed with my own words_
>
>Exactly, your claim is ridiculous. Of course you believe your own words.
Are you mad? How can you presume that I put those words here...but I don't
agree with them? You've become a pathetic liar, in your hopeless cause here, to
presume that I would ever accept under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES the murder
of a criminal in prison. They are innocent of being murdered. "NO ONE
DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>Everyone knows you believe your own words when you wrote that criminals
>deserve to be murdered.
>
Once again... you simply lie, since you KNOW I never wrote such an obscenity.
While YOU, however; have clearly stated that you would accept a smaller number
of criminals being murdered in prison, to SAVE a larger number of murderers from
being executed.
>Try as you might to make people believe that you never thought what you
>wrote, that IS what you believe.
>
Try as you might, you realize your words are hollow lies, since they have no
substance in anything I have ever said here.
>I always disagreed with you.
>
I know... you've agreed that a smaller number of murders of criminals in prison
is ACCEPTABLE to you, if a larger number of murderers are SAVED from execution.
And I can PROVE those words, while you have no proof whatsoever. YOUR WORDS --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
>> You have become a caricature of ignorance lately. Even when we had the
>> trolley problem, I knew you were stubborn and pigheaded and
>
>right.
>
Imitating desi and don now, peter? How pathetic.
>> but I also felt you had some native intelligence, as misdirected as it was
>> to me.
>
>Misdirected? because I claimed that murder is never moral, when
>you insisted that sometimes it is?
>
No... because you presume murder is preferable to society executing murderers.
It's as simple as that... read your words, above.
>> I only see you now as STUPID, and guilty of the most grievous flaws
>> of logic, and finding it necessary to lie. CONSTANTLY.
>
>NEVER. You have constantly accused me of lying, but have never
>found a single lie I told.
>
Of course you've lied... Right here in fact. Claiming I have said something
that YOU KNOW I neither feel, nor have I ever written here.
>Just because you are deeply ashamed of saying that criminals d
>eserve to be murdered it is not a lie to quote you on it.
>
That's you, sport... read your words above. They deserve to be murdered,
if a greater number of murderers can be SAVED from execution. It's just
a 'fair trade' to YOU.
>> If I spent all
>> my time disagreeing with EVERYONE here that I have disagreed with at
>> one time or another, there are not enough hours in the day. I concentrate
>> on abolitionists, since I am a retentionist.
>
>You concentrate on me out of sheer hatred.
>
It would seem that yesterday, you bombarded me with this thread, about 10 different
times, ALL USING THE SAME WORDS. You are ASHAMED of the fact
that I have _caught you out_, and you will perpetrate any lie, any deception,
to try and extract yourself from this moral dead-end you are presently on.
I simply will reply the same as I have always replied -- "NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED."
>And the fact is, when Richard or another deathie says that criminals
>deserve tobe murdered you don't actually disagree with them.
>
Of course I do... your believe that they _deserve to be murdered_ is much
closer to the truth than any belief that I do.
>> And I believe that it is the
>> responsibility of abolitionists to find flaws in retentionist arguments,
>> more
>> than mine.
>
>As I have done.
>
LOL... Right... you've been on desi, like _stink on shit_. NOT!!! You've
actually been sucking up to him, in the most slavish fashion imaginable, while
you must realize how unhealthy he actually is. But apparently you BOTH
need a friend.
>> I have a full plate -- just with the lies from desi and you and JPB.
>> More than that cannot be asked of me. I had often stated that I agree
>> with NO ONE here FULLY. So just accept the fact that if I don't remark
>> on something that DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH IT.
>
>Yes it does.
No it does not. And no logical principle supports such nonsense. There
are many things in this world that I do not agree with, yet do not bring them
into this group. Nor am I responsible for the words of anyone else.
> You claim that I think criminals deserve to be murdered.
No.. you've ADMITTED that. I simply report what you've admitted to...
You agree that it is ACCEPTABLE that a small number of other
criminals can be murdered in prison, to SAVE from execution a
greater number of murderers.
>(I never did think that, you twist my words to make it appear that I
>agree with your opinion, when I was opposed to it)
Go ahead... give me your _out of context_ routine again. While you
have never posted ONE reference to MY WORDS, either in or out
of context, that I might examine them and refute them if they are
_out of context_. You just lie and CLAIM I said them.
> You claim that anyone
>who agrees with your statement that criminals deserve to be murdered must
>be evil. You obssess over it, day and night.
>
Rubbish... total rubbish... Invented, imaginary rubbish from the deep disgusting
recesses of your warped mind.
>Well, Richard has said directly and explicitly that criminals deserve to be
>murdered.
>Why aren't you attacking him for it? Because you don't hate him. Because
>you
>agree with him.
My plate is full with you, sport. You are the one engaged in a dialog with
Richard. Apparently you can't handle it, and are asking for MY HELP.
Clearly, you are out of your intellectual depth in this group. You need to
find yourself one more adapted to childish thinking. Where you can
come right out and ask everyone to _help you_, rather than being
somewhat devious about asking for help.
>
>It has always been about hate and revenge with you, never about logic.
>
It's always been about the concept of the DP. Or did you not read the
charter?
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> > You claim that I think criminals deserve to be murdered.
>
> No.. you've ADMITTED that. I simply report what you've admitted to...
I have always denied your claim that I agree with you. Show
me where I "admitted" it.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:lu7p4vgb6kt2m0clg...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> >Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
>> >were later proved innocent. You lied and said there were NONE. This is
>> >because
>> >even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
>> >
>> No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
>> the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
>> When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
>> JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
>> from you.
>
>
>A dismal set of lies that PV tells over and over.
>
LOL.... That from the one who presumed a test tube fertilized egg was
a fetus. ROTFLMAO.
>First of all PV denies that he lied. Let's remind ourselves what he said.
>
>You can see it for yourself here: http://tinyurl.com/5tsz
>
You mean the one which proves you lie... I would advise everyone to
take a look, and see how deceptive peter actually is.
>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: 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.
> The study involved 558 Furman-commuted inmates - 315 of which
> had not been released - of those 39 died, and 3 escaped and had
> not been recaptured. The remaining 243 had been released to
> society. Of these 191 have not been returned to prison. 147 were
> on their original parole, 19 discharged their sentences, 17 successfully
> completed their parole, 6 died in the community and 2 were pardoned.
> 52 of the 243 had been returned to prison.
>
>
>So NOW, when you are cornered, you admit that the report DID say:
>
I've always known what the report DID SAY... And it never said there
were four innocents among the Furman-Commuted prisoners. It said
"ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet." Quite clearly. Which in no
way states they were innocent, since Bedau and Radelet have had to
retract a great number of _claims of innocence_. You show me the
Justice System having found them _not guilty_, and I will certainly
admit that they were. But THAT is NOT what the REPORT SAYS.
><quote> However four imates on death row at the time of Furman were
>innocent according to a study by Bedau and Radelet.
There you go... "according to a study..." That's no more proof then
you claiming they were innocent. Bedau and Radelet have as much
influence with the Justice System as YOU DO. Like the lady says...
"Where's the beef." The question was posed in respect to the study,
and the study DOES NOT claim they were found innocent. The
study says that Bedau and Radelet CLAIM they were innocent.
Quite a different thing.
>These four
>individuals could possibly have
been invented by Bedau and Radelet
> been executed had it not been for
>Furman ... Seven Furman- commuted prisonners were responsible
>for seven additional murders.
That's a lie. Six murderers murdered in prison. And at LEAST TWO
murdered after parole.
1) McDuff -- probably responsible for at least a half-dozen new murders after
release.
2) Robert Lee Massie -- see
url:http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
Then we have Jerry Michael Ward-- another Furman-commuted murderer
who committed suicide as the police surrounded his hotel room, before he
could be arrested for the murders he certainly committed on Connie Sue
Cooke, and Brenda Maureen Hackett.
And then we have the one that YOU'VE mentioned as a murderer released
who murdered someone in a drug-buy gone bad.
I believe it's closer to ten. And I have a feeling others have gotten away with
it.
> Certainly, execution of all 558 prisonners
>would have prevented these killings. However, such a "preemptive"
>strike" would not have greatly protected society. 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>
>
>You only admit this because I exposed your lies, and if I hadn't you
> would still be claiming no innocents.
>
I still claim NO PROVEN INNOCENTS. There may be... but there
may also be other murderers. Bedau and Radelet are rather infamous
for reporting innocence that they later had to retract. Give me some
NAMES, or links to something from the Justice Systems of the States
having overturned the verdict totally, declaring them _not guilty_. Until
then... it's just the word of Bedau and Radelet.
>This is the really big issue with you. You totally hate me for exposing
>you as the liar that you are. All your obsesing about claiming
>that criminals "deserve to be murdered" is a pathetic attempt to
>draw attention away from your lies.
>
Well, you are both lying and putting your words into a most deceptive
form... since I've ALWAYS said "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED." ALWAYS.
>And the way you twist my words is a reflection of the way you
>twisted the words of the report, the way you changed bits that didn't
>suit your agenda.
>
Yeah.. yeah ...yeah.. the dark recesses of your warped mind are a
frightening sight.
>As for your claim that << When I pressed you to provide the names
>or where I could find that the JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined
>their innocence, I received no reply from you. >> This is another lie
>on several grounds.
>
>First, you did not at the time ask me to provide details or say
>anything about the JUSTICE SYSTEM. You merely made a
>comment that << Bedau is not famous for accuracy in his interpretation
>of what constitutes INNOCENCE.>>
>
That's rather proven. It would not be the first time he has had to
admit that his claims were NOT that he had _proven_ innocence.
Now that I have the names I will have to see if I can actually find
out if they WERE part of the 558. Taking a quick look at Sharp's
site, he does not mention Furman in the first, and nothing of Wilbur
Lee in the second. It might take some time to see if they were
actually Furman-commuted.
I'll get back to you.
PV
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:lu7p4vgb6kt2m0clg...@4ax.com...
>
>> No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
>> the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
>> When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
>> JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
>> from you. Whether you know it or not... Bedau and Radelet do not hold
>> the God-like ability to rule on _innocence_. That is determined by the
>Justice
>> System. I do not deny that the Justice System might have done so... but
>> my point has always been that findings of Bedau and Radelet are
>insufficient
>> evidence of that innocence. Since they have made such claims before, and
>had
>> to retract them.
>
>Actually, they have not retracted any claims. They stand by their 23
>innocent claim.
>
Rubbish... From 41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/1988 -- Even Bedau
and Radelet, themselves have conceded: "We agree with our critics that
have not proved these exectuted defendants to be innocent; we never
claimed that we had."
I was not speaking directly of the 23, but the general idea that Bedau and
Radelet have admitted in the past that some of their work, although expressing
innocence, does not provide proof of such innocence. Read my words.
>But since we're on the subject of providing PROOF for our claims,
>perhaps you would like to name those alleged 6 innocent victims, and tell
>us what they were in prison for.
I have no idea... but I trust the fact that it was reported through the JUSTICE
SYSTEM, and NOT Bedau and Radelet.
>
>And then, given the fact that you said there were no innocents, tell us why
>we should believe you.
>
Because it was reported by Bedau and Radelet. You misunderstand yet again.
I do not claim there WERE no innocents. I claim the STUDY CONFIRMS
no innocents. There probably are... but I do not presume that Bedau and
Radelet ARE the Justice System.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:d7oq4vgmq4o41rv98...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> >Richard says directly that he doesn't care if a murderer is murdered. He
>> >has made similar statements many times in the past, as have most other
>> >deathies, including PV.
>> >
>> No... I have not... and it is a lie to claim that I have.
>
>Yes you have and its a lie to claim you have not.
>
Then you must be prepared to SHOW where I have, as I have done with
YOUR words. Or you are a confirmed liar.
>> >Now, PV constantly quotes at me a remark I made two years ago, which
>> > he claims means the same thing, (although it really meant the opposite)
>He
>> >constantly attacks me for it, obsessing over it.
>> >
>> While you obsess over an imaginary remark that you have lied about
>claiming
>> I had made such a remark. There is no other way to take a remark that
>says --
>>
>> ""Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
>other
>> criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
>>
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.
>net.uk
>>
>> That was YOUR remark, and clearly shows you don't care that much about
>> murder of criminals in prison, if we can _save_ a greater number of
>murderers
>> from execution.
>
>I stand behind that remark 100%.
I know you do... and that's what's SO DISGUSTING. You DON'T
CARE about murders of criminals (never have since the drug-dealer/McGinn
argument). You will GLADLY accept they are murdered if a greater
number of murderers can be saved from execution. That's what is so
disgusting.
> I highlighted a basic flaw in your logic,
>which you have never been able to answer. All you can do pretend to
>interpret it in a disgusting way, that is a million miles away from its true
>meaning. And you still are unable to address the logical flaw of yours
>I pointed out.
>
ROTFLMAO... A bunch of meaningless drivel. No one can interpret
it any different... And you have AGREED that you stand behind it 100%.
>> >Yet despite the number of times that Richard has said he doesn't care if
>a
>> >murderer is murdered, PV has never critisised him for this.
>>
>> That means nothing.
>
>It means everything. You are obsessed with my remark two years ago, which
>YOU claim means "murderers deserve to be murdered.
>
It means nothing. And you know it. I am responsible for no other
words but MY OWN. I don't hold YOU responsible for desi's racism,
yet you've never commented on THAT.
>Why then don't you have anything to say to someone who says so DIRECTLY?
>
I'm saying it to you. Because it is MY VIEW, and Richard has his own.
My view IS "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." And you will
not find ONE word from me that refutes that stand of mine.
>It's not because you object to the concept that murderers deserve to be
>murdered. It was your concept anyway, not mine. Its because you hate me.
>
Of course I object to it... that's why we disagree... you don't object to
it, if it means a greater number of murderers are not executed. While
I categorically state "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>How pathetic.
>
Finally, an admission of your failures.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:u8hq4vsbrhvem540i...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> Thank you... not only is peter's absurd accusation an illogical argument..
>> I have
>> ALWAYS said that "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED." And
>> that has been my feeling throughout my life. The wiggling of peter, in
>> his inability
>> to find any words of mine, that would support his lies, is demonstrated
>> here, by
>> his presuming that because OTHERS have said something on that order, it
>> must also be my feeling. It's pathetic of him to resort to such lies,
>> simply because
>> he is unable to prove his words otherwise.
>
>Bull, and indeed, shit.
Yes.. you certainly are full of it.
>
>Some murderers were murdered.
Actually, that is some criminals were murdered... unless you can prove they were
murderers themselves. But in any case... they were "INNOCENT VICTIMS."
ONE AND ALL.
> You commented upon this, but changed the
>facts. You deliberately concealed the fact that the victims were murderers.
No, I did not... nor can you state they were murderers. You always lie like
that.
>You
>described them as "innocents"
"INNOCENT VICTIMS," sport.
> and claimed that they had committed NO crimes,
>that they were only "guilty of being murdered" and nothing else.
Lies, lies, lies. I never _claimed_ that they had committed NO crimes,
nor that other rubbish. I claimed that "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED." And that they were "INNOCENT VICTIMS." You
argued that they were _not so innocent_ as a TRUE victim, and implied
they rather deserved it, because they were criminals, in your WORDS --
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were criminals."
> You said
>that
>their "innocence" makes them worth more than murderers, all the while
>denying
>that they were murderers themselves.
>
Actually ANY VICTIM, REGARDLESS -- is worth more than the murderer
at the moment that victim is murdered. Since "NO ONE DESERVES TO
BE MURDERED." Not even Jeffrey Daumer.
>You would not have done this if you didn't think that murderers desrve to be
>murdered. The fact that you lied is proof of that.
>
No... I do not think that your evil words hold any value, except as your
lies. NO MURDERER DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
>All I did was expose your lies, and comment that the victims of these crimes
>were the same murderers that you wanted executed.
What you pointed out was that you didn't feel it MATTERED that
they were murdered, because they were criminals.
> You cut out words
>from my comment, and claim the remaining words shows agreement with you.
>In fact my whole comment shows disgust with you.
>
Wrong... your words are quite clear, and I always include the URL where
the reader can go to verify them. While you have NEVER posted any word
from me that would justify your evil claim of the way I feel about murder.
I have NEVER diminished the crime of murder. YOU have always done
so, in order to make the DP appear less necessary... after all _they're ONLY
murderers_ to you. Your view is _if we don't execute them, they'll just murder each
other in prison_, which is okay by you, since society has not had to do it.
PV
dirtdog
wrote:
<snipped>
>I expressly said on June 9, 2001, these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
Expressing perfectly your inability to comprehend the English language
and instead make up your own _utter wank_:
>
>"Hello... 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."
'Innocent of deserving to be murdered'!!!!! There's a 'keeper'!
Oh my Lord! What were you thinking, FW. I thought you had the OED
_online_!
You talk utter, nonsensical bollocks. Next, you'll be saying that one
can be prosecuted for libel, that Usenet posts constitute slander, and
that mens rea is 'criminal intent'.
Oops. You already have!
*chortle*
<remainder of post which I was unable to read due to my laughing too
much snipped>
w00f
"...morality is not a social construct."
(kwag...@aol.com) - LMAO!
"Everyone is INNOCENT of DESERVING to be murdered"
(A Planet Visitor) - LMAO!
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
argument be yours.
>
> >Obviously he agrees with Richard's statement that criminals deserve to be
> >murdered.
>
> I don't even know what Richard has said in that regard. What I DO KNOW
> is what I've said... and which you CANNOT HANDLE. That being "NO ONE
> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
Which is a reversal of your earlier position that MURDERERS deserve to be
murdered.
> If he disagrees with that, then you'll need
> to address that with him, since that is my opinion, and always has been.
But
> what is also certain, is that YOU have said --
> "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
other
> criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.
net.uk
> Which certainly means that YOU accept murder in prison of criminals, if
> a greater number of murderers are SAVED from execution.
No it does not.
There are two points worth considering here. First is your usual shall
we say "interesting" interpretation of words. Consider two statements.
1) I refuse to kill 768 people in order to save 1 person.
2) I am willing to kill 1 person to save 768 people.
You claim that those two sentences mean the same thing.
They are light years apart in meaning, PV. I actually said the first. You
pretend that I said the second. You then attack me for saying the second,
although I did not say anything remotely like it.
I said "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number
of other
criminals does not make sense, to me."
I did NOT say "that YOU accept murder in prison of criminals, if
a greater number of murderers are SAVED from execution."
Anyone with any reading comprehension will see that I did not say that..
So that excludes you, then.
All your attack are based on a lie. I did not say the thing you accuse me
of saying.
The second point is even more fundamental. YOU, not I, said the evil thing
you accuse me of saying.
All through the debate on the trolley problem, you kept saying that it is
morally
RIGHT to accept the death of a few in order to save many. You said so
several hundred times. Now, you have flip-flopped, and seem to think that
it is
morally WRONG to accept the death of a few in order to save many.
Which is what I said all along. Your recent comments indicate that you now
consider your own opinion on the trolley problem to be evil.
But you would pretend that I now support the position you have abandoned.
I don't and never will, any more that I agree with your claim that
prisoners deserve to be murdered.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >
> Of course I object to it... that's why we disagree... you don't object to
> it, if it means a greater number of murderers are not executed. While
> I categorically state "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
Say it as many times as you want, peeves, you will never be able to
erase from history your earlier arguments based onn your deep
belief that criminals deaserve to be murdered. You said it, you cannot
unsay it.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> Lies, lies, lies. I never _claimed_ that they had committed NO crimes,
> nor that other rubbish. I claimed that "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
> MURDERED." And that they were "INNOCENT VICTIMS." You
> argued that they were _not so innocent_ as a TRUE victim, and implied
> they rather deserved it, because they were criminals, in your WORDS --
>
> "It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these murders were
criminals."
See, this is the whole basis of the problem between us. You have taken
those words as proof of my agreement with you. I cannot understand
how, even in your logic, it shows support of your ideas, when I was
explicitly
rejecting them.
Try as I might, I cannot sede how any reasonable person, or even you,
might derive THAT meaning from my words. It was never intended, and
I can't se it there.
Just suppose for the sake of argument that I take a leaf out of YOUR book
and that I admit I "misspoke", that I never intended to say the above.
What I really meant to say was "4 of those who were murdered were
prisonners in the same institutions as their murderers"
Surely, even a mind as warped as yours is can't see anything evil in
that statement. Not even you could twist those words in such a way
as to claim they mean "those 4 deserved to be murdered".
I never intended to say they "deserved to be murdered" I cannot see
how anyone could see such a meaning in my words, save for a claim
that I'm agreeing with you. Can you accept that I meant to say the
sentence "4 of those who were murdered were prisonners in the same
institutions as their murderers"
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
What part of that do you interpret as a "withdrawal" of their claims?
Your usual problem with English comprehension at work.
> I was not speaking directly of the 23, but the general idea that Bedau and
> Radelet have admitted in the past that some of their work, although
expressing
> innocence, does not provide proof of such innocence. Read my words.
What they said was that the majority of neutral observers studying the
facts would come to to conclusion that the defendant was probably innocent.
They stood behind this.
All their critics have done is claim that in 10 of the 23 cases they have
failed to prove conclusively beyond doubt innocence. And the fact is, they
never claimed they had.
> >But since we're on the subject of providing PROOF for our claims,
> >perhaps you would like to name those alleged 6 innocent victims, and
tell
> >us what they were in prison for.
>
> I have no idea... but I trust the fact that it was reported through the
JUSTICE
> SYSTEM, and NOT Bedau and Radelet.
> >
> >And then, given the fact that you said there were no innocents, tell us
why
> >we should believe you.
> >
> Because it was reported by Bedau and Radelet. You misunderstand yet
again.
> I do not claim there WERE no innocents.
You certainly DID claim there were no innocents.
Heres's your precise words.
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.
When pressed, you added
<< 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.>>
So, you lied when you claimed there were no innocents, and you
lied again when you wrote << I do not claim there WERE no innocents. >>
The same way you deny saying that murderers deserve to be murdered.
Why should we trust ANYTHING you have to say on the subject?
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:04:39 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
> >A dismal set of lies that PV tells over and over.
> >
> LOL.... That from the one who presumed a test tube fertilized egg was
> a fetus. ROTFLMAO.
It is. That's your argument? Thats all you got?
> >First of all PV denies that he lied. Let's remind ourselves what he said.
> >
> >You can see it for yourself here: http://tinyurl.com/5tsz
> >
> You mean the one which proves you lie... I would advise everyone to
> take a look, and see how deceptive peter actually is.
Sure, my exposing you as a liar proves how dishonest I am.
Just the same as my disagreeing with your idea that prisonners deserve
to be murdered proves that I agree with it.
> >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: 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.
> > The study involved 558 Furman-commuted inmates - 315 of which
> > had not been released - of those 39 died, and 3 escaped and had
> > not been recaptured. The remaining 243 had been released to
> > society. Of these 191 have not been returned to prison. 147 were
> > on their original parole, 19 discharged their sentences, 17
successfully
> > completed their parole, 6 died in the community and 2 were pardoned.
> > 52 of the 243 had been returned to prison.
You also said
<< 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.>>
> >So NOW, when you are cornered, you admit that the report DID say:
> >
> I've always known what the report DID SAY...
But the fact remains that you lied about it. You claim that you
"always known" what the report said, yet you lied and claimed
that information wasn't there.
Once again, here's the bit's you claimed didn't exist
<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 ... Seven Furman- commuted prisonners were responsible
for seven additional murders. Certainly, execution of all 558 prisonners
would have prevented these killings. However, such a "preemptive"
strike" would not have greatly protected society. 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>
You say you "always known" that was in the report, yet when asked you said
<< 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.>>
This is why nobody takes you seriously.
Earl Evleth
wrote on 15/02/03 16:39:
> But the fact remains that you lied about it.
PV never lies, he is, however, in a perpetual state
of confusion. He has this "tree complex" problem
and sees nothing else.
Earl
Peter Morris
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:BA7422AE.EBAF%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
PV frequently tells deliberate lies. such as his comments on
the study of Furman commuted inmates. The report says four of them
were proved innocent. PV claimed there was no information about
innocents in the report, and directly denied that any had been found.
That's quite apart from his general confusion.
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
Date: 2/15/2003 1:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <1ic2i-...@zeouane.org>
le Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:09:20 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
<b2lvoe$8d4$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>> > But the fact remains that you lied about it.
>> PV never lies, he is, however, in a perpetual state of confusion. He
>> has this "tree complex" problem and sees nothing else.
> PV frequently tells deliberate lies. such as his comments on the study of
> Furman commuted inmates. The report says four of them were proved
> innocent. PV claimed there was no information about innocents in the
> report, and directly denied that any had been found.
His lies also include the long 'list' of so-called racist statements that
I'me supposed to have made, and which even _he_ admitted in a follow-up to
'JPB' a couple of days ago, that those words were designed to attribute
racist opinions to _him_, and thus were not _my_ opinions. Poor FW ... he
just can't help tripping himself up, can he ?
> That's quite apart from his general confusion.
^^^^^^^^^
You mis-spelt 'idiocy'.
Desmond Coughlan
===============================
The correct spelling of "idiocy" is
D-e-s-m-o-n-d C-o-u-g-h-l-a-n, you silly bloody little man.
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <tje2i-...@zeouane.org>
le 15 Feb 2003 18:46:18 GMT, dans l'article
<20030215134618...@mb-ms.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com>
a dit ...
{ snip }
> The correct spelling of "idiocy" is
> D-e-s-m-o-n-d C-o-u-g-h-l-a-n, you silly bloody little man.
*roar with laughter*
Jigsaw's angry, it would appear. Come on, Jigsaw ... threaten to send your
son over to kill me. Get that gun out, Jigsaw !! Kill, KILL !! LOL !!
Desmond Coughlan
===============================
Angry? Over something you wrote? You overestimate yourself Dezi.Your
over-inflated ego will be your downfall.
For me to get "angry" at you would infer that you are worth the effort.
ROTFLMAO
Jigsaw
Just passing by
> First of all PV denies that he lied. Let's remind ourselves what he said.
What's that? PV denying having told lies? Surely not. It's scandalous
that such an accusation should be made against PV, who is, after all,
the world's most honest man. And particularly after somebody else
yesterday told PV:
____________________________________
"You are, without question and without any near rival, the biggest
liar I have ever encountered on usenet, and perhaps even in my entire
life anywhere. And what compounds your incorrigibility is your utter
refusal to EVER own up to a single lie you have told, even when the
proof is so overwhelming that nobody would ever imagine, in their
wildest dreams, that you would still try to concoct new lies in some
totally impossible attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you are in.
But still you do.
"When you are cornered you don't give up, nor even attempt, as the
cornered rat does, to find some tiny opening to run down. Instead, you
simply throw yourself against the brick wall behind you and start
trying to fight with that."
____________________________________
What is wrong with everyone? Calling PV a liar! Next you will be
saying he is stupid.
A Planet Visitor
Don't be absurd... do your own arguments with Richard. Since you are
apparently not able to handle either him OR me. Mine is with you and
your disgusting view that you accept the murder of criminals in prison,
who have never murdered, if a large number of those _oh so valuable to our
species_ murderers can be kept alive to commit those murders. Your
words -- AGAIN --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other
criminals does not make sense, to me."
What obviously DOES make _sense to you_ is that these small number of
murders HAPPEN, if you can save the lives of those who commit those
murders.
>
>> >You read a report about the behaviour of the Furman-commuted prisoners.
>> >The report spoke against execution, but you lied and changed the data to
>> >suit
>> >your own evil agenda. By changing the data, you made it seem in favour of
>> >the DP.
>> >
>> I never _changed_ the data. You're a liar.
>
>I have proved you changed the data.
>
No... you certainly have not. You've only proved yourself, in this entire
thread to be nothing but lying scum. See the reference I have provided
below to a post I offered two years ago, which expressly proves I have
NEVER changed the data.
>>First of all, the report says that 600 prisoners had their sentence
>> >overturned.
>> >You lied, and said it was 300, it being much easier to justify killing
>300
>> >people than 600.
>> >
>> No... the report says 558, and of those 558, 315 remain in prison.
>> .... And THIS
>> 315 was the group I was referring to..
>
>Lie. You said this was the total number of releases.
>
ROTFLMAO. RELEASED Furman-Commuted prisoners did NOT commit
those murders in prison. OR they would NOT have been released. I referred
to those who were NOT released... as the only group capable of having
committed murders IN PRISON. 315 of the entire group of Furman-Commuted
prisoners. The others... RELEASED, could certainly not have committed murders
in prison after having been commuted.
>
>> >Secondly, a large percentage of those 600 were rapists or armend robbers.
>> >You lied and said that ALL of them were murderers. Many deathies oppose
>> >executing rapists, so you lied and claimed they were murderers.
>> >
>> You're a liar. I never said they were _all murderers_.
>
>Yes you did. Repeatedly.
>
Again you lie... Simply take a look at one of the first mentions I made
of the study -- see
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=iUdp6.250738%248V6.41938608%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
Just short of TWO YEARS AGO, in a post to YOU... dated March 6, 2001.
Quoting MY WORDS from that post to YOU --
"This study was supposed to prove one thing, but to me ended up
proving quite the opposite. 558 Furman-commuted inmates were
examined, as to post commutation conduct. 188 murderers and
51 rapists sentenced to the DP were released, and the remainder,
a few over 300 stayed incarcerated. Those that stayed incarcerated
committed 6 further murders within the confines of prison... 4 other
inmates and 2 correctional officers. This data can be found on Page
174, of that book."
TWO YEARS AGO... TO YOU ... RAPISTS -- 51 of them.
Those who STAYED incarcerated committed the murders in prison
(a rather obvious conclusion). You lying fruitcake.
In fact I have posted the page from the Furman-Commuted Study which
was offered in the Bedau edited book - The Death Penalty in America,
which showed clearly that there were rapists and armed robbers
in the number commuted in the study, and that all the murders in prison were
committed by commuted MURDERERS... while you implied a rapist had
committed one. For a very clear presentation of the page in question -- See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/bedau.jpg
>> >Third, the report makes it clear that there were FOUR among the comutees
>> >were later proved innocent. You lied and said there were NONE. This is
>> >because even deathies are opposed to executing innocent people.
>> >
>
>>No.. the study says EXACTLY that "However, four inmates on death row at
>> the time of Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet."
>> When I pressed you to provide the names or where I could find that the
>> JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence, I received no reply
>> from you.
>
>Another lie, here's what you said: http://tinyurl.com/5uyi
>
>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: I'd just _love_ to see your source on this one, PV!
>
>APV: 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
>
>See, that, Evil Peevil? A direct deliberate lie. You claimed that there
>were NO innocents mentioned in the study, now you claim that
>"the study says EXACTLY that"
>
No... it's not there... pee-pee peter. The source gave NO PROOF, other
than the WORD of Bedau and Radelet. I refuse to accept that as PROOF
of ANYTHING. Since I trust their information to be unbiased, about as much
as I trust YOUR information to be unbiased. And we have already PROVEN
that you lie. A number of times, in a number of different subjects, in a number
of different threads.
>As for the names of the innocents, they are already given. I refer you
>yet again to Dudley Sharp's attack on the DPIC list, in which he identifies
>several as Furman comutees, without claiming any of them are guilty.
>Indeed, the proof of innocence in all cases seems solid.
>
It would appear that way... nonetheless, the STUDY did not provide
any EVIDENCE of innocence in the Justice System. Simply a comment
of "According to a study by Bedau and Radelet." Would YOU accept
a study according to Dudley Sharp??? Only when it would appear to
mesh with YOUR agenda, sport. I rest my case.
>> >Fourth, the report said that these prisonners murdered four other
>murderers
>> >in prison. This is no good to you. After all, the deathies don't care
>about
>> >that,
>> >do they. You knew that if you told them about in-prison murders, the
>> >deathies
>> > simply wouldn't care, as Richard has said. So you lied and claimed that
>> >they
>> >were not crimianals at all. You stated that they are only guilty of being
>> >murdered,
>> >and nothing else.
>>
>> I've never stated they were "only guilty of being murdered." Those words
>do not
>> exist in any comment of mine either here or in _real life_.
>
>
>You are in the habit of denying things that exist.
>
You are in the habit of NEVER providing anything that would substantiate
this most evil claim of yours. While I have NEVER said the words you are
now QUOTING ME as having said... since they FIRST appear in a post
from YOU... ACCUSING ME of having said them... but do not exist in
my HISTORY at any time prior to that, and at no time subsequent to that
except when they are left inside as YOUR WORDS, in posts of mine
DENYING I have said those words. For that FIRST post of yours, see
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b0or77%24nhk%241%40helle.btinternet.com
This was YOUR post, dated January 23, 2003. And it is the FIRST post
that uses that QUOTE. It NEVER came from me. And you are a PROVEN
liar, if you cannot produce the quote you have ACCUSED me of, in a post
from me existing before that date (or after for that matter, in words from ME).
> The study says "However, four inmates on death row at the time of
>Furman were innocent ACCORDING TO Bedau and Radelet"
>
>Your comment was : <<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. >>
>
You never presented ANY form of _information_ until yesterday. Certainly
I simply REFUSE to accept either your words or the words of "According to
Bedau and Radelet" as providing proof of anything. I see those two as simply
hypocrites. And you as a liar.
>Then, having written that, you denied that you had said it. "No.. the study
>says
>EXACTLY that"
>
Yes... it says EXACTLY "According to..." It does not say that the Justice
System found them later to be innocent. In fact, the study would not have
PRESUMED to make such a bold statement, UNLESS it had proof. Since
it did not, it used the crutch of Bedau and Radelet. If it DID have independent
proof from Justice System findings, it would have simply SAID "However, four
inmates on death row at the time of Furman were innocent." FULL STOP.
It did not do so. Even the study admits it is dependent on information from
sources other than the Justice System. Perhaps you would accept "according
to Dudley Sharp," if I offered THAT as proof of any claim?
>Then after your denial that you had been caught out in a lie, you made the
>following claim <<When I pressed you to provide the names or where I
>could find that the JUSTICE SYSTEM had determined their innocence,
>I received no reply from you.>>
>
>In fact, what you actually said was <<Bedau is not famous
>for accuracy in his interpretation of what constitutes INNOCENCE.
>And if any of those innocent were rapists, the point is lost on
>me, since I have never supported executing rapists.>>
>
Quite true... ON BOTH POINTS. Bedau certainly has been
shown to EXAGGERATE his claims, and depend so much on pre-Furman
data, which has nothing to do with the DP of today, in terms of possible
executions of innocents, since the possibilities of that happening have
been greatly reduced. And I have certainly NEVER supported
executing rapists.
>You said nothing whatsoever about the "JUSTICE SYSTEM" determining
>innocence
>
>To summarize.
>
>1) You lied and said the study contains no information about innocents.
>
Quite true... It contained no PROOF of any Furman-commuted prisoners
having been found innocent by the Justice System.
>2) You lied and denied you had told the above lie.
>
Rubbish.. a circular argument.
>3) You lied, and claimed that you asked me to provide information
>about the JUSTICE SYSTEM
>
Which you finally TRIED to do yesterday. That will need some time.
Nonetheless, I have never DENIED that there MIGHT BE some
who were later found _innocent_. What I argued is that Bedau and
Radelet do not DETERMINE that as a factual finding. Anymore than
you do... or Sharp does... independent of specific findings of the
Justice System.
>You have a long history of seeing things that don't exist, and not
>seeing things that do exist.
>
And you have a lengthy history of lying.
>Your claim that you never said they were guilty of being murdered is
>just the same as that. I could spend a couple of hours searching
>for it, but you would only claim that you never denied saying it.
>
Sure... simply make your claim... and _don't worry about proving it_.
That's ALWAYS been your method. Now PROVE what you claim
to have quoted from me ... that of providing the words you have
ACCUSED me of posting here, presuming that you are QUOTING ME..
those words ...beginning with "only guilty."... or accept and admit the
fact you were and ARE lying.
>Cut the crap, PV. We both know you said it.
>
What we know --- is that you are lying.
PV
>
>
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
ho ho ho... Earl has no idea what the entire thread is about... but if PV's name
is mentioned... his mindless antenna raises. The fact is peter HAS lied and lied
and lied. And you have no idea what the argument between us actually is...
Your problem with me is that I've shown you to still be living in the 50s,
patronizing Blacks by referring to them as "Black folks," and speaking of a
"black mama riding up in her Caddy to collect her [welfare] payments making
perhaps $8000 a week from multiple collection" (making SURE that everyone
KNOWS you are speaking a _Black_). And I've also shown that you make
the most absurd and illogical statements, which you NEVER... NOT ONCE...
have acknowledges as being illogical. Those such as your words from
'The Essential Earl' --
1) "Again, arrested with a gun makes you a criminal in NY City!"
2) "I don`t hide my identity, so am not a fascist."
3) "I have posted on Bin Laden, recommending that we might
consider holding Mecca as a hostage, nuking it if they nuke us."
4) "The only man I know who correctly predicted the eventual collapse
of the USSR (which imploded on itself without a whimper) was DeGaulle"
5) "I have studied that paper and the key problem is only dealing with
the 1977 to 1996 statistics. This gives the appearance of deterrence."
PV
>Earl
Mr Q. Z. D. at home
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote:
> Indeed, Jigsaw. Indeed. The world gave this message to your President
> and
> those of his citizens who favour war ...
> _
> |_|
> | |
> _ _|=|_
> | | | | |\
> |- - - -| |
> \ |
> \_______/
Is the world left-handed, then?
A Planet Visitor
Quite true... desi is hardly worth the effort of _getting angry_, as he is
so pathetic. The only time he ACTUALLY has made me furious, has
been when he *giggled* and slobbered happily over the graves of the
3,000 murder victims of the WTC attack. When one looks at that...
one realizes that he is only alive, because it is illegal to shoot him. I can
picture a little scenerio of him visiting you, and you taking him out
hunting. He would probably shoot himself in the foot, and you would
call 911, for help. At which point the operator would ask if he was
dead. You would put down the cell phone, and a moment later the
operator would hear a shot ring out. You would return to the cell phone,
and say "Yes," ... "what do I do now???"
PV
>
>ROTFLMAO
>
>
>Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/15/2003 6:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <raht4vkc8gltg5erg...@4ax.com>
PV
===============================
LOL!
A Planet Visitor
The REAL LIE... is when someone QUOTES another... over and
over, LYING that the poster has actually POSTED those words. FULL STOP.
You have done so in more than a dozen posts.. claiming an EXACT
quote from me of "were only guilty of being murdered." Those words
do not exist from me... and unless you admit that, you have not only
lied, but have insulted YOURSELF by attempting to perpetrate a deception
on this group.
I would hope EVERYONE does a search of my posts for those words... and
see that peter was the first to claim I had posted them... in his absurd accusatory
post of January 23, 2003... see
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b0or77%24nhk%241%40helle.btinternet.com
Then see that those words do not EXIST prior to that date, and I could NOT
have used them. Nor have I ever used them since. IOW -- peter lies. He does
so because HIS BACK IS TO THE WALL. Because he SUPPORTS... nay....
he DESIRES... that murderers be permitted to murder other prisoners, as long
as a greater NUMBER of those murderers are SAVED from execution. I arrive
at this personal opinion, because of these words he has posted --
"Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
other criminals does not make sense, to me."
If that _does not make sense to him_ then obviously what DOES make _sense
to him_, is PERMITTING those greater number of murderers to murder a lesser
number of prisoners, to SAVE the lives of that greater number of murderers.
Others can see in his statement what they wish. But I find a clear, unequivocal
statement that he _wishes to make sense_ of the contrary to his argument that
he finds _does not make sense_. And that can ONLY be achieved by _sacrificing_
that _small number of other criminals_ to SAVE their MURDERERS from being
executed. QED: He SUPPORTS their murders to SAVE that greater number.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >
> The REAL LIE... is when someone QUOTES another... over and
> over, LYING that the poster has actually POSTED those words. FULL STOP.
> You have done so in more than a dozen posts.. claiming an EXACT
> quote from me of "were only guilty of being murdered."
I don't think I ever put them in quotes, and I never said they were
an EXACT quote, only that they were the general gist of what you said.
> Those words
> do not exist from me... and unless you admit that, you have not only
> lied, but have insulted YOURSELF by attempting to perpetrate a deception
> on this group.
>
> I would hope EVERYONE does a search of my posts for those words... and
> see that peter was the first to claim I had posted them... in his absurd
accusatory
> post of January 23, 2003... see
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b0or77%24nhk%241%40helle.btinternet
.com
> Then see that those words do not EXIST prior to that date, and I could NOT
> have used them.
I refer readers to PV's post of 2002-02-22 12:34:33 PST in which he made
the
claim that "someone convicted of a crime, ANY crime, while in prison, is
somehow GUILTY of being murdered"
see : http://tinyurl.com/5wbb
This was not his first usage of the phrase, but it shows the words existed
long before
January 23, 2003, and were used repeatedly by PV prior to that date. The
first use
came during his attempt to claim that criminals murdered in prison were not
criminals at all, were "innocent", were of more vlaue than criminals and
were only
guilty of being murdered. and nothing else.
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:47:58 +0000
>
>le 15 Feb 2003 18:46:18 GMT, dans l'article
><20030215134618...@mb-ms.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695
><jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> The correct spelling of "idiocy" is
>> D-e-s-m-o-n-d C-o-u-g-h-l-a-n, you silly bloody little man.
>
>*roar with laughter*
>
>Jigsaw's angry, it would appear. Come on, Jigsaw ... threaten to send your
>son over to kill me. Get that gun out, Jigsaw !! Kill, KILL !! LOL !!
>
>--
>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!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.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: PV lies again.
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:47:58 +0000
>Lines: 21
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <tje2i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <1ic2i-...@zeouane.org>
><20030215134618...@mb-ms.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045335220 48933253 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))
>
>
Dolly Coughlan Jr, the legend continues!
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:36:46 +0000
>
>le Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:25:57 GMT, dans l'article
><Jonathan.Elliott-CA...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z. D. at
>home <Jonathan...@utas.edu.au> a dit ...
>
>>> Indeed, Jigsaw. Indeed. The world gave this message to your President
>>> and
>>> those of his citizens who favour war ...
>>> _
>>> |_|
>>> | |
>>> _ _|=|_
>>> | | | | |\
>>> |- - - -| |
>>> \ |
>>> \_______/
>
>> Is the world left-handed, then?
>
>I thought everyone was ..? ;-)
>
>--
>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!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.d
hcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:36:46 +0000
>Lines: 27
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <ehv2i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <tje2i-...@zeouane.org>
><20030215140956...@mb-ms.aol.com> <p5g2i-...@zeouane.org>
><Jonathan.Elliott-CA...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045352617 48675002 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:38:54 +0000
>
>le Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:05:14 GMT, dans l'article
><raht4vkc8gltg5erg...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Angry? Over something you wrote? You overestimate yourself Dezi.Your
>>>over-inflated ego will be your downfall.
>>>
>>>For me to get "angry" at you would infer that you are worth the effort.
>
>> Quite true... desi is hardly worth the effort of _getting angry_,
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... FuckWit has been kicked up and down the newsgroup by so many
>posters ... sorry, 'poster's' (sic), that he's reduced to agreeing with
>Jigsaw about war in Iraq, when in fact, he's opposed to it !!!
>
>LOL ... it's almost painful to see FW squirm ...
>
>{ snip FW justifying his giggling over '9/11' (sic) }
>
>--
>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!pln-w!extra.newsguy.com!l
otsanews.com!enews.sgi.com!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: PV lies again.
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:38:54 +0000
>Lines: 28
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <elv2i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <tje2i-...@zeouane.org>
><20030215140956...@mb-ms.aol.com>
><raht4vkc8gltg5erg...@4ax.com>
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:14:33 +0000
>
>le 15 Feb 2003 19:09:56 GMT, dans l'article
><20030215140956...@mb-ms.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695
><jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>> >> The correct spelling of "idiocy" is
>> >> D-e-s-m-o-n-d C-o-u-g-h-l-a-n, you silly bloody little man.
>
>>> *roar with laughter*
>>>
>>> Jigsaw's angry, it would appear. Come on, Jigsaw ... threaten to send
>>> your son over to kill me. Get that gun out, Jigsaw !! Kill, KILL !!
>>> LOL !!
>
>> Angry? Over something you wrote? You overestimate yourself Dezi.
>
>
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=2002100313092
4.00863.00008464%40mb-ms.aol.com&lr=&hl=fr
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>{ snip frantic denials that no one believes }
>
>> ROTFLMAO
>
>Indeed, Jigsaw. Indeed. The world gave this message to your President and
>those of his citizens who favour war ...
> _
> |_|
> | |
> _ _|=|_
>| | | | |\
>|- - - -| |
>\ |
> \_______/
>
>Believe me, I _am_ 'ROTFLMAO' !!!
>
>--
>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!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.d
hcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:14:33 +0000
>Lines: 43
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <p5g2i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <tje2i-...@zeouane.org>
><20030215140956...@mb-ms.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045336718 47123873 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:12:49 +0000
>
>le Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:09:20 +0000 (UTC), dans l'article
><b2lvoe$8d4$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a dit ...
>
>
>>> > But the fact remains that you lied about it.
>
>>> PV never lies, he is, however, in a perpetual state of confusion. He
>>> has this "tree complex" problem and sees nothing else.
>
>> PV frequently tells deliberate lies. such as his comments on the study of
>> Furman commuted inmates. The report says four of them were proved
>> innocent. PV claimed there was no information about innocents in the
>> report, and directly denied that any had been found.
>
>His lies also include the long 'list' of so-called racist statements that
>I'me supposed to have made, and which even _he_ admitted in a follow-up to
>'JPB' a couple of days ago, that those words were designed to attribute
>racist opinions to _him_, and thus were not _my_ opinions. Poor FW ... he
>just can't help tripping himself up, can he ?
>
>> That's quite apart from his general confusion.
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>You mis-spelt 'idiocy'.
>
>--
>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!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!un
i-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:12:49 +0000
>Lines: 32
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <1ic2i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e48b6c0$0$4875$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
><3E4905BF...@hotmail.com> <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><aagm4v4t5ma28q8ek...@4ax.com>
><b2gbl2$smo$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><lu7p4vgb6kt2m0clg...@4ax.com>
><b2iph4$pu5$2...@venus.btinternet.com>
><66tr4v47313u1fs5b...@4ax.com>
><b2lmuo$k4c$1...@helle.btinternet.com> <BA7422AE.EBAF%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><b2lvoe$8d4$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045333117 46515038 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:02:57 +0000
>
>le Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:02:26 GMT, dans l'article
><8c2r4vol3a8klbo86...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>>>>>Richard and FW aren't the only two posters who believe that murderers
>>>>>deserve to be murdered. Do a search on news:alt.activism.death-penalty
>for
>>>>>DCS [1] posts concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. See if you can spot the regret
>>>>>that a murder was carried out on a person in lawful custody. Hint: you
>>>>>can't.
>
>>>> Again, you are caught in another lie.... Since I expressly said on June
>>>> 9, 2001, these exact words in a post to dirtbag --
>
>>>Your words matter little, FW.
>
>> LOL.... Would I expect any other comment from someone who recognizes that
>> his lies _matter little_ here? In fact... you certainly need to make an
>_admission
>> of an _error of fact_, which you have claimed YOU ALWAYS DO. Since I
>> have provided not only ONE post that clearly shows the contrary to your
>> argument accusing me in respect to Jeffrey Daumer... I have provided FOUR.
>> While YOU have provided none from me, that would JUSTIFY your accusation.
>>
>> So let's look at ALL four of my posts regarding Jeffrey Daumer and how I
>feel
>> about _murder of murderers_, where I have over and over said "NO ONE
>> DESERVES TO BE MURDERED."
>
>Quick, people !! FuckWit has been beaten senseless by 'JPB', and is now
>going into 'SAADPWL' [1] mode. Stand back everyone, he's going to
>explode!!
>
>{ snip SAADPWL mode, topped off with the now obligatory claim to have 'won'
>}
>
>
>[1] Spam AADP With Lies
>--
>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!cyclone.austin.rr.com!cyc
lone.tampabay.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.ne
t!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117
.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not
>-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Choices, choices
>Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:02:57 +0000
>Lines: 42
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <17g0i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e48b6c0$0$4875$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
><3E4905BF...@hotmail.com> <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><ij8oh-...@zeouane.org> <hfhm4v8skoden1idk...@4ax.com>
><kptth-...@zeouane.org> <8c2r4vol3a8klbo86...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045271298 47061592 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:08:28 +0000
>
>le 15 Feb 2003 23:59:21 GMT, dans l'article
><20030215185921...@mb-mp.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695
><jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Quite true... desi is hardly worth the effort of _getting angry_, as he
>>> is so pathetic. The only time he ACTUALLY has made me furious, has been
>>> when he *giggled* and slobbered happily over the graves of the 3,000
>>> murder victims of the WTC attack. When one looks at that... one
>>> realizes that he is only alive, because it is illegal to shoot him. I
>>> can picture a little scenerio of him visiting you, and you taking him
>>> out hunting. He would probably shoot himself in the foot, and you would
>>> call 911, for help. At which point the operator would ask if he was
>>> dead. You would put down the cell phone, and a moment later the
>>> operator would hear a shot ring out. You would return to the cell
>>> phone, and say "Yes," ... "what do I do now???"
>
>> LOL!
>
>That's it, Jigsaw !! Moral support for FW ... he needs it right now !!
>
><fx: waves away black smoke coming from Florida ...>
>
>--
>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!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: PV lies again.
>Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:08:28 +0000
>Lines: 31
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <sc13i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <raht4vkc8gltg5erg...@4ax.com>
><20030215185921...@mb-mp.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045354415 48592463 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:04:40 +0000
>
>le Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:35:19 GMT, dans l'article
><pfit4vohgueuhi5si...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> I would hope EVERYONE does a search of my posts for those words...
>
>Everyone who will do a search for your words, will find that you habitually
>quote out of context, that you 'interpret' words that another wrote, in
>order to accuse them of being 'racist', and that you fabricate 'quotes'
>(sic) that were never made.
>
>In short, you're a liar. Everyone sees it, so don't expect anyone to come
>to your 'aid' in this thread. If Peter were accusing you of something that
>you didn't write, you could have counted on the support of your fan club,
>among others. Instead, you're reduced to currying favour with Jigsaw, who
>is probably the thickest example of humanity ever to have been inflicted on
>an unsuspecting species, and who'd support anyone who, like you, believes
>that all robbers are black, or who thinks that the Constitution was
>'written by God'.
>
><fx: walks away and leaves FW screaming for pity ...>
>
>--
>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!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.d
hcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: PV lies again.
>Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:04:40 +0000
>Lines: 31
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <8m43i-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e48b6c0$0$4875$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
><3E4905BF...@hotmail.com> <b2brje$d00$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><aagm4v4t5ma28q8ek...@4ax.com>
><b2gbl2$smo$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
><lu7p4vgb6kt2m0clg...@4ax.com>
><b2iph4$pu5$2...@venus.btinternet.com>
><66tr4v47313u1fs5b...@4ax.com>
><b2lmuo$k4c$1...@helle.btinternet.com> <BA7422AE.EBAF%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><b2lvoe$8d4$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><pfit4vohgueuhi5si...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1045357714 49228782 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:58:47 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please>
wrote:
> >> <clipped pathetic use of Richard's comments to presume it has ANYTHING
> >> to do with the PV/peter dialog>
> >
> >Translation : PV has no answer to anything I said, so he has clipped it
out.
> >
> Don't be absurd... do your own arguments with Richard. Since you are
> apparently not able to handle either him OR me.
Peeves, the day I can't handle you is the day that Satan needs a
snow-plough.
> Mine is with you and
> your disgusting view that you accept the murder of criminals in prison,
> who have never murdered, if a large number of those _oh so valuable to our
> species_ murderers can be kept alive to commit those murders. Your
> words -- AGAIN --
>
> "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of
other
> criminals does not make sense, to me."
>
> What obviously DOES make _sense to you_ is that these small number of
> murders HAPPEN, if you can save the lives of those who commit those
> murders.
And all the abuse you spew out is simply an attempt to hide your own
lack of logic.
You have stated your willingness to execute hundreds of prisonners
in order to save the life of ONE prisonner, then having saved his life,
you execute him too. To me, that seems ridiculous, pointless, stupid
and evil. I am not ashamed to say that I oppose this. I stand behind my
statement 100%.
You have never been able to provide any moral or logical argument
for your position. I don't think any can possibly exist. All you have on
your side is abuse.
Bottom line : YOUR way, the way of executing hundreds to save
one murderer, there is a 100% certainty that a murderer will die at
the state's hands. MY way, there is a very small chance that he might
be murdered. I do not like the chance, unlike you I do not think he
deserves to die. I just consider a small chance of death better than
certainty of death.
Now, you try to justify your position. You can't, can you?
A Planet Visitor
Clearly
1) Axiomatically --- Everything that comes from desi, is either
a) A lie
b) Hyperbole
c) An expression of a *giggle* when a tragedy is reported.
d) A comment demonstrating a rather unhealthy sexual predator characteristic
expressed toward young teenage girls
e) A comment doing enormous damage to the abolitionist cause
f) A proven racist comment.
2) Axiomatically.--- Everything that comes from peter is by definition a lie.
3) Axiomatically --- Everything that comes from you is either a lie, or a result of
a _chubby chaser_ glandular malfunction.
4) Axiomatically --- Everything that comes from dirtbag is... simply dirtbag. A
non-entity that is no longer seen as anything here.
5) Axiomatically --- Everything that comes from Earl... can be immediately
discounted as him simply preening himself here.
6) Everything that comes from Donna, John Rennie, or Mr. D. deserves evaluation.
7) Giving equal credit to retentionists - Everything that comes from Kevin, Steve
Towne, or Rush Wickes likewise deserves evaluation.
8) Everything that comes from Cerberus (who we have no idea which side of this
issue he stands on) deserves evaluation.
9) Everything that comes from danh, although expressing himself as a retentionist
should be evaluated as coming from an abolitionist.
I know I have left out some... but the rest of us... are just here.
PV