A Truce With Jigsaw ...
Des_The_Deathie_Destroyer
Hash: SHA1
After secret 'back-channel' negociations with Jigsaw, I am prepared to
suggest that a truce be called. No more insults, no more 'manipulations'
of the truth, and no more name-calling. I shall refer to the above poster
as 'Jigsaw', in deference to his desire not to use his real name here on
AADP. In return, he will refer to me either as 'Desmond', or 'My Lord'
Heh ... OK, I slipped that last bit in at the last minute .. :-)
This truce takes effect tomorrow, Tuesday 27 October at 06h00 Paris time,
and will be declared null and void if, for whatever reason ...
* I refer to Jigsaw either by his real name, or any of the other names
which I have concocted ('Shit-For-Brains#1', 'Shit-For-Brains#2',
'Super-Retard', or Philip Bruzzichesi)
* Jigsaw refers to me as 'Dezi', 'Desi' or any variation thereof.
* I refer to any event in Jigsaw's real life past, real or imagined
* Jigsaw refers to any event in my real life past, real or imagined
This post is 'google-enabled', digitally signed [1], and will take effect
at the date and time mentioned above, _on condition_ that Jigsaw has posted
a follow-up to this article, in which he states his agreement to the above
conditions.
Signed,
Desmond Coughlan
Deathie Spnaker (sic) In-Chief.
[1] PgP Public Key obtainable from url:http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
- - --
Des The Deathie Destroyer
http://www.zeouane.org/
http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBP52KNmiD+5zjSqyTEQKMwQCaA8BtctIj7sXfwgT4yAG0uPhDIDMAoM2n
JqQzhwuO+gIjH4BrRMB3REx+
=jos6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Desmond Coughlan
> This post is 'google-enabled', digitally signed [1], and will take
> effect at the date and time mentioned above, _on condition_ that Jigsaw
> has posted a follow-up to this article, in which he states his agreement
> to the above conditions.
The clock's ticking, Jigsaw ...
JIGSAW1695
>From: Des_The_Deathie_Destroyer fucko...@zeouane.org
>Date: 10/27/2003 5:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <7rh071-...@zeouane.org>
I have electronically discussed this matter with Mr. Coughlan. I agree with the
truce.
Signed,
Jigsaw1695
dirtdog
<Desmond going soft snipped>
>
>I have electronically discussed this matter with Mr. Coughlan. I agree with the
>truce.
>
>Signed,
>
>Jigsaw1695
Ah, but yours isn't digitally signed, Philip, you sister-shagging
defective.
I wonder if the AOL client can manage that?
w00f
JIGSAW1695
>From: Desmond Coughlan fuck_da_...@nerim.net
>Date: 10/27/2003 6:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <pan.2003.10.27.23....@nerim.net>
It has already been posted.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> I have electronically discussed this matter with Mr. Coughlan. I agree with the
> truce.
Congrats to the pair of you. A better outcome could not have been wished for.
Not Jiggy can go back to his beer trolls and amusing news stories about Europe.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> <Desmond going soft snipped>
>
> Heh. I just got tired thinking up new insults. Besides, even when I was
> throwing abuse at Jigsaw, I could never get rid of the feeling that, well,
> he might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that unlike FuckWit,
> he wasn't malicious. Sure, there were the death threats, but I'm prepared
> to forgive and forget. After all, I'm a Light Dweller, so hatred and
> malice are unknown to me.
>
> Aside from which, we still have FuckWit to taunt. :-)
Jiggy's _very_ nice back-channel. That's why, despite the stories that I've
heard, I've always been more than prepared to give him the time of day.
Besides, my next holiday's going to be in the US of A and I may well need
someone to leech off in Florida. PV's paranoia probably precludes that
possibility but, I believe, I have a standing offer of a beer and a feed from
Jiggy. Mine's a rare eye fillet for preference...
FitzHerbert
> In article <20031027191718...@mb-m18.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 wrote:
>
> > I have electronically discussed this matter with Mr. Coughlan. I agree with the
> > truce.
>
> Congrats to the pair of you. A better outcome could not have been wished for.
> Not Jiggy can go back to his beer trolls and amusing news stories about Europe.
Won't last.
> Mr Q. Z. D.
Hope this helps,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
Just passing by
> Heh. I just got tired thinking up new insults. Besides, even when I was
> throwing abuse at Jigsaw, I could never get rid of the feeling that, well,
> he might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that unlike FuckWit,
> he wasn't malicious. Sure, there were the death threats, but I'm prepared
> to forgive and forget. After all, I'm a Light Dweller, so hatred and
> malice are unknown to me.
A good move, IMO.
I never did understand why you were so hostile to Jigsaw. I always
assumed it must have been connected to matters away from this group
because although I have never, to my recollection, agreed with any of
Jigsaw's views, I have never seen him as a particularly bad sort.
> Aside from which, we still have FuckWit to taunt. :-)
Yes indeed. You must never even think about offering a similar olive
branch to that one.
Euro
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com>
??????:21b1da28.03102...@posting.google.com...
> Des_The_Deathie_Destroyer <fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:<7rh071-...@zeouane.org>...
>
>
> > Aside from which, we still have FuckWit to taunt. :-)
>
> Yes indeed. You must never even think about offering a similar olive
> branch to that one.
Seizing it would require a level of intelligence that PV doesn't have any
longer (if he ever had it). That guy comes under the competence of a
psychiatric hospital, and it is only a shame that this group has been
polluted by his continual, intolerant rantings and personal vendettas.
Euro
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 10/29/2003 9:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1eddeb9bf36070aa...@news.meganetnews.com>
Maybe you should reevaluate your stand and make an offer. See what he says
Euro. Who knows, maybe he will take you up on it.
Jigsaw
FitzHerbert
I suspect that when reality finally sinks in, and he realises that all
is lost, the FuckWit will choose to top himsehn in his bunker [1].
He's that type, you see.
> Jigsaw
Hope this helps,
Neville
[1] I am 'speaking metaphorically', of course.
Euro
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com>
??????:20031029104631...@mb-m15.aol.com...
I haven't seen much, in what PV says about me (i.e. calling me an idiot
murderer lover who is a racist and an anti-semitic, and continuously
distorting and misrepresenting what I wrote, repeating lies with the hope to
influence others against me, going as far as making me coresponsible of
Daniel's departure from the group!), I haven't seen much that incites me to
reevaluate my stand.
My last ounce of respect for Berlusconi disappeared when he suggested a
European representative who contradicted him should play a role as "Kapo" in
a movie: by calling everyone who contradicts him "racist" and
"anti-semitic", claiming moreover to have proof thereof that turn out to be
twisted quotes or purely fanciful, personal interpretations of these quotes,
PV puts himself at the same level of vileness as Berlusconi's. It's just so
convenient to convince oneself that one's contradictors are racist and
anti-semitic, while in the same time contributing to the trivialisation of
those insults - for the greatest delight of those whose words or quotations
_really_ display their putrid ideologies.
As, however, I remain open to discussion with anyone provided that there is
a minimal respect (the recent history of my ties with Daniel shows it), I
shall keep looking at what PV says. For the moment, I don't see any possible
opening - except if I left this group for a while, as I did in January 2002
after having had violent clashes with PV. I'm decided not to do it this
time.
Euro
JIGSAW1695
>Message-id: <5a63ddb02c0c61f3...@news.meganetnews.com>
Mellow out dude. The alternative is hemorhoids and listening to the fish sing.
Des_The_Deathie_Destroyer
Hash: SHA1
JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote ...
{ snip }
>>Seizing it would require a level of intelligence that PV doesn't have any
>>longer (if he ever had it). That guy comes under the competence of a
>>psychiatric hospital, and it is only a shame that this group has been
>>polluted by his continual, intolerant rantings and personal vendettas.
> Maybe you should reevaluate your stand and make an offer. See what he says
> Euro. Who knows, maybe he will take you up on it.
If FuckWit is feeling victimised (maybe 'The Gang' are after him again...
*chortle*), all he has to do to stop the horrendous beating that he has
been receiving for well on two years now, is to ...
* stop lying
* stop twisting others' words
* stop accusing everyone who thrashes him of being 'racist', 'a liar',
'mental', 'a spastic', 'an Anti-Semite', 'a pedantic [sic]', 'a murderer
lover' etc. [1] ...
* stop attributing words to those who never uttered them
* keep his fuckwitted 'religion' to himself
* stop presenting his opinion as fact
* accept his woeful lack of education and stop making a fool of himself
by using 'big terms' that he'd never heard of until his 'Word of The Day'
e-mail arrived, in an attempt to fool the newsgroup into thinking that he
attended school past the age of fifteen
If all the above conditions are met, I am sure that the Database Committee
would give serious consideration to any request to take the Database
offline temporarily, as we are all somewhat concerned at the rage and fury
which it manifestly causes FuckWit to feel whenever we destroy one of his
'arguments' with something as simple as a URL.
No one here is optimistic, however. For one, he will claim that he does
not _want_ [2] The Database taken offline, as its presence constitutes some
sort of 'weapon' that we Light Dwellers don't even realise is used against
us. This in itself will be a classic 'binary' invocation of FuckWit
Patented Gimmick (TM) N° 37 (the 'please don't leave!' gimmick [3]), and
of FuckWit Patented Gimmick (TM) 68, the 'claim victory in the face of
overwhelming defeat' gimmick (otherwise referred to as the 'Saddam Hussein
Special' [4]).
So it will go on, with FuckWit believing that really is 'winning' on
news:alt.activism.death-penalty, and with the rest of the newsgroup shaking
its collective head, and asking if he really doesn't see how he is being
trounced on a daily basis.
[1] unless the person kicking his 'ass' (sic) really is one of the above,
but as no Abolitionist currently posting to AADP can be said to be
_any_ of the above, throwing terms like that around, only makes him
look even more dense
[2] sorry, 'WANT' (sic) ... ROTFLMAO !!!
[3] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/37.html
[4] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/68.html
- --
Des Coughlan
http://www.zeouane.org/
http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBP6DJ/2iD+5zjSqyTEQKCvQCfSfsnowr1Z3nJqWTgBAVnXOErPewAoOfg
i2KsxZePm6S8va1U4iWPP4Hl
=OffB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Morris
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031029104631...@mb-m15.aol.com...
I have tried on several occasions.
He always responds with a stream of invective and a long rant
obsessing about years-old arguments between us.
But I'm always willing to try. How about a truce, PV?
A Planet Visitor
You presume too much, sport. He could offer me a fucking Ferrari,
and I don't take favors from racists, and murderer lovers. That
includes you. I ain't Jesus... and you know what you can do with your
'olive branches.' What you both need to do... is change your ways...
not presume you can simply spill out the poison, and expect an
'olive branch' will make everything go away. And it's 'you first,'
since I usually have an unlimited amount of time... although lately
I've been a bit in arrears, because of other issues.
Nobody has asked for my opinion in this... but that's never stopped
me before. I think jigsaw is getting the short end of this deal... since
it's to Desmond's ADVANTAGE to stop spilling out his poison, because
it makes him look so obscene (everyone knows that), while jigsaw
looks like the aggrieved 'victim' of Desmond's raving insults. On the
other hand, jigsaw has never been as 'savage' toward Desmond, as
Desmond has been 'savage' toward him... you even ADMITTED
that Desmond was more 'savage' toward jigsaw than toward me...
which is a hell of a stretch. So jigsaw is actually a 'negative gainer;'
of this 'bargain,' no longer being the subject of such poisonous attacks
that made him appear as the victim, while Desmond looks quite a bit
'more refined' in his comments to jigsaw. Let's face it.. Desmond
is a racist... but he's not the dumbest racist among all racists... that
might be you, because you 'backed him.'
See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
PV
A Planet Visitor
Didn't I warn you about hanging out with other murderer lovers, euro?
See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
PV
>Euro
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
>>> Heh. I just got tired thinking up new insults. Besides, even when I
>>> was throwing abuse at Jigsaw, I could never get rid of the feeling
>>> that, well, he might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that
>>> unlike FuckWit, he wasn't malicious. Sure, there were the death
>>> threats, but I'm prepared to forgive and forget. After all, I'm a
>>> Light Dweller, so hatred and malice are unknown to me.
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Aside from which, we still have FuckWit to taunt. :-)
>
>> Yes indeed. You must never even think about offering a similar olive
>> branch to that one.
>
>As Euro has just said, FuckWit is now 'ripe' for incarceration in a
>pyschiatric institution. I occasionally suffer a pang of guilt, knowing
>that I, dirt, you, Euro, and Earl, have been instrumental in turning what
>was probably a slightly odd old cunt, into a raving lunatic who now
>probably sleeps with his handgun under his pillow, and who believes that he
>'talks to God' ... http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/bible_slapping_fuckwit.html
>
Malice will get you nothing from me but more pity, Desmond.
I'm not the one who finds 'joy' in thinking about retentionists as sparrows,
and ripping the wings off their bodies, torturing and killing them, thinking
about DESTROYING them all, and calling it moral and justified to do so.
That would be YOU... See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
And I'm not the one who spit in the fact of MLK... that would also be you --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_1.html
I am not the one who salivated in gloating about the 'flame-grilled' Black
American flesh, roasting on his barbecue he expected to have for lunch...
that would be fuckhead.
I am not the one who finds no difference between murderers and innocent
slaves, and will let them BOTH ROT, rather than choose to save one or
the other, in the style of Buridan's ass (look it up, you might learn something).
Who also believes it is DISGUSTING to mention that someone has
stated they are a Jew... that would be euro.
I am not the one who found it reasonable to suggest the Western World
might nuke Mecca... that would be Earl.
And I am not the one who is in love with a 'huge whale of a woman,'
who is a proven baby-killer, called the 'Great White Whale,' who is
now engaged to a Rhumba dance instructor. I'm not the one who
gloated about her 'weight loss,' in the same sentence where he spoke
of the victims of the holocaust (not thinking about their 'weight
loss'!!)... that would be JPB..
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
And I'm not the one who believes he is God, Desmond...Stating in your
God-like persona the 'pixie existence' of some fictional 'right to life.' That
would be YOU.
I'm damn proud to stand against every one of those disgusting ideas,
which presume man is a savage, and demonstrate that savagery in their
comments, rather the noble animal I believe Man to be. Unlike your
disciples you speak of... I remain above the petty and 'rote' insults
you and they provide, which contain not a single spark of intellectual
content, rather... what borders on raving lunacy. They're simply your
emotionally crippled and stunted little goblins, cackling along behind you,
knuckles dragging across the filthy, rat and cockroach infested floor of
your agenda... each of them, at one time or another, forked tongue
slithering in and out of the nether regions of your posterior, as they
DEFEND your words. Not one of them having the ability to form
a rational thought.
BTW -- Your sucking up to Earl, is exceptionally transparent, even for
you... the grand producer of the most transparent trash known to AADP.
Since you hope by doing so.. you might get Donna to retract her words
that recognize you LAUGHED at MURDER... when she called you
OBSCENE for doing so. Since you realize NO ONE respects Earl... but
Donna has gained respect here. I don't think that's going to happen,
Desmond. No matter how much you suck up to Earl. I have a feeling
that Donna draws the line in her marriage, in expressing her own opinion,
rather than relying on Earl to provide it for her. Good for her if she does.
PV
>- --
>Desmond 'Me and my goblin disciples rule AADP' Coughlan
Gentle reader... I have shed my hate for Desmond... I realize that all that is
left for me here in this imaginary medium is to be horrified by the horror of
his racism and the murderous instincts he expresses here, which have
horrified so many others, witness to the horror of his words, that they have
departed from reading or commenting to this group. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bmhgpm%24nvc%241%40mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com
Another reasonable poster, unable to any longer stomach Desmond, forced
to depart. Another one chased away by Desmond. But given Desmond's mental
decline now demonstrated by wishing to murder all retentionists, and the
very clear evidence that he is a racist, I can only hold pity for him. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
Peter Morris
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
news:bnral5$33m$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
No response from PV.
That says it all. (sigh)
A Planet Visitor
Pete... you know we would both be hypocrites to agree to such. What
does that mean... a truce? You'll become a retentionist... and I'll become
an abolitionist? We are not only on opposite sides of the fence, but are
polar apart to an incredible degree. Nor can the insults you've provided
to me... be put behind me. Nor I am sure... the (rather minor) insults
I've provided to you. Let's see... if you admit that you have stated
that a murderer deserved to be murdered. If you admit that you finally
reached a point that you would murder an innocent passerby to save
London from a nuclear bomb. If you admit that you've lied on a number
of occasions. If you admit that I have always said NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED... having NEVER implied that ANYONE deserves
to be murdered... not a non-criminal..not a criminal... not a murderer. NO
ONE. Then perhaps we could begin anew. But I am certain that even
doing so... it would soon deteriorate again.
Let me put this to you, so you might understand. The only 'truce' I can
see, would be if you never comment on a single post of mine... or mention
or refer to my handle or a comment I make... and I will do the same toward
you. But a truce... is impossible... as long as we have a dialog between us,
or refer to either of us to another. Look... I am not Sharp... but do you
presume you could ever have a 'truce' with Sharp? There is one thing
I pride myself on... regardless of what others think of me... and that is
that I am a realist.
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:puarqvk6aobsimp3m...@4ax.com...
(sigh) Look, PV. What a truce would ionvolve is you stopping obsessing
about years old disagreements, resurrecting them again and again and again.
Just get over it. Move on and get on with your life.
Look, just in the spirit of truce, I'll adress this one point about who
said that
criminals deserve to be murdered.
You were talking about the Furman-commuted prisonners. You stated that they
murtdered six INNOCENT people. You specifically denied that the victims
of that crime were criminals. You said, repeatedly, that they were not
criminals
at all. You did this because you didn't consider murderers worth saving.
All I did was point out that you were misrepresenting the facts. They were
not
the INNOCENTS you were claiming, they were murderers. That meant that
by YOUR standards, they were not worth saving.
All I did, PV, was to point out that you were not telling the truth.
The plain and simple fact is that you presented the murder of an INNOCENT
as being worse than the murder of a murderer. I did not say that, you did.
Now, you have declared those words as meaning 'they deserve to be murdered'
That is you interpretation. I would never havre thought of that, but its how
you mind works. But it is your own words that you interpret that way.
You said it, I didn't.
If you wan't a truce, all you have to do is stop obsessing over it. you said
something foolish, you were held up to riduicule. Get over it, and everyone
will soon forget it. If you obsess over it, trying to prove that I meant
what
you said, then that is what causes all the friction between us.
I'll leave it in your hands. I'm trying to make peace. If you can't accept
that
then there's nothing I can do about it.
A Planet Visitor
Whine...whine...whine... What your PROBLEM is euro... is within YOU..
don't blame ME for your problems. Trying addressing THESE problems
of YOURS.
1) You have argued that it is moral to elevate a murderer to a revered
position in the RC Church, where he would be considered BLESSED--
Your words --
"You will also note that Lustiger is, in France, one of the prominent
activists for the beatification of Jacques Flesch, sentenced to death and
executed in France in 1957 for the murder of a police officer following a
bungled robbery.
http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200108106a.html
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to stress the great moral qualities of
Lustiger" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
2) You refused to choose between saving murderers or saving innocent slaves,
claiming that "Your question doesn't exist, PV. It is scholastic and has no sense.
Both slavery and capital punishment are violations of human rights and, from a
human rights perspective, there is no choice to do." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7bdcb795c96cae1ec88d8d6ea691de18%40news.meganetnews.com
Most certainly admitting that there is no DIFFERENCE you see between murderers
and innocent slaves... but only the SIMILARITY of a presumed in your feeble
mind 'human rights.' By not choosing you ignored your presumed 'human rights'
for BOTH OF THEM. Sitting as Burdian's ass... an analogy which is absolutely
the same in comparison to your sitting on your ass. And you know it. If you
find a DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent slaves, as you have
stated you do... you have not stated in a single instance what the DIFFERENCE
is to you.
3) You have claimed that we make no progress by separating murderers from
non-murderers -- Your words --
"I don't think one makes much progress by separating non murderers (the
good ones) and murderers (the evil ones)."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
4) You stated that John Wayne Gacy has the SAME 'human rights' as I DO.
Given that I believe I have a 'human right' as a non-murderer to remain in
FREEDOM... you would argue that John Wayne Gacy, the murderer of
30 children, also has a 'human right' to FREEDOM -- Your words --
"Do you find that John Wayne Gacy is an animal who does not enjoy the
same human rights as you do?" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ccea6e7e4217cf160862d1c39b026740news.meganetnews.com
5) You stated that it was disgusting to call Cardinal Lustiger a Jew...
although he proudly claims to be a Jew -- your words --
"Well... because of what you post. Your original thread about Lustiger sounded
very much like "Look at Lustiger... He's a Jew!" How disgusting..."
You REALLY think it's "disgusting" to call someone a Jew. How terribly...
terribly hateful of the Jews that statement is. I find the ONLY thing I respect
about Cardinal Lustiger is that he claims to be a born Jew... while you believe
he should 'hide it' from the Nazis in France, and in AADP... and state
that the only thing YOU respect about him, is the fact that he is murderer
lover. Imagine that... you respect him for trying to beatify a murderer,
call him moral for doing so... and then insult him because he has stated
he is a born Jew. Where the hell are your principles? Oh... yeah... they
went out the window...when you adopted a hate for the Jews... claiming
it is "disgusting" to call someone a Jew. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=371eb2f897493d9d08eebeda1bf2c0d8%40news.meganetnews.com
6) You agreed with Desmond LAUGHING at murder. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030806120202.00871.00001102%40mb-m17.aol.com
for his laughing...
see your agreement with his laughing and defending it in --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dccefe1b2a9c20dd7479a9ef7923a3c9%40news.meganetnews.com
7) You have claimed that there is no gradation between murderers and innocent
slaves -- Your words --
"an idea that, too, only exists in your head: the idea that there might be some
gradation between men sentenced to slavery and men sentenced to death" See -
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.meganetnews.com
8) You have stated that 40,000 deaths annually, which could be prevented by
abolishing an act PERMITTED by the State, is an 'irrelevant comparison' to the
execution of a palty less than 100 deaths annually, of proven murderers which
could also be prevented by abolishing an act PERMITTED by the State. Thus,
you conclude that those 40,000 deaths are irrelevant compared to the deaths
of those proven murderers. Your words -- "PV is only able to bring an irrelevant
comparison between the use of death penalty and the possibility to drive cars and
arguing that both result in deaths that are allowed by the State." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=d0070ee037929d85241ce6fa8625ed1a%40news.meganetnews.com
9) You've implied that we have no 'real purpose' as a species... and in your
ansewer to the question of -- "Is anyone supposed to "provide an iota
of benefit for our species"? And -- as if ants are better than we are, since
they recognize providing such benefit -- you replied, stating it was stupid
to even believe there was a reason to provide an iota of benefit for our
species -- "Why should they?" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3ea20de1%241_6%40news.meganetnews.com
10) You stated that "legal murder" is not a "legal concept." Jesus... that has
to be among the most ignorant comments ever made in AADP -- Your words --
""Legal murder" doesn't need to be a legal concept to be valid." Of course it
doesn't... It can also be total nonsense.. which it certainly is. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c2132af94a184a8220401c621794964a%40news.meganetnews.com
PV
>Euro
The difference Buridan's ass... what difference do you find between murderers and
innocent slaves......
*deathly silence*
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Seizing it would require a level of intelligence that PV doesn't have any
>>>longer (if he ever had it). That guy comes under the competence of a
>>>psychiatric hospital, and it is only a shame that this group has been
>>>polluted by his continual, intolerant rantings and personal vendettas.
>
>> Maybe you should reevaluate your stand and make an offer. See what he says
>> Euro. Who knows, maybe he will take you up on it.
>
>If FuckWit is feeling victimised (maybe 'The Gang' are after him again...
>*chortle*), all he has to do to stop the horrendous beating that he has
>been receiving for well on two years now, is to ...
>
LOL.. I "LOVE" AADP. There are some murderer lovers drawn here
by the magnet of AADP.... but exposing them... is hardly the work of
a victim. I'm a survivor, Desmond. You... and your coven realize that..
and you are afraid... and I "LOVE" when I see you SLURP... SLURP...
SLURP... up to each other... because you know that individually you
are inept... and believe that 'banding together' will somehow provide
a synergy. And you are right... it provides a synergy which demonstrates
an enhanced ineptness. Rather like a super-inept, so to speak.
>* stop lying
I never lie. Think Jeffrey Daumer.. when will you admit your lie? see --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=iqeoqv4uh2pgs7ni87ph70pcid7klia98s%404ax.com
*deathly silence*
>* stop twisting others' words
I never twist others' words. When will you stop LAUGHING at murder?
>* stop accusing everyone who thrashes him of being 'racist', 'a liar',
> 'mental', 'a spastic', 'an Anti-Semite', 'a pedantic [sic]', 'a murderer
> lover' etc. [1] ...
Oh... You're a racist... big time.
Oh... You're a liar... big time.
Oh... you're MENTAL... for sure. BIG TIME.
Pass... that's YOUR SPECIAL WORD.
Oh... That would be Ol' Racist Nev... BIG TIME
That would be you, again. Whenever you find yourself at a lose for obscenity.
There's a bunch of them here... Of course... you're the leader of the pack.
>* stop attributing words to those who never uttered them
My QUOTES are absolutely accurate, to a fault. You simply lie.
>* keep his fuckwitted 'religion' to himself
Always have... always will. Only you think God speaks in your ear about
that pixie 'right to life.' Ain't no such thing...sport... unless a man puts
it on paper... then it ain't 'universal.'
>* stop presenting his opinion as fact
I have been criticized for overusing IMHO. If you are too stupid to
see the difference between fact and opinion... you're simply too stupid...
BTW -- That's a FACT.
>* accept his woeful lack of education and stop making a fool of himself
> by using 'big terms' that he'd never heard of until his 'Word of The Day'
> e-mail arrived, in an attempt to fool the newsgroup into thinking that he
> attended school past the age of fifteen
>
'rote' insult... Perhaps you'd like to also mention my father, whom you called a
hunchbacked Russian peasant, who grew to 5'7 when 18, and subsequently
'shrunk' with working 'dem fields'"? Shit... if it came to listing all your
PERSONAL INSULTS... the bandwidth of AADP would be sorely
tested.
>If all the above conditions are met, I am sure that the Database Committee
>would give serious consideration to any request to take the Database
>offline temporarily, as we are all somewhat concerned at the rage and fury
>which it manifestly causes FuckWit to feel whenever we destroy one of his
>'arguments' with something as simple as a URL.
>
There is no way I will stop pitying you, Desmond. No matter how much
you hate me... my hate is gone. You're insignificant to me in all ways,
other than pity.
>No one here is optimistic, however. For one, he will claim that he does
>not _want_ [2] The Database taken offline, as its presence constitutes some
>sort of 'weapon' that we Light Dwellers don't even realise is used against
>us. This in itself will be a classic 'binary' invocation of FuckWit
>Patented Gimmick (TM) N° 37 (the 'please don't leave!' gimmick [3]), and
>of FuckWit Patented Gimmick (TM) 68, the 'claim victory in the face of
>overwhelming defeat' gimmick (otherwise referred to as the 'Saddam Hussein
>Special' [4]).
>
yada...yada..yada..
Readers can see Desmond LAUGH at the murder of more than
a dozen human beings --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_100.html
***** five star rating
Readers can see Desmond prove he is a murderer-lover, by stating
emphatically that the murder of innocent is a "lesser evil" than the
execution of that murderer ----
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_133.html
***** five star rating
Readers can see Desmond ADMIT that he would murder more
readily than Theodore Frank would --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_4.html
***** five star rating
Readers can see Desmond express his desire to murder retentionists --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
***** five star rating
Readers can see Desmond fight to save the life of a racist murderer --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_71.html
**** four star rating
Readers can see Desmond spit in the face of Martin Luther King Jr.,
in a racist rage --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_1.html
********** ten star rating
Readers can see Desmond BEG the group to _vote_ for his racism...
as he alternates between WHINING and INSULTING the entire
group... and then orders all those who don't _vote_ for his racism,
to leave AADP --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_166.html
***** five star rating
Readers can see Desmond request oral copulation from a 16-year-old
female --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_173.html
**** four star rating
Readers can see Desmond state that he opposes ALL punishment for
all murderers --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_145.html
**** four star rating
Readers can see Desmond demonstrate his proven hypocricy by
claiming he 'fears' death, and then claiming he 'doesn't fear' death --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_65.html
* one star rating
Readers can see Desmond placed in a killfile for PERSONAL REASONS
unconnected to any topic contained in AADP --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_73.html
*** three star rating
Readers can see Desmond WHINE that everyone is persecuting him --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_68.html
* one star rating
Readers can see how Desmond claims 'victory' but never seems to
demonstrate how he's done it... presumably using 'smoke and
mirror.' ----
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_74.html
* one star rating
Readers can examine Desmond fantasizing about raping before murdering
his imaginary 17-year-old female victim -- See -
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_171.html
*** three star rating
>So it will go on, with FuckWit believing that really is 'winning' on
>news:alt.activism.death-penalty, and with the rest of the newsgroup shaking
>its collective head, and asking if he really doesn't see how he is being
>trounced on a daily basis.
>
That's part of your problem, Desmond... you still think it's all about 'winning.'
That's why you root so hard for the murderer. But it's all about opinion.
You want to control the minds of others here by FORCE.. but that's
simply at attempt at tyranny. And those who submit are simply slaves.
I think that's been demonstrated here a number of times, with your
attempts to surround yourself with those you picture as your slaves.
>[1] unless the person kicking his 'ass' (sic) really is one of the above,
> but as no Abolitionist currently posting to AADP can be said to be
> _any_ of the above, throwing terms like that around, only makes him
> look even more dense
See above.
>[2] sorry, 'WANT' (sic) ... ROTFLMAO !!!
See above.
>[3] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/37.html
See above.
>[4] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/68.html
See above.
PV
>- --
>Des Coughlan
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:23buqvcuq8u76kke6...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:13:56 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com>
> >??????:20031029104631...@mb-m15.aol.com...
(snipped)
I have no problem, PV. _You_ are the one who has a problem. I have since
then showed that I am open to discussion with you. What have you found since
then? Oh yes, you now call me Goebbels...
For sure, those who want to trivialize the nazi past will thank you.
Euro
-----------------------
> 1) You have argued that it is moral to elevate a murderer to a revered
> position in the RC Church, where he would be considered BLESSED--
> Your words --
> "You will also note that Lustiger is, in France, one of the prominent
> activists for the beatification of Jacques Flesch, sentenced to death and
> executed in France in 1957 for the murder of a police officer following a
> bungled robbery.
> http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200108106a.html
> Thanks for giving me the opportunity to stress the great moral qualities
of
> Lustiger" See --
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.me
ganetnews.com
My words are correct but your interpretation is twisted. I have never argued
that "it is moral to elevate a murderer to a revered position in the RC
Church, where he would be considered BLESSED", first because beatification
is not the same as sanctification, second because nothing in my words
connected Lustiger's moral qualities to the fact he proposed the
beatification of an executed murderer.
Lustiger's moral qualities are independent from this position. You would
know it if you talked of subjects you're not purely ignorant of, but that
doesn't occur so often actually.
> 2) You refused to choose between saving murderers or saving innocent
slaves,
> claiming that "Your question doesn't exist, PV. It is scholastic and has
no sense.
> Both slavery and capital punishment are violations of human rights and,
from a
> human rights perspective, there is no choice to do." See --
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7bdcb795c96cae1ec88d8d6ea691de18%40news.me
ganetnews.com
> Most certainly admitting that there is no DIFFERENCE you see between
murderers
> and innocent slaves... but only the SIMILARITY of a presumed in your
feeble
> mind 'human rights.' By not choosing you ignored your presumed 'human
rights'
> for BOTH OF THEM. Sitting as Burdian's ass... an analogy which is
absolutely
> the same in comparison to your sitting on your ass. And you know it. If
you
> find a DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent slaves, as you have
> stated you do... you have not stated in a single instance what the
DIFFERENCE
> is to you.
Once again your interpretation is twisted. I never wrote, nor admitted, that
"there is no DIFFERENCE you see between murderers and innocent slaves". I
wrote that your question is purely scholastic and doesn't exist. I also
wrote it was stupid, and, in order to show this to you, I explained to you
how I could easily have made one or the other choice for both very valid
reasons.
Reference:
www.google.com/groups?selm=8f8ad84d58990c4d...@news.meganetnews
.com
Slavery and death penalty being equally violations of human rights, there is
no choice to make between them. Or whatever choice you make is equally
acceptable.
> 3) You have claimed that we make no progress by separating murderers from
> non-murderers -- Your words --
> "I don't think one makes much progress by separating non murderers (the
> good ones) and murderers (the evil ones)."
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news
.meganetnews.com
I already explained what I meant by these words, but since you obviously
didn't read it, let me copy it below:
<Paste>
My point was to make observe to Daniel that, relating to crime, a purely
manicheian view was counterproductive. Of course, Daniel grasped this and
you couldn't. You're not intelligent enough for that.
My words: "I don't think one makes much progress by separating non murderers
(the good ones) and murderers (the evil ones)" mean that both murderers and
non murderers are human and must be treated as such. That's all.
Do you disagree that murderers are humans? If so, on which grounds? Did they
turn into something else (a monkey... whatever else) at the moment of the
crime?
<End of paste>
I'm still waiting for your answers at the questions above.
> 4) You stated that John Wayne Gacy has the SAME 'human rights' as I DO.
> Given that I believe I have a 'human right' as a non-murderer to remain in
> FREEDOM... you would argue that John Wayne Gacy, the murderer of
> 30 children, also has a 'human right' to FREEDOM -- Your words --
> "Do you find that John Wayne Gacy is an animal who does not enjoy the
> same human rights as you do?" See --
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ccea6e7e4217cf160862d1c39b026740news.meg
anetnews.com
Those indeed are my words. You may disagree with them, but then you must
explain why, and, for instance, answer to the question I asked you. You
haven't done so.
> 5) You stated that it was disgusting to call Cardinal Lustiger a Jew...
> although he proudly claims to be a Jew -- your words --
>
> "Well... because of what you post. Your original thread about Lustiger
sounded
> very much like "Look at Lustiger... He's a Jew!" How disgusting..."
>
> You REALLY think it's "disgusting" to call someone a Jew!!!
Here again, you are obviously distorting my words. I REALLY think it is
disgusting to write something that sounds like "Look at Lustiger... He's a
Jew!". Posted on a group that is not meant to discuss about who is, or is
not, a Jew.
I hence ask you once again: do you mind the existence of people with Jewish
origins? If that's equal to you, then why do you come with such remarks on a
newsgroup that doesn't care about the issue. Does "the right to
indifference" mean anything to you?
> How terribly...
> terribly hateful of the Jews that statement is. I find the ONLY thing I
respect
> about Cardinal Lustiger is that he claims to be a born Jew... while you
believe
> he should 'hide it' from the Nazis in France, and in AADP... and state
> that the only thing YOU respect about him, is the fact that he is murderer
> lover.
Here again you are distorting my words. I never stated that "the only thing
I respect about him, is the fact that he is murderer lover". Besides, YOU
are the one who call him a murderer lover. You should at least have the
courage to write this directly to him, and communicate a copy of your mail
to this group.
> Imagine that... you respect him for trying to beatify a murderer,
> call him moral for doing so... and then insult him because he has stated
> he is a born Jew. Where the hell are your principles? Oh... yeah... they
> went out the window...when you adopted a hate for the Jews... claiming
> it is "disgusting" to call someone a Jew. See --
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=371eb2f897493d9d08eebeda1bf2c0d8%40news.me
ganetnews.com
Once again, I didn't claim it was disgusting to call someone a Jew. I
claimed it was disgusting to write something that sounds like "Look at
Lustiger... He's a Jew!". I am personnally indifferent to the origins of
people here. You, on the contrary, show a behaviour that displays that being
born Jew makes you feel unease.
> 6) You agreed with Desmond LAUGHING at murder. See --
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030806120202.00871.00001102%40mb-m17.
aol.com
> for his laughing...
> see your agreement with his laughing and defending it in --
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dccefe1b2a9c20dd7479a9ef7923a3c9%40news
.meganetnews.com
Once again a blatant lie. First, Desmond called the terrorist attack a
"tragedy" and I'm not sure one (even Desmond) can laugh at a tragedy.
Second, I distanciated myself from his sarcastic words, explicitly, while
noting that I shared his point.
My words, exactly (oh PV... why didn't you copy them yourself this time?)
were:
"That's _your_ way to see it. I understood it as a sarcastic remark
expressing some despair at something that many of us here, among them Desi,
had warned about: the fact that the aggression of Iraq would not only have
no effect in the fight against terrorism, but also be potentially
counterproductive by transferring the focus of US forces from al-Qaeda to
Iraq. I wouldn't have expressed this feeling with the sarcastic words Desi
used, but I fully understand his point and I fully approve it."
You will observe that I explained my own way to read Desmond's words ("a
sarcastic remark expressing despair at something that many of us here, among
them Desi, had warned about: the fact that the aggression of Iraq would not
only have no effect in the fight against terrorism"). You will note that I
also added that "I wouldn't have expressed this feeling with the sarcastic
words Desi used, but I fully understand his point and I fully approve it."
This clearly shows that my backing to Desmond is conditionned by the fact
his point was the one I explained. It also clearly expresses that I take
some distance from his sarcastic way to put his point - still provided that
I understood his point correctly.
Thus, your continuous assertion that I gave a blanket approval to Desmond's
laughing at the victims of a terrorist action (this is _YOUR_ interpretation
of his words and I explained clearly that I didn't share it) is
intentionally misleading.
It is a lie. A forgery that you make in order to deceive others. You shall
expect to be exposed to this group each time you reoffend.
> 7) You have claimed that there is no gradation between murderers and
innocent
> slaves -- Your words --
> "an idea that, too, only exists in your head: the idea that there might be
some
> gradation between men sentenced to slavery and men sentenced to death"
See -
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.me
ganetnews.com
And? From a human rights perspective, it is perfectly correct to write that.
Death penalty and slavery are both violations of human rights, and no
hierarchy should exist between human rights.
> 8) You have stated that 40,000 deaths annually, which could be prevented
by
> abolishing an act PERMITTED by the State, is an 'irrelevant comparison' to
the
> execution of a palty less than 100 deaths annually, of proven murderers
which
> could also be prevented by abolishing an act PERMITTED by the State.
Thus,
> you conclude that those 40,000 deaths are irrelevant compared to the
deaths
> of those proven murderers. Your words -- "PV is only able to bring an
irrelevant
> comparison between the use of death penalty and the possibility to drive
cars and
> arguing that both result in deaths that are allowed by the State." See --
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=d0070ee037929d85241ce6fa8625ed1a%40news.me
ganetnews.com
Yes. This comparison is irrelevant. You cannot compare road accidents,
that are individual acts and result mainly from unwanted actions, and
capital executions, that are premeditated killings that result from a
planned, State-led action. This is irrelevant, as anyone (but you, it seems)
can realize.
> 9) You've implied that we have no 'real purpose' as a species... and in
your
> ansewer to the question of -- "Is anyone supposed to "provide an iota
> of benefit for our species"? And -- as if ants are better than we are,
since
> they recognize providing such benefit -- you replied, stating it was
stupid
> to even believe there was a reason to provide an iota of benefit for our
> species -- "Why should they?" See --
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3ea20de1%241_6%40news.meganetnews.com
Do you mean that everyone should "provide an iota of benefit for our
species"? Then, what do we do with those who don't "provide an iota of
benefit for our species"?
Do you recommend we should suppress them? How do you determine who "provides
an iota of benefit for our species" and who doesn't?
> 10) You stated that "legal murder" is not a "legal concept." Jesus...
that has
> to be among the most ignorant comments ever made in AADP -- Your words --
> ""Legal murder" doesn't need to be a legal concept to be valid." Of
course it
> doesn't... It can also be total nonsense.. which it certainly is. See --
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c2132af94a184a8220401c621794964a%40news.me
ganetnews.com
"Legal murder" is indeed not a "legal concept", it is the description that
best fits capital executions.
Let me remind you this posting:
www.google.com/groups?selm=XePS6.397933%24fs3.63086362%40typhoon.tampabay.rr
.com
in which you defined "murder" in the following way:
<Paste>
(copywrite, Oxford University Press, 1999) OED, 2nd Edition.
murder, n.
1. a. The most heinous kind of criminal homicide; also, an instance of
this.
In English (also Sc. and U.S.) Law, defined as the unlawful killing of a
human
being with malice aforethought; often more explicitly wilful murder.
In OE. the word could be applied to any homicide that was strongly
reprobated
(it had also the senses 'great wickedness', 'deadly injury', 'torment').
More
strictly, however, it denoted secret murder, which in Germanic antiquity was
alone regarded as (in the modern sense) a crime, open homicide being
considered a private wrong calling for blood-revenge or compensation.
Even under Edward I, Britton explains the AF. murdre only as felonious
homicide
of which both the perpetrator and the victim are unidentified. The 'malice
aforethought' which enters into the legal definition of murder, does not (as
now interpreted) admit of any summary definition. Until the Homicide Act of
1957, a person might even be guilty of 'wilful murder' without intending the
death of the victim, as when death resulted from an unlawful act which the
doer knew to be likely to cause the death of some one, or from injuries
inflicted
to facilitate the commission of certain offences. By this act, 'murder' was
extended to include death resulting from an intention to cause grievous
bodily
harm. It is essential to 'murder' that the perpetrator be of sound mind, and
(in England, though not in Scotland) that death should ensue within a year
and a day after the act presumed to have caused it. In British law no
degrees
of guilt are recognized in murder; in the U.S. the law distinguishes 'murder
in the first degree' (where there are no mitigating circumstances) and
'murder
in the second degree' (though this distinction does not obtain in all
States).
a Beowulf 2055 Žara banena byre+moršres ¼ylpeš. 971 Blickl. Hom. 63
Mani¼e men wenaž žęt moržor sy seo męste synne. 13+ Cursor M. 1072
(Gött.) Again abel her raised a strijf, wid murther he broght his brožer o
lijf.
a1375 Ibid. 1121 (Fairf.) Žar-wiž come our creatour for-to speke wiž žat
traytour
[Cain] of žat myržer [earlier texts murth] and žat tresoun. 1423 Jas. I
Kingis
Q. clvii, The wolf, that of the murthir noght say[is] 'ho!' 1535 Coverdale
Mark
xv. 7 There was in preson with the sedicious, one called Barrabas, which in
the
vproure had committed murthur. 1588 Shakes. Tit. A. iv. iv. 54 His
traytrous
Sonnes, That dy'd by law for murther of our Brother. 1649 Bp. Reynolds
Hosea
ii. 77 Jezebel binds her self by an oath unto murther. 1726 Butler Serm.
Rolls
viii. 151 But let us suppose a Person guilty of Murther. 1836 Lytton Athen
(1837) II. 342 In despotic Persia all history dies away in the dark
recesses and
sanguinary murthers of a palace governed by eunuchs and defended but by
slaves.
b ?a1366 Chaucer Rom. Rose 1136 He wende to have reproved be Of thefte
or mordre, if that he Hadde in his stable an hakeney. 1390 Gower Conf. I.
270
Than se so gret a moerdre wroght Upon the blod which gulteth noght. 1470-85
Malory Arthur iv. xv. 118 He gaf them londes and charged hem neuer to doo
outragyousyte nor mordre. 1604 Shakes. Oth. i. ii. 3 Though in the trade of
Warre
I haue slaine men, Yet do I hold it very stuffe o'th'conscience To do no
contriu'd
Murder. 1671 Milton Samson 1186 Hadst thou not committed Notorious murder
on those thirty men At Askalon. 1782 Priestley Corrupt. Chr. II. ix. 152
Ten years
penance [was] enjoined for a murder. 1855 Macaulay Hist. Eng. xviii. IV.
211
The peal and flash of gun after gun gave notice, from three different parts
of the
valley at once, that murder was doing. 1891 C. Roberts Adrift Amer. 107 The
farmer lived+for 48 hours; however he lived long enough to make it only
murder
in the second degree.
fig. 1809 Malkin Gil Blas iii. iii. 36 This brutal importunity is
downright murder
to one's feelings.
b. Proverb. murder will out (also murder cannot be hid, etc.). the murder
is
out: said when something is suddenly revealed or explained.
13+ Cursor M. 1084 (Gött.) For-ži men sais into žis tyde, Is no man žat
murthir may hide. c1386 Chaucer Nun's Pr. T. 232 Mordre wol out that se we
day by day. 1433 Lydg. St. Edmund ii. 225 in Horstm. Altengl. Leg. (1881)
400
Moordre wil out, thouh it abide a while. 1596 Shakes. Merch. V. ii. ii. 83
Murder
cannot be hid long. 1706 Farquhar Recruiting Officer iii. i, Now the
murder's out.
1852 Dickens Bleak Ho. xxviii, Sir Leicester's cousins, in the remotest
degree,
are so many Murders, in the respect that they 'will out'.
c. Often applied to a death-sentence of a tribunal, killing of men in
war, or any
other action causing destruction of human life, which is regarded as morally
wicked,
whether legal or not. judicial murder: see judicial a. 1.
1551 Turner Herbal i. Prol. Aiijb, By occasyon of thys boke euery man,
nay
euery old wyfe will presume not without the mordre of many, to practyse
Phisick.
1662 Stillingfl. Orig. Sacrę ii. ix. §11. 276 Condemn them for the Murther
of Socrates.
1665 Dryden Ind. Emperor v. ii. (1668) 60 Slaughter grows murder when it
goes too far,
And makes a Massacre what was a War. a1674 Clarendon Hist. Reb. xi. §244
This
unparalleled murder and parricide was committed upon the 30th of January.
1790 Burke
Fr. Rev. 108 The actual murder of the king and queen, and their child, was
wanting to
the other auspicious circumstances of this 'beautiful day'. The actual
murder of the
bishops+was also wanting. 1849 Macaulay Hist. Eng. iv. I. 487 Murder by
false testimony
is therefore the most aggravated species of murder. 1858 W. Arnot Laws fr.
Heav. for
Life on Earth Ser. ii. xiii. 104 [War] is, rather than does, murder.
d. personified.
1593 Shakes. Rich. II, i. ii. 21 His summer leafes all vaded By Enuies
hand, and Murders
bloody axe. 1812 Shelley Devil's Walk xxvi, The hell-hounds, Murder, Want
and Woe,
Forever hungering, flocked around.
e. Phr. to get away with murder: see get v. 61c.
f. An excellent or marvellous person or thing. U.S. slang.
1940 Music Makers May 37/3 Murder, something excellent or terrific.+
'That's solid murder,
gate!' 1943 M. Shulman Barefoot Boy ix. 90 We got on the dance floor just
as a Benny
Goodman record started to play. 'Oh, B.G.!' cried Noblesse.+ 'Man, he's
murder, Jack.'
1948 H. L. Mencken Amer. Lang. Suppl. II. 707 The vocabulary of the jazz
addict is largely
identical with that of the jazz performer.anything excellent is
killer-diller, murder or
Dracula. 1970 C. Major Dict. Afro-Amer. Slang 83 Murder, (1930's-40's)
excellent; the best.
?2. Used without moral reprobation: Terrible slaughter, destruction of
life. Obs.
1297 R. Glouc. (Rolls) 11717, & sir simond was aslawe & is folk al to
grounde More
muržre [v.r. moržre] Sare nas in so lute stounde Vor žere was werst simond
de mountfort
aslawe alas & sir henri his sone [etc.]. 1412-20 Lydg. Chron. Troy iii.
xxii. (1513) Ov,
Pryamus+suche a mordre gan vpon them make That many grekes lay dede on the
playne.
c1449 Pecock Repr. v. vi. (Rolls) 516 Sowdiers wagid into Fraunce for to
make miche morther
of blood. 1590 Disc. Sp. Fleet inv. Eng. 23 The same day+the L. Henrie
Seimer and sir William
Winter did so thoroughly beate two Spanish Galeons+that they were inforced
to withdraw
themselues to the coast of Flanders, where forsomuch as they were in a very
euill taking, as
well in respect of the murther of their men, as the manifolde leakes of
their ships, they were
surprised, and without fight rifeled by the Zelanders.
<End of paste>
You will observe that definition number 2 "Used without moral reprobation:
Terrible slaughter, destruction of life", would justify by itself the
expression "legal murder" for capital executions. It seems, though, that
this definition is now obsolete.
But definition 1 ("In English (also Sc. and U.S.) Law, defined as the
unlawful killing of a human
being with malice aforethought; often more explicitly wilful murder")
justifies it too.
As I already have pointed out for you, there is something called a
*modifier*. A modifier is a word, phrase, or clause that limits or qualifies
the sense of another word or word group. I will give three simple examples
on modifiers and their usage.
Example 1. "Toy gun." "Toy" is a very typical modifier.
A gun is "A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is
fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory."
The modifier replaces some of the characteristics of a gun with others (does
not fire projectiles and is meant for kids to play with, while the look of a
gun is retained.)
Example 2. "Vegetarian hamburger." In this case it is quite obvious how the
modifier changes the definition.
Hamburger = "A sandwich made with a patty of ground meat usually in a roll
or bun."
A vegetarian hamburger is then naturally
"A sandwich made with a meat-free patty usually in a roll or bun".
It is *not*, in analogy with your attempts:
"A vegetarian sandwich made with a patty of ground meat usually in a roll or
bun."
Example 3. "Legal murder." Accepting the definition 1 given by you,
Murder = "The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought."
and then of course
Legal murder = "The lawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought."
---------------------------------------------
Now, how about bringing you to the light, PV? For instance:
1/ Admit that you are "vile and insane" to call every and then a poster, or
a group of posters, or even a high official of the religious group,
"murderer lovers" because of their positions on the death penalty,
disregarding the fact that none of those you call this way have ever shown
any kind, pronounced any word of complacency for murder or for any murderer.
2/ Admit that your action here mainly consists in flowing your opponents
with insults, ranging from "spastic" to "zoophile", with a strong flow of
"racist", "anti-semitic" and "homophobe". Admit that, by calling almost any
of your opponents "racists" or "anti-semit" with a lack of objective reason
for so doing, you actually work to the trivialization of those words and
give a huge service to those who really promote racist and anti-semitic
ideas, without you protesting much against them by the way.
3/ Admit that you deliberately write lies, consisting in distorting what
others posters wrote by inaccurate quotations taken out of their context.
There are at least 3 examples for this just above. Apologize to the relevant
posters for all those acts that display your dishonesty in debating.
4/ Admit that you continuously write biased allegations - once again there
are at least 3 examples above, without mentionning the whole picture, in a
deliberate try to make your opponents appear for what they are not.
Apologize to the relevant posters for this.
5/ Admit that arguing for the abolition of the death penalty in all cases,
as do, by the way, many international organizations and more and more States
in the world, does not mean showing any kind of complacency for murderers.
6/ Admit that you have a discriminatory view on human rights, consisting in
denying some categories of people the same human rights as others have
because of what they did, under the wrong and fallacious presumption that
they might reoffend - and, of course, with no proof that they actually
might.
---------------------------------------
I'm also waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you above:
1/ Do you disagree that murderers are humans? If so, on which grounds? Did
they turn into something else (a monkey... whatever else) at the moment of
the crime?
2/ Do you find that John Wayne Gacy, or any other murderer, is an animal who
does not enjoy the same human rights as you do? If so, please explain why.
3/ Do you mind the existence of people with Jewish origins? If that's equal
to you, then why do you come with such remarks on a newsgroup that doesn't
care about the issue. Does "the right to indifference" mean anything to you?
4/ Do you mean that everyone should "provide an iota of benefit for our
species"? Then, what do we do with those who don't "provide an iota of
benefit for our species"? Do you recommend we should suppress them? How do
you determine who "provides an iota of benefit for our species" and who
doesn't?
-----------------------------------------------------
Now, we're waiting to see how close to light you will come. Meanwhile,
thanks for having so brilliantly demonstrated that, contrary to what you
wrote ("I never twist your words, euro"), you actually regularly twist and
misrepresent my words.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Why do I expect that you now intend to lie your way through your entire
post, while refusing to admit that you clearly stated a "serial killing,
drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer," DID deserve to be murdered in YOUR
OWN WORDS? Here they are yet again -- When will you honestly face
your own opinion? --
See your words in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8pidil%24mmh%241%40taliesin2.netcom.net.uk
Where you state "no sympathy should be executed to the victim." The
victim being that "serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer."
While in your post to me, at a later date --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b2ha37%244kt%242%40helle.btinternet.com
You quote Richard directly in his words --"What happens, happens. I don't have
too many feelings for murderers, and little sympathy."
THEN... you expressly jumped on HIS words as MEANING -- "So, Richard has
said directly that he feels that prisonners deserve to be murdered."
And there you go!!! Proven.. case closed. You state that Richard's words
of "little sympathy" for murderers who are victims of murder, MEAN (you
have parsed them into meaning) that Richard feels that "prisonners deserve to be
murdered." But then if HIS words of "little sympathy" MEAN he states directly
that those murdered "deserve" to be murdered, then you must admit that
YOUR USE of "no sympathy" for another victim of murder, MEANS exactly
the same, as you argue Richard's words mean!!! qed: you state that this
"serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer," DESERVES to be murdered,
because you hold NO SYMPATHY for him. I don't make these words
up, Peter... you simply nail yourself to the wall with your own conclusions
as to what Richard's words implied. You cannot presume one standard
for HIS words... and a different standard for YOUR words.
Que peter entering into another song and dance routine of denial... while
the evidence stares him in the face. I'd be interested in how you can
explain that Richard's words of "little sympathy" mean he has stated
they DESERVE IT, while your words of "no sympathy" DO NOT mean
you have stated that murderer DESERVED IT. This should be
interesting. Of course, it's rather obvious that you simply intend to
IGNORE the proof... because from you... there has only been --
*deathly silence*
>You were talking about the Furman-commuted prisonners. You stated that they
>murtdered six INNOCENT people.
All victims of murder are innocent victims, pete. I really wish I could get
this through to you. Have you ever heard of a 'guilty victim' of murder?
My words specifically addressed the FACT that all victims murdered
by the Furman commuted murderers were INNOCENT VICTIMS.
You keep denying they were -- My words --
"Let's put this in the correct context. Would you accept the
execution of 315 proven murderers (as we have discussed),
to save 6 innocent victims from being murdered by those 315?"
Do you see how even 'criminals in prison' are INNOCENT VICTIMS
when they are murdered? Anyway... at least TO ME. If you wish to
call them 'guilty of their own murder because they are in prison,' I certainly
can't STOP you from that argument (sic). But rest assured that I find
them exactly as I have stated -- INNOCENT VICTIMS. No
different from ANY OTHER HUMAN, in respect to not having a lesser
value when they are murdered, and not needing to create an artificial barrier
between criminals and non-criminals who are murdered. They are ALL
'innocent victims.' Because, pete... because ... NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED. Write that down carefully... examine it... and
see that your view... in all of your comments...is quite the opposite from
my conclusion.
> You specifically denied that the victims
>of that crime were criminals. You said, repeatedly, that they were not
>criminals
>at all.
As I said... if YOU wish to find that 'criminals' DESERVE to be murdered
and are NOT innocent victims... that's your 'right.' Just don't try to argue
that you believe NO ONE deserves to be murdered... since you ARE trying
to make a strong case that 'criminals' deserve to be murdered. Simply
by you insisting they be found DIFFERENT from non-criminals when they
are murdered.
> You did this because you didn't consider murderers worth saving.
>
Why would I call them 'innocent victims' if you state that? In fact, it's
rather obvious that your words are simply another lie. My entire argument
rested on the belief that those six murdered victims were ALL the same...
innocent victims of murder. Obviously I considered them ALL 'worth
saving' FROM MURDER. I certainly wish you would set up your computer
so that every time you type the words 'save' 'saved' or 'saving,' that it
prompts you, before you continue to ask 'save from WHAT.' Because
it's starting to sound like you're on a 'religious crusade' to save souls,
rather than 'saving' from a secular act.
>All I did was point out that you were misrepresenting the facts. They were
>not
>the INNOCENTS you were claiming, they were murderers. That meant that
>by YOUR standards, they were not worth saving.
>
Actually, whether they were murderers or not is an unknown... four of the
six innocent victims of murder, were 'criminals in prison.' They were no
different from any other human, in respect to their being murdered. All
six were exactly alike in respect to their being murdered. They were all
'innocent victims' of murder. How you must love murderers to argue that
if they murder 'criminals in prison' they are not actually murdering 'innocent
victims,' but instead those you believe are 'irrelevant,' see --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
while 'saving' them from being murder does not make sense to you. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
How I pity you for that hate for the victim of murderers you demonstrate...
where you believe that criminals who are murdered are LESS TO YOU,
than non-criminals who are murdered.
>All I did, PV, was to point out that you were not telling the truth.
>
What's the truth, pete? Were they 'criminals in prison,' and thus DESERVED
to be murdered? Or were they the 'innocent victims' of murder, as I clearly
stated in the words that you've been quoting? You, of course, hold
for the former, and continually DEMAND that they NOT be seen as
'innocent victims' of murder... See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netcom.net.uk
I have clearly stated, over and over, that my position is the latter. ALL
murder victims are 'innocent victims' of murder. We should try to
prevent ALL murders of ALL murder victims...without regard to ANYTHING
else.
>The plain and simple fact is that you presented the murder of an INNOCENT
>as being worse than the murder of a murderer. I did not say that, you did.
>
I clearly presented the FACT that they are ALL 'innocent victims.' Do you
really have such a deficiency in reading plain English? See my words, above.
All six -- INNOCENT VICTIMS. I will NEVER argue that the murder of
a 'criminal' is anything LESS than the murder of ANYONE. You find it
ESSENTIAL to 'point out that difference.' It is YOU wanting to provide a
'division' between criminals and non-criminals when they are murdered.. while
I continue to insist there is NO SUCH DIVISION. Because, pete... because...
no one deserves to be murdered.
>Now, you have declared those words as meaning 'they deserve to be murdered'
Where did you ever come up with that lie? Since it is just one of your
'standard rote lies.' You simply throw it out there... and expect it to be
believed. Because you recognize how thoroughly you have been boxed
in by your own WORDS. Your words which have expressed, in many
instances, YOUR belief that some criminals DO 'deserve to be murdered.'
>That is you interpretation. I would never havre thought of that, but its how
>you mind works. But it is your own words that you interpret that way.
>You said it, I didn't.
>
I said what, pete? Where does YOUR interpretation come from, other than
that evil little mind of yours, that wants to clearly insist on the DIVISION
between criminals and non-criminals when they are murdered? Why would
such a division be ESSENTIAL in YOUR MIND? Given that I clearly
make no such division. Unless it is that you consider criminals LESS
necessary to be concerned about when they are murdered. Having expressed
YOUR feeling that the murders of 'rightly convicted' criminals are 'irrelevant'
to you, it is clear that you find they DESERVE to be murdered, to a greater
extent than 'wrong convicted' criminals. Otherwise, you would not be
so concerned about insuring this 'division' must always be expressed and
understood in respect to murder victims.
>If you wan't a truce, all you have to do is stop obsessing over it. you said
>something foolish, you were held up to riduicule. Get over it, and everyone
>will soon forget it. If you obsess over it, trying to prove that I meant
>what
>you said, then that is what causes all the friction between us.
>
>I'll leave it in your hands. I'm trying to make peace. If you can't accept
>that
>then there's nothing I can do about it.
>
How I pity you, pete... how I pity you... You claim you are 'trying to
make peace,' as you lie through your teeth. Peace will only come from
within YOU, pete. I've made my peace with myself... and never
have needed to depend on lies, which have become essential to all of
your postings. Your lies and insults no longer can affect me, because of
the certainty of my respect for ALL victims of murder..criminals or not.
They are ALL innocent victims of murder. While you DEMAND that they
be seen as 'different' when examining their MURDER. I have made a
truce... but it is a truce with myself. In recognition that you only deserve
my pity, and my understanding that I will probably never be able to get
through to you that NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
Make peace with YOURSELF, pete. Put aside your lies, if you can.
Recognize that you accused Richard of stating a murderer DESERVES
to be murdered, using the same statement that you made regarding
another murderer. Thus, you clearly expressed the thought that this other
murderer DESERVED to be murdered. I don't make up, or invent
these words, pete... as you do. They are YOURS... you parsed
Richard's words in the meaning of DESERVES... you cannot parse
YOUR words, which argue the exact same meaning... into something
other than DESERVES.
Baby steps, pete. The first step is to admit that your arguments have
been skewed, distorted and biased. And that you frequently lie as
a matter of course, because you have no other way to avoid doing
so. Admit accusing a retentionist of the same emotion that you feel...
your feeling that a "serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer"
did deserve to be murdered. Or at the least, admit that you were
biased in arguing that Richard felt that way... and you ADMIT to
that bias in your parsing of Richard's words. Which, in any case,
weakens the belief in ANYTHING you say... being unbiased. See
how I've given you an 'out' to DENY your own words?
And for God's sake... when you use the word 'save,' please say WHAT
you intend to mean they are 'saved' FROM... since what they can be
'saved from,' is a rather vast array of things. And you're beginning
to sound like a 'religious fruitcake.'
PV